# Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility/Chapter 8

CHAPTER VIII
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
"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."
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. 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. 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.
Undoubtedly this was the faith in which Richer died
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. 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.
"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."
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. 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. 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.
"Since the Catholic Church teaches nothing concerning this matter, [of Papal Infallibility] neither need I." What is true is that whatever issues from so high an authority is to be received with great regard.
* ↑ Cf. Jourdain, Hist. Univ. Paris.
* ↑ Richerius, Vindiciæ Gall.
* ↑ Letter to Casaubon, Les Ambassades et Negotiations, p. 694.
* ↑ Richer's Testament, p. 3.
* ↑ Richerius, Vindiciæ Doctrinæ Majorum, p. 2.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 11.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 14.
* ↑ Richerius, Vindiciæ Doctrinæ Majorum, p. 14.
* ↑ Ibid. 16–17.
* ↑ A.D. 1629.
* ↑ Ed. Sebastian Brunner, 1857, p. 145.
* ↑ Veron. Regula Fidei. Ed. Sebastian Brunner, 1857, p. 146.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 147.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 147.
* ↑ Ibid. p. 148.