Formulary Controversy - Formulary Controversy

Formulary Controversy

On 16 October 1656, Pope Alexander VII again condemned the 5 propositions in the Ad sacram papal bull, specifying that they were condemned "in the sense of Jansenius," but without stating which sense was to be understood. The Jesuits, who then enjoyed predominant political and theological power (including a personal confessor to the King of France, François Annat, and, before him, Nicolas Caussin, while the Cardinal Mazarin strongly opposed Jansenists), both in Europe and abroad (with the Jesuit Reductions and the missions in China) then persuaded the Pope to force all Jansenists to sign a formulary leading them to admit the papal bull and to confess to their faults. The Assembly of the French Clergy hereafter decided to impose on all priests the signature of an anti-Jansenist formulary, in which each one accepted the papal condemnation. One of Pascal's last texts would be the Ecrit sur la signature du Formulaire in 1661 in which he adamantly opposed the signature of the formulary, radicalizing Arnauld's position: Pascal claimed that to condemn Jansenius was equivalent to condemning the Father of the Church Augustine.

The Jansenists of Port-Royal, Antoine Arnauld, Pierre Nicole, la Mère Angélique, Soeur Agnès, etc., were forced to sign the formulary. Although ostensibly obeying to Papal authority, they added that the condemnation would only be effective if the 5 allegedly heretical propositions were in fact found in Jansenius' Augustinus, and claimed that they did not figure there. The Jansenists' reasoning was that the Pope had of course the power to condemn heretical propositions, but not to make that what did not figure in Jansenius' Augustinus be there. This strategy would impose decades of theological disputes and debate, thus allowing them to gain time.

The Lettres Provinciales stimulated several responses from the Jesuits, including in 1657 the publication of an anonymous Apologie pour les casuistes contre les calomnies des jansénistes (Apology of the Casuists Against the Jansenists' Calumnies), written by Father Georges Pirot, which rather unfortunately claimed as its own Pascal's interpretations of the Casuists' propositions, in particular concerning controversial propositions about homicides. This led the friars of Paris to condemn Jesuit casuistry. From then on, the Jansenists of Port-Royal ceased the risky publication of the Lettres Provinciales, and, along with Pascal, started collaborating with the Ecrits des curés (Friars' Writings) which condemned Casuistry. Pirot's anonymous Apology was also condemned by the Holy See, the Vatican putting it at the Index by a decree of Alexander VII of 21 August 1659, while two further decrees, of 24 September 1665 and 18 March 1666, condemned the Casuists' "laxist morality" – Innocent XI issued a second condemnation by a 2 March 1679 decree. In total, the Vatican had condemned 110 Propositions issued by Casuists, 57 of which had been treated in the Provinciales. The books put on the Index in Rome were however published in France, and Jesuits had beforehand bypassed the Holy See's censorship by publishing controversial books there.

On the other hand, Pascal and some other Jansenists adopted a radical strategy, alleging that condemning Jansenius was equivalent to condemning the Father of the Church, St. Augustine himself, and adamantly refused to sign the formulary, with or without reserve. 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 of Louis XIV. The controversy did not involve only Papal authority, but rather his authority concerning the interpretation of texts – something Pascal recalled by quoting the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmin's sentences concerning the authority of religious councils concerning matters of dogma versus de facto issues.

Read more about this topic:  Formulary Controversy

Famous quotes containing the word controversy:

    And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence, they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blows, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature; so is it also in all debates of what kind soever.
    Thomas Hobbes (1579–1688)