 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Formulary controversy" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(November 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Theformulary controversy was a 17th- and 18th-centuryJansenist refusal to confirm theFormula of Submission for the Jansenists on the part of a group ofCatholic ecclesiastical personnel and teachers who did not accept the charge that their beliefs about the nature of man and grace wereheretical as theHoly See declared. In theKingdom of France, it pitted Jansenists againstJesuits. It gave rise to French theologianBlaise Pascal'sLettres provinciales, the condemnation ofcasuistry by theHoly See, and the dissolution of organised Jansenism.
During theCouncil of Trent (1545–1563), theRoman Catholic Church reaffirmed, againstProtestantism, both the reality of humanliberum arbitrium (free will, i.e. "non-necessary" character of human will[a]) and the necessity ofdivine grace. Catholicism was then divided into two main interpretations,Augustinism andThomism, which both agreed onpredestination and onefficacious grace (orirresistible grace), which meant that, while Divine will infallibly comes to pass, grace and free will were not incompatible. Augustinism was rather predominant, in particular in theUniversity of Leuven, where a rigid form of Augustinism,Baianism, was articulated byMichael Baius.Baius' heterodox propositions on the nature of man and grace were condemned, in thepapal bullEx omnibus afflictionibus promulgated byPope Pius V in 1567, asheretical.[1] According to Joseph Sollier, in theCatholic Encyclopedia, Baius' concept of the primitive state of man wasPelagian; his presentation of the downfall wasCalvinist; and his theory ofredemption was more thanLutheran and close toSocinian.[2]
Following the Council of Trent, two rival theories emerged in the Church. Under the influence of the ideas of theRenaissance, the newly foundedSociety of Jesus asserted the role of free will, with authors such asGeorge de Montemajor,Gregory of Valentia,Leonardus Lessius andJohannes Hamelius.
The JesuitLuis Molina publishedDe liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, praedestinatione et reprobatione concordia in 1588, which asserted that God offers his grace to all people, and that it was by an act of free will that each one accepted it or rejected it.Molina's theology of asufficient grace became popular, but the lack of differentiation between sufficient and efficacious grace (along with the assertion ofcounterfactual definiteness) was opposed by large sectors of the Church who considered it incompatible with God's sovereignty or goodness.
In opposition, the Jansenists claimed to espouseAugustinism, which insisted on a separatedeterminingefficacious grace. The Jesuits accepted Augustine's assertion of the necessity of grace, but rejected the notion that there was any substantial difference between sufficient and efficacious grace (both determine man's behaviour to an extent).
A similar controversy arose between theDominicans and Jesuits, which ledPope Clement VIII to establish theCongregatio de Auxiliis (1597–1607) in order to settle the debate. Although the issue seemed unfavorable toMolinism, the issue finally was suspended rather than solved.Pope Paul V, in a 1611 Holy Office decree, prohibited publication without prior examination by the Inquisition of all works, including commentaries, about the aid of grace.[3]Pope Urban VIII, in a 1625 Holy Office decree and a 1640 Holy Office decree, confirmed Paul V's decree and warned aboutcensures such as withdrawal of teaching and preachingfaculties as well asexcommunication.[3]
In 1628,Cornelius Jansen, a professor at Leuven, began writingAugustinus, a three volume treatise onAugustine of Hippo, which conflated Jesuits with Pelagianism by highlighting Augustine's propositions.Augustinus was published posthumously, in 1640 at Leuven, in 1641 at Paris, and in 1642 atRouen.Augustinus reignited the debate appeased by the Congregatio de Auxiliis.
In France,CardinalArmand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu strongly opposed Jansen, in part because Jansen wrote a pamphlet,Mars gallicus (1635), against Richelieu's anti-Habsburg policy and alliances with German states. Richelieu therefore chargedIsaac Habert [fr], the theologian ofNotre-Dame, to preach against Pelagius. Richelieu nominatedAlphonse Le Moyne as a professor to theCollege of Sorbonne in order to refuteAugustinus.
Many Sorbonne theologians opposed Richelieu, as they mostly followed Augustinism's insistence on efficacious grace. But theJansenists of the convent of Port-Royal were Le Moyne's and Habert's main opponents. In 1638, Richelieu had its leader,Jean du Vergier de Hauranne, incarcerated inVincennes. Vergier de Hauranne was a friend of Jansen. His incarceration gave him further influence as a martyr.
After Richelieu's death in 1642, Jansenists replied to the attacks against Jansen, first inSanctus Augustinus per seipsum docens Catholicos, et vincens Pelagianos, attributed to theOratorianColin du Juanet and sometimes toAntoine Arnauld, and then, in 1644–45, by twoApologies pour M. Jansénius (Apologies for Jansenius) by Antoine Arnauld, which enjoyed great success.
Finally,at the request of the Apostolic Nuncio to Brussels,Georg Pauli-Stravius [de], and theApostolic Nuncio to Cologne,Fabio Chigi,[citation needed] Urban VIII prohibitedAugustinus inIn eminenti ecclesiae in 1642, becauseAugustinus was "published in opposition" to "condemnations and prohibitions" in decrees of Paul V and Urban VIII, was expressed "with contempt toward the authority of the" Holy See, and contained previously condemned propositions.[4]
Pope Innocent X, in a 1647 Holy Office decree, condemned the proposition, found in JansenistMartin de Barcos's preface to Antoine Arnauld's 1644De la fréquente communion, thatPeter the Apostle andPaul the Apostle "are two supreme pastors and governors of the Church who constitute a single head" and they "are two princes of the Church who amount to one", when the proposition is interpreted "to imply a complete equality between" Peter and Paul "without the subordination and subjection" of Paul to Peter in "power and governance".[5]
In opposition to Jansenism, a group of theological doctors from the Sorbonne extracted eight propositions fromAugustinus.[b] These propositions concerned the relation between nature andgrace. They accused Jansen of having misinterpreted Augustine, conflating Jansenists with Lutherans – in the frame of a highly conflictual context, which had led to theFrench Wars of Religion, officially ended with the 1598Edict of Nantes.
On 31 May 1653, Innocent X promulgated the apostolic constitutionCum occasione, which condemned five propositions found inAugustinus as heretical.[6] In 1654, Arnauld replied toCum occasione by making a distinction betweende jure andde facto:de jure, the heretical propositions could be condemned, and he accepted this sentence; butde facto, they could not be found in Jansen's treaty.
The Sorbonne then attempted to exclude Arnauld from being a theologian. Arnauld was forced underground, while in January 1654 analmanac attributed to the Jesuits grossly presented the Jansenists as under-cover Calvinists. Arnauld's nephew,Louis-Isaac Lemaître de Sacy, a translator of theBible de Port-Royal, wroteEnluminures, a poem, in reply to this attack.
Pascal, under thepseudonym Louis de Montalte, wroteLettres provinciales in 1657, in defense of Arnauld, in which he harshly attacked Jesuits and their morality, in particularcasuistry. Following publication ofLettres provinciales, the King sent spies everywhere, condemned the librarians who had clandestinely publishedLettres provinciales and discovered the author ofLettres provinciales. The theological debate had turned into a political affair.
On 16 October 1656, Alexander VII promulgated the apostolic constitutionAd sanctam beati Petri sedem, which judged the meaning and intention of Jansen's words inAugustinus, and confirmed and renewed the condemnation inCum occasione.[7]
The Jesuits enjoyed predominant political and theological power. Their members included two personal confessors to the King of France,François Annat and, before him,Nicolas Caussin.
CardinalJules Mazarin strongly opposed Jansenists, both in Europe and abroad (with theJesuit Reductions and theJesuit China missions). Mazarin persuaded the pope to compel Jansenists to sign a formulary, to assent toAd sanctam beati Petri sedem, and to confess their faults. TheAssembly of the French Clergy afterwards decided to compel all priests to sign an anti-Jansenist formulary, in which each one accepted the papal condemnation.
One of Pascal's last works wasEcrit sur la signature du Formulaire (1661), in which he adamantly opposed subscribing to a formulary and radicalized Arnauld's position: Pascal equivocated that condemning Jansen was equivalent to condemning Augustine, afather of the Church.
The Jansenists ofPort-Royal, who included members of theArnauld family – such asAbbessMarie Angelique Arnauld, Antoine Arnauld,Agnès Arnauld – andPierre Nicole, were forced to subscribe to theFormula of Submission for the Jansenists. Although ostensibly submitting to Papal authority, they added that the condemnation would only be effective if the five propositions were in fact found inAugustinus, and claimed that they did not figure there.
Jansenists reasoned that Innocent X and Alexander VII had the power to condemn heretical propositions, but not to make what did not figure inAugustinus be there. This strategy would impose decades of theological disputes and debate, thus allowing them to gain time.
Lettres provinciales stimulated several responses from the Jesuits, including in 1657 the publication of the anonymousApologie pour les Casuistes contre les calomnies des Jansénistes, written by Father Georges Perot.[c] It rather unfortunately claimed as its own Pascal's interpretations of the Casuists' propositions, in particular concerning controversial propositions abouthomicides. This led the friars of Paris to condemn Jesuit casuistry.
On 15 February 1665, Alexander VII promulgated the apostolic constitutionRegiminis Apostolici, which required, according to theEnchiridion symbolorum, "all ecclesiastical personnel and teachers" to subscribe to an included formulary, theFormula of Submission for the Jansenists – assenting to bothCum occasione andAd sanctam beati Petri sedem.[8]
From then on, Jansenists of Port-Royal ceased publishingLettres provinciales, and, along with Pascal, started collaborating with theEcrits des curés (Friars' Writings) which condemned casuistry. Two further decrees, of 24 September 1665 and 18 March 1666, condemned the Casuists' "laxist morality".Pope Innocent XI issued a second condemnation in a 2 March 1679 decree. In total, the Vatican had condemned 110 propositions issued by Casuists, 57 of which had been treated inLettres provinciales. The books added to theIndex Librorum Prohibitorum in Rome were, however, published in France. Jesuits had beforehand bypassed the Holy See's censorship by publishing controversial books there.
On 16 July 1705,Pope Clement XI promulgated the apostolic constitutionVineam Domini Sabaoth, which declared that "obediential silence" is not a satisfactory response to theFormula of Submission for the Jansenists.[9]
Pascal and some other Jansenists claimed that condemning Jansen was equivalent to condemning Augustine, and adamantly refused assent to theFormula of Submission for the Jansenists, with or without a mental reservation. This in turn led to the further radicalization of the King and of the Jesuits, and in 1661 the Convent of Port-Royal was closed and the Jansenist community dissolved – it would be ultimately razed in 1710 on orders ofLouis XIV. The controversy not only involved papal authority, but rather papal authority concerning theinterpretation of texts – something Pascal recalled by quoting the Jesuit CardinalRobert Bellarmine's sentences concerning the authority of religious councils concerning matters of dogma versusde facto issues.
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Sollier, Joseph (1907). "Michel Baius". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company.