St. Alphonsus Liguori: The History of Heresies and Their Refutation

[Stone]

CHAPTER XIII. – HERESIES OF THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES

ARTICLE III. – THE ERRORS OF CORNELIUS JANSENIUS

9. Cornelius, Bishop of Ghent, and Cornelius, Bishop of Ipres; his studies and degrees.
10. Notice of the condemned work of Jansenius.
11. Urban VIII. condemns the book of Jansenius in the Bull “In eminenti;” the Bishops of France present the five propositions to Innocent X.
12. Innocent condemns them in the Bull ” Cum occasione;” notice of the Propositions.
13. Opposition of the Jansenists; but Alexander VIII. Declares that the five propositions are extracted from the book, and condemned in the sense of Jansenius; two propositions of Arnauld condemned.
14. Form of subscription commanded by the Pope to be made.
15. The religious silence.
16. The Case of Conscience condemned by Clement XI. in the Bull Vineam Domini.
17. The opinion, that the Pontificate of St. Paul was equal to that of St. Peter, condemned.


9. I should remark, first of all, that there were in Flanders, almost at the same time, two of the name of Cornelius Jansenius, both Doctors and Professors of the renowned University of Louvain. The first was born in Hulst, in the year 1510, and taught theology to the Premonstratentian Monks for twelve years, and during that time composed his celebrated book Concordia Evangelica, and added his valuable Commentaries to it.

He then returned to Louvain, and was made Doctor. He was next sent to the Council of Trent, by King Philip II., together with Baius, and, on his return, the King appointed him to the Bishopric of Ghent, where, after a holy life, he died in 1576, the sixty-sixth year of his age, leaving, besides his great work, De Concordia, several valuable Treatises on the Old Testament (1). The other Jansenius was born in the village of Ackoy, near Leerdam, in Holland, in 1585. He completed his philosophical studies in Utrecht, and his theological in Louvain, and then travelled in France, where he became united in the closest friendship with Jean du Verger de Hauranne, Abbot of St. Cyran. On his return to Louvain he was appointed, at first Professor of Theology, and afterwards of Scripture. His Commentaries on the Pentateuch and Gospels were afterwards printed, and no fault has ever been found with them. He wrote some works of controversy also, in defence of the Catholic Church, against the Ministers of Bois-le-Duc. Twice he went to Spain to arrange some affairs for his University, and at last was appointed Bishop of Ipres, in 1635 (2).


10. Jansenius never printed his work August inns, the fruit of twenty years labour, during his lifetime, but charged his executors to put it to press. In this work, at the end of the book De Gratia Christi, in the Epilogue, he says that he does not mean to assert that all that he wrote concerning the Grace of Christ should be held as Catholic doctrine, but that it was all taken from the works of St. Augustine; he, however, declares that he himself is a fallible man, subject to err, and that if the obscurity of some passages in the Saint’s works deceived him, that he would be happy to be convinced of his error, and, therefore, he submitted it all to the judgment of the Apostolic See ” Ut ilium teneam (he says) si tenendum, damnem si damnandum esse judicaverit” (3).

He died on the 6th of May, 1638, and left his book to his chaplain, Reginald Lamee, to be printed, repeating in his will that he did not think there was anything in his book to be corrected, but as it was his intention to die a faithful child of the Roman Church, that he submitted it in everything to the judgment of the Holy See ”Si sedes Romana aliquid mutari velit, sum obediens films, et illius Ecclesiæ, in qua semper vixi, usque ad hunc lectum mortis obediens sum. Ita mea suprema voluntas” (4). Would to God that the disciples imitated their master in obedience to the Holy See, then the disputes and heartburnings which this book caused would never have had existence.


11. Authors are very much divided regarding the facts which occurred after the death of Jansenius. I will then succinctly state what I can glean from the majority of writers on the subject. It is true he protested, both in the work itself and in his will, that he submitted his book Augustmus in everything to the judgment of the Apostolic See; still his executors at once put it into the hands of a printer, and notwithstanding the protest of the author, and the prohibition of the Internuncio and the University of Louvain, it was published in Flanders, in 1640, and in Rouen, in 1643. It was denounced to the Roman Inquisition, and several Theologians composed Theses and Conclusions against it, and publicly sustained them in the University of Louvain. An Apology in favour of the work appeared in the name of the publisher, and soon the press groaned with Treatises in favour of, or opposed to, Jansenius, so that all the Netherlands were disturbed by the dispute. The Congregation of the Inquisition then published a Decree forbidding the reading of Jansenius’s work, and also the Conclusions and Theses of his adversaries, and all publications either in favour of or opposed to him.

Still peace was not restored; so Urban VIII., to quiet the matter, published a Bull renewing the Constitution of Pius V. and Gregory XIII. In this he prohibited the book of Jansenius, as containing propositions already condemned by his predecessors, Pius V. and Gregory XIII. The Jansenists exclaimed against this Bull; it was, they said, apochryphal, or, at all events, vitiated. Several propositions extracted from the book were presented to the Faculty of Sorbonne, in 1649, to have judgment passed on them, but the Sorbonne refused to interfere, and referred the matter to the judgment of the Bishops, and these, assembled in the name of the Gallican Clergy, in 1653, declined passing any sentence, but referred it altogether to the judgment of the Pope.

Eighty-five Bishops, in 1650, wrote to Pope Innocent X., the successor of Urban, thus (5) : ”Beatissime Pater, majores causas ad Sedan Apostolicam referre, solemnus Ecclesiæmos est quem Fides Patri nunquam deficiens perpetuo retineri pro jure suo postulat.” They then lay before the Holy Father the five famous propositions extracted from the book of Jansenius, and beg the judgment of the Apostolic See on them.


12. Innocent committed the examination (6) of these propositions to a Congregation of five Cardinals and thirteen Theologians, and they considered them for more than two years, and held thirty-six Conferences during that time, and the Pope himself assisted at the last ten. Louis de Saint Amour and the other deputies of the Jansenist party, were frequently heard, and finally, on the 31st of May, 1653, the Pope, in the Bull Cum occasione, declared the five propositions which follow heretical:

“First Some commandments of God are impossible to just men, even when they wish and strive to accomplish them according to their present strength, and grace is wanting to them by which they may be possible to them. This we condemn as rash, impious, blasphemous, branded with anathema, and heretical, and as such we condemn it.

“Second We never resist interior grace in the state of corrupt nature. This we declare heretical, and as such condemn it. 

“Third To render us deserving or otherwise in the state of corrupt nature, liberty, which excludes constraint, is sufficient. This we declare heretical, and as such condemn it.  ”

Fourth The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for every act in particular, even for the commencement of the Faith, and in this they were heretics, inasmuch as they wished that this grace was such, that the human will could neither resist it or obey it. We declare this false and heretical, and as such condemn it.  ”

Fifth It is Semipelagianism to say that Jesus Christ died or shed his blood for all men in general. This we declare false, rash, scandalous, and, understood in the sense that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined alone, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, derogatory to the Divine goodness, and heretical, and as such we condemn it.”

The Bull also prohibits all the Faithful to teach or maintain the propositions, otherwise they will incur the penalties of heretics. Here are the original propositions : “Primam prædictarum Propositionum Aliqua Dei præcepta hominibus justis volentibus, et conantibus, secundum præsentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia; deest quoque illis gratia, qua possibilia fiant : temerariam, impiam, blasphemam,  anathemate damnatam, et hæreticam declaramus, et uti talem damnamus. ” Secundam Interiori gratiæ in statu naturæ lapsæ nunquam resistitur : hæreticam declaramus, et uti talem damnamus.  ” Tertiam Ad merendum, et demerendum in statu naturæ lapsæ non requiritur in homine libertas a necessitate, sed sufficit libertas a coactione : hæreticam declaramas, et uti talem damnamus.  ” Quartam Semipelagiani admittebant prævenientis gratiæ interioris neccssitatem ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium Fidei; et in hoc erant hæretici, quod vellent earn gratiam talem essc, cui posset humana voluntas rcsistere, vel obtemperare : falsam et hæreticam declaramas, et uti talem damnamus.  ” Quintam Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut Sanguinem fudisse : falsam, temerarium, scandalosam, et intellectam eo sensu, ut Christus pro salute dumtaxat Prædestinatorum mortuus sit, impiam, blasphemam, contumeliosam, Divinæ pietati derogantem, hæeticam de claramus, et uti talem damnamus (7).”


13. The whole Church accepted the Decree of Innocent, so the partizans of Jansenius made two objections: First That the five propositions were not those of Jansenius, and secondly, that they were not condemned in the sense of Jansenius, and hence sprung up the famous distinction of Law and Fact Juris and Facti. This sprung entirely from the just condemnation of the five propositions. Clement XI., in his Bull of 1705, ” Vineam Domini Sabaoth” particularly on that account renews the condemnation of the five propositions. Here are his words : ” Inquieti homines docere non sunt veriti : Ad obedientiam præfatis Apostolicis Constitutionibus debitam non requiri, ut quis prædicti Janseniani libri sensum in antedictis quinque propositionibus, sicut præmittitur, damnatum interius, ut hæreticum damnet, sed satis esse, ut ea de re obsequiosum (ut ipsi vocant) silentium teneatur. Quæ quidem assertio quam absurda sit, et animabus fidelium perniciosa, satis apparct, dum fallacis hujus doctrinæ pallio non deponitur error, sed absconditur, vulnus tegitur, non curatur, Ecclesiæ illuditur, non paretur, et data demum filiis inobedientiæ via sternitur ad fovendam silentio hæresim, dum ipsam Jansenii doctrinam, quam ab Apostolica Sede damnatam Ecclesia Universalis exhorruit, adhuc interius abjicere, et corde improbare detrectent,” &c.

Hence, also, the French Bishops assembled in 1654, by a general vote decided that the five propositions were really and truly in the Book of Jansenius, and that they were condemned in the true and natural sense of Jansenius, and the same was decided in six other assemblies; afterwards Alexander VII., in the Bull expedited on the 16th of October, 1650, definitively and expressly declared : “Quinque propositiones ex libro Cornelii Jansenii excerptas ac in sensu ab eodem Cornelio intento damnatus fuisse.” About the same time the Faculty of Paris censured a proposition of Arnauld, who asserted (8), ” Duas propositiones nec esse in Jansenio nec ejus sensu damnatus fuisse, adeoque circa partem illam Apostolicæ constitutionis sufficere silentium Religionem.”


14. The Gallican Clergy, from 1655 used a Formula as follows: ”Quinque Propositiones ex libro Janseni extractas tanquam hærcticas damnatas fuisse in eo ipso seusa quo illas docuit,” and prescribed that everyone taking Orders should sign it. Several, however, refused obedience, on the plea that unless the Pope commanded them, they could not be obliged to subscribe. A petition was, therefore, sent to Alexander VII., begging him to order it to be done; he consented to the prayer, and issued a Bull on the 15th of February, 1665, sanctioning the formula of an oath to which all should subscribe. Here it is: ”Ego N. Constitutioni Alexandri VII., datæ die 16. Octobr. an. 1656, me subjicio, et quinque Propositiones ex Jansenni libro, Augustineus, excerptas, et in sensu ab eodem Auctore intento, prout illas sancta Sedes Apostolica damnavit, sincere auimo damno, ac rejicio, et ita juro, sic me Deus adjuvet, et hæc sancta Evangelia.” The King sanctioned it also by Royal authority, and severe penalties were imposed on the disobedient (9).


15. This put the Jansenists into a quandary; some of them said that the oath could not be taken without perjury, but others, of a more hardened conscience, said that it might, for it was enough that the person subscribing should have the intention of following the doctrine of St. Augustine, which, they said, was that of Jansenius, and as to the fact externally, it was quite enough to keep a reverent silence, and the Bishops of Alet, Pamiers, Angers, and Beauvais were of this opinion; but under Clement XI., the successor of Alexander VII., they gave in, and consented to subscribe themselves, and oblige their subjects to subscribe the condemnation of the five propositions, without any restriction or limitation, and thus peace was re-established (10).

The Jansenists, however, would not still yield; the limitation of the religious silence was, they said, inserted in the Verbal Acts of the Diocesan Synods, and they, therefore, demanded that the silence should be approved by the Pope. In this they acted unreasonably, for the four abovementioned Bishops were admitted to peaceable communion, on condition of signing purely, sincerely, and without any limitation whatever (11). In 1692 some other disputes arose concerning the subscription of the Formula, and the Bishops of Flanders added some other words to it, to remove every means of deception. The Louvanians complained to Innocent XII. of this addition, and he expedited two Briefs, in 1694 and 1696, removing every means of subterfuge (12).


16. About the year 1702 the Jansenists again raised the point of the religious silence, by the publication of a pamphlet, in which it was said that Sacramental Absolution was denied to a Clergyman, because he asserted that he condemned the five propositions, as far as the law was concerned (jus.,) but as to the fact that they were to be found in Jansenius’s book, that he considered it was quite enough to preserve a religious silence on that point. This was the famous Case of Conscience, on which forty Doctors of Paris decided that Absolution could not be refused to the Clergyman.

The Pope, however, condemned this pretended silence, by a formal decree, ”Ad perpetuam rei memoriam,” on the 12th of January, 1703. Many of the French Bishops, also, condemned it, and more especially Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, who likewise obliged the forty Doctors to retract their decision, with the exception of one alone, who refused, and was, on that account, dismissed from the Sorbonne, and that famous Faculty also branded their decision as rash and scandalous, and calculated to renew the doctrines of Jansenius, condemned by the Church. Clement XI. expedited another Bull, Vineam Domini, &c., on the 16th of July, 1705, condemning the ” Case of Conscience,” with various notes. All this was because the distinction of Law and Fact (Juris et Facti) was put forth to elude the just and legitimate condemnation of the five propositions of Jansenius. This is the very reason Clement himself gives for renewing the condemnation. His Bull was accepted by the whole Church, and, first of all, by the assembly of the Gallican Church; thus the Jansenists could no longer cavil at the condemnation of the Book of their Patron (13). In the Refutation of the errors of Jansenism, we will respond to their subterfuges in particular.


17. We may as well remark here, that about this time an anonymous work appeared, entitled, “De SS. Petri et Pauli Pontificatu,” in which the writer endeavoured to prove that St. Paul was, equally with St. Peter, the Head of the Church. The author’s intention was not to exalt the dignity of St. Paul, but to depress the primacy of St. Peter, and, consequently, of the Pope. The Book was referred to the Congregation of the Index, by Innocent XI., and its doctrine condemned as heretical by a public Decree (14). The author lays great stress on the ancient practice used in Pontifical Decrees, that of painting St. Paul on the right, and St. Peter on the left. That, however, is no proof that St. Paul was equally the Head of the Church, and exercised equal authority with St. Peter, for not to him, but St. Peter, did Christ say, “Feed my sheep.” Hence, St. Thomas says (15), ”Apostolus fuit par Petro in execution, authoritatis, non iivauctoritate regiminis.” Again, if the argument be allowed, that, because St. Paul was painted to the right of St. Peter, he was equal to him, would it not prove even that he was superior ? Some say that he was painted so, because, according to the Roman custom, as is the case in the East, the left hand place was more honourable than the right.

Others, as St. Thomas (16), give a different explanation. Bellarmine may be consulted on this point (17). The author also quotes, in favour of his opinion, the lofty praises given by the holy Fathers to St. Paul; but that is easily answered. He was praised, as St. Thomas says, more than the other Apostles, on account of his special election, and his greater labours and sufferings in preaching the Faith through the whole world (18). Not one of the Fathers, however, makes him superior or equal to St. Peter, for the Church of Home was not founded by him but by St. Peter.



(1) Bernin. t. 4, sec. 18, l. 3, in fine.
(2) Bernin. cit. 
(3) Gotti, s. 3, n. 5.
(4) Gotti, Ver. Rel. c. 118, s. 1, n. 1.
(5) Gotti, loc, cit. c. 118.
(6) Tournell. loc. cit.
(7) Tournelly, p. 200.
(8) Libell. inscrip. Second letter de M. Arnauld.
(9) Tournelly, p. 253.
(10) Ibid. 226.
(11) Tournully, ibid. 
(12) Ibid, p;. 256.
(13) Jour 257
(14) Gotti c.118
(15) St. Thomas. In cap.ii ad Galatas.
(16) St. Thomas in cap. i, ad Gal. l. 1
(17) Bell, de Rom. Pontiff, c. 27.
(18) St. Thom, in II. Cor. I. 3, c. n,