Formulary Controversy - Theological Debate

Theological Debate

In 1628, Jansenius, a professor at Leuven, started writing the Augustinus, a bulky treaty on St. Augustine which attempted to conflate Jesuits with Pelagianism by highlighting Augustine's propositions. His complete work was published posthumously, first in 1640 in Leuven, then the following year in Paris and in 1642 in Rouen. Jansenius' publication re-ignited the debate appeased by the Congregatio de Auxiliis. Finally, under the requests of the Brussels' nuncio Stravius and Fabio Chigi, nuncio in Cologna (and future Pope Alexander VII), Pope Urban VIII condemned Jansenius by the In Eminenti papal bull in 1642, but in a very general manner and without any particular precision. In France, Cardinal Richelieu himself was strongly opposed to Jansenius, not least because the latter was also the author of a pamphlet against his policies and alliances with German states, titled Mars gallicus (1635). Richelieu therefore charged Isaac Habert, the theologist of Notre-Dame, to preach against Pelagius, while he nominated Alphonse Le Moyne as a professor to the Sorbonne University in order to refutate the Augustinus. However, many theologians of the Sorbonne opposed him, as they mostly followed Augustinism's insistence on efficacious grace. But the Jansenists of the convent of Port-Royal were Le Moyne's and Habert's main opponents. In 1638, Richelieu had its leader, Jean Duvergier de Hauranne, who had been a friend of Jansenius, detained in Vincennes, but this only gave him further influence as a martyr.

After Richelieu's death in 1642, however, the Jansenists were able to reply to the attacks against Jansenius, first by a writing titled the Sanctus Augustinus per seipsum docens, attributed to the Oratorian Colin du Juanet (sometimes to Antoine Arnauld), and then, in 1644–45, by two Apologies pour M. Jansénius (Apologies for Jansenius) by Antoine Arnauld, which enjoyed great success.

In opposition to Jansenism, a little group of theological doctors from the Sorbonne then extracted 8 propositions of Jansenius's Augustinus, later reduced to 5 (in 1649), treating of the problems concerning the relation between nature and grace. They accused Jansenius of having misinterpreted St. Augustine, one of the main Fathers of the Church, conflating Jansenists with Lutherans – in the frame of a highly conflictual context, which had led to the Wars of Religion, officially ended with the 1598 Edict of Nantes. This led Pope Innocent X to condemn on May 31, 1653 these 5 propositions in the Cum Occasione papal bull, and again ten years later. In 1654, the Jansenist Antoine Arnauld replied to this attack by making a distinction between de jure and de facto: de jure, the incriminated propositions could be condemned, and he accepted this sentence; but de facto, they could not be found in Jansenius' treaty. The Sorbonne then attempted to exclude Arnauld from being a theologian. Arnauld was forced underground, while in January 1654 an almanach attributed to the Jesuits grossly presented the Jansenists as under-cover Calvinists. Port-Royal replied to this attack by a poem, titled the Enluminures, written by Louis-Isaac Lemaître de Sacy (author of a French translation of the Bible, called the Bible de Port-Royal).

Pascal then wrote the famous Lettres provinciales (1657) in defense of Arnauld, in which he harshly attacked the Jesuits and their morality, in particular casuistry. This led the Holy See to condemn casuistry in 1666 and 1679. Following this anonymous publication, the King sent spies everywhere, condemned the librarians who had clandestinely published the Lettres provinciales and successfully attempted to discover the author of the Lettres provinciales. The theological debate had turned into a political affair.

Read more about this topic:  Formulary Controversy

Famous quotes containing the words theological and/or debate:

    Our own theological Church, as we know, has scorned and vilified the body till it has seemed almost a reproach and a shame to have one, yet at the same time has credited it with power to drag the soul to perdition.
    Eliza Farnham (1815–1864)

    A great deal of unnecessary worry is indulged in by theatregoers trying to understand what Bernard Shaw means. They are not satisfied to listen to a pleasantly written scene in which three or four clever people say clever things, but they need to purse their lips and scowl a little and debate as to whether Shaw meant the lines to be an attack on monogamy as an institution or a plea for manual training in the public school system.
    Robert Benchley (1889–1945)