Изображения страниц

30. The greatest dispute was concerning the primacy of the Pope, and Mark of Ephesus not only obstinately opposed this doctrine to the end of the Council, but after its conclusion, as we shall see, succeeded in again perverting the Greeks. The Greeks, indeed, admitted that the Pope was the head of the Church, but would not allow that he could receive appeals from sentences passed by the four Patriarchal Sees of the East, or convoke a General Council without their assent. They were so firm on this point especially, that there would be no hope of agreement had not Basil Bassarion, the Archbishop of Nice, suggested a mode of reconciling both parties, by putting in the clause: “Saving the rights and privileges of the Greeks;" and to this the Greeks at last consented, for they then maintained their privilege, and at the same time confessed their subjection to the Roman Church; for the very word privilege implies a concession from a superior power, and thus the power of the Pope over all Christian Churches is confirmed.

“ We define," says the Council, “ that the Holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, has the primacy over the whole world, and that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and our Father and Doctor; and that full power has been given him by our Lord Jesus Christ, in St. Peter, to feed, rule, and govern the Universal Church, as is contained in the Acts of the Universal Councils and the Sacred Canons. We also renew the order laid down by the Sacred Canons, in regard to the other venerable patriarchs, that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have the second place after the Holy Roman Pontiff, the Patriarch of Alexandria the third, of Antioch the fourth, and of Jerusalem the fifth, saving all their rights and privileges."

31. When all this was concluded, and before the Council was dismissed, the Armenians arrived in Florence, on the invitation of the Pope, as their provinces were infected with errors. The Armenian Patriarch sent four delegates, who were most kindly received by the Pope, and as they were extremely ignorant, his Holiness judged it proper to cause a compendium of the whole Christian doctrine to be drawn up, which they should swear to profess, and take with them as a rule for their countrymen. This Instruction or Decree was accepted and sworn to by the Armenians, and is quoted at length by Cardinal Justinian and Berninus (35). The Jacobites also, on the invitation of the Pope, were represented in the Council by the Abbot of St. Anthony, sent by the Armenian Patriarch. The ambassadors of the sovereign of Ethiopia, the Prester John of that age, presented themselves at the Council likewise, and promised obedience to the Roman Church, and a book of instructions was given them by the Pope, when he transferred the Council from Florence to Rome (36). This peace, however, was but of

(35) Card. Justin. in Concil. Floren. par. 3, p. 263, & ap. Bernin. t. 4, s. 5, 6, p. 134. (36) Rainal. Ann. 1442, n. 1 & 2.


short duration, for the Greeks, on their return home, again fell back into their former errors, principally at the instigation of the wicked Mark of Ephesus. The chastisement of God soon overtook that fickle people; in 1453, Mahomet II. took Constantinople by assault, and gave it up to sack and slaughter; the infuriated soldiery slew all who came in their way, cast down the altars, profaned the monasteries, and despoiled the wretched inhabitants of all their property. Thus fell the Empire of the East, after eleven centuries of à glorious existence. The Greeks continue, to the present day, obstinately attached to their errors; they are the slaves of the Turks in their ancient capital. That noble Church, that gave to the world Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, and so many other learned and holy doctors, now lies trampled under foot, vice usurping the place of virtue, and ignorance seated in the chair of learning. The Greek Church, in a word, the mother of many saints and doctors of the Church, has, on account of its separation from the Roman See, fallen into a state of deplorable barbarity and wretched slavery (37).

[ocr errors]




We pass over the tenth century, because in that age no new heresy sprung up in the Church; but Danæus (1) says, that there was both great ignorance aud great disunion in the West, so that even the Apostolic See was not exempt from intrusions and expulsions. Graveson (2) states the same, and says, that it was a great mark of Divine protection, that, amid so many evils, a schism did not arise in the Church.




1. Stephen and Lisosius burned for their Errors. 2. The new Nicholites and the Inces

tuosists. 3. Berengarius, and the Principles of his Heresy. 4. His Condemnation and Relapse. 5. His Conversion and Death.

1. The first heresy of this century was an offshoot of Manicheism, or, rather, a collection of errors, which may be called Atheism itself. It was first discovered in Orleans, in France, where it was introduced by an Italian lady, and was embraced by many persons, but especially by two ecclesiastics, of the name of Stephen

(1) Danes, gen. tem.

(37) Hermant. t. 2, c. 201 ; Berti, Br. H. t. 2, s. 16, c. 5. not. p. 275. (2) Graveson, Hist. Ecclesias. t. 3, sec. 10, coll. 2.


and Lisosius, who were considered both holy and learned men. They taught, that all that the Scriptures say about the Trinity and the creation of the world is mere nonsense, as the heavens and the earth are from all eternity, and never had a beginning. They denied the Incarnation and the Passion of Christ, and, consequently, the value of baptism. They condemned matrimony, and denied that good works were rewarded, or evil ones punished, in the next life. They used to burn an infant eight days old, and preserved his ashes for the viaticum of the sick. A Norman gentleman, called Arefastus, informed Robert, King of France, of the practices and doctrines of those wretches, and he, at once, went to Orleans himself, accompanied by the queen, and a number of bishops. These prelates finding Stephen and Lisosius obstinate in their errors, held a Synod, and deposed and degraded them, and they were then, by the king's orders, brought outside the city, shut up in a cabin with several of their followers, and burned alive (1).

2. The new Nicholites also made their appearance in this century. These were some clergymen in hóly orders, who preached that it was lawful for them to marry. The sect, called Incestuosists, also then disturbed the Church. These taught that it was lawful to contract marriage within the four prohibited degrees of consanguinity (2).

3. The remarkable heresy of Berengarius also sprung up in this century, and it is one of the prodigies of Divine mercy, to see that this heretic, after so many relapses, in the end died a true penitent and in communion with the Church. Berenges, or Berengarius, was born in the early part of this century, in Tours; he first studied in the school of St. Martin, and then went to prosecute his studies at Chartres, under Fulbert, the bishop of that city. A certain author (3), speaking of his haughtiness, says, that while only a scholar he cared but very little for his master's opinions, and despised altogether anything coming from his fellow-students; he was not, however, deeply grounded in the abstruse questions of philosophy, but took great pride in quibbles, and strange interpretations of plain words. His master, Fulbert

, well aware of his petulant genius, and his desire of novelty, frequently advised him to follow in everything the doctrine of the Fathers, and to reject all new doctrines. He returned to Tours, and was received among the chapter of the church of St. Martin, and was appointed a dignitary, the master of the school, as it was called. He next became treasurer of the church, and then went to Angers, and was appointed archdeacon by the Bishop Eusebius Bruno, one of his own scholars. It was in Angers, according to Noel Alexander and Graveson (4),

(2) Van

(1) Fleury, t. 8, l. 58, n. 53 & 55; Graves. t. 3, sec. 11, coll. 5; Gotti, Ver. Relig. t. 2, c. 86, sec. 1; Berti, sec. 11, c. 3; Van Ranst, sec. 11, p. 173, & seq. Rapst, sec. 11, p. 167 ; Berti, Brev. Hist. sec. 11, c. 3. (3) Quidmond. I. 1, de Corp. Xti. ver. in Euch. (4) Nat. Alex. t. 14, sec. 11, c. 4, art. 2 ; Graves., l. 3, sec. 11, col. 3.

that he first began, about the year 1047, to disseminate his errors; and Baronius says, that the Bishop Eusebius connived at it, though Noel Alexander acquits him (5). At first, he attacked the sacrament of matrimony, the baptism of infants, and other dogmas of the Faith; but he soon gave up all other questions, and confined himself to one alone—the denial of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. He attacked Paschasius Radbert, who, in 831, wrote a learned treatise on the Eucharist, aud held up to admiration John Scotus Erigena, who flourished in the ninth century, and is believed to have been the first who attacked the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Cardinal Gotti, however, remarks, that Berenger is looked on as the founder of this heresy, as the Church was obliged to summon several Councils to condemn it, as we shall see hereafter (6).

4. Berengarius was first condemned in the year 1050, in a Roman Council, held under Pope St. Leo IX., but he took so little notice of this, that he called it the Council of Vanity. He was condemned, likewise, in the Council of Vercelli, held the same year, and that Council also condemned the book of John Scotus. He was again condemned in a Council held in Paris, under the reign of King Henry I.; and Victor II., the successor of St. Leo, condemned him in a Synod, held in Florence, in the year 1055. In the same year he abjured his errors-convinced by Lanfranc that he was wrongin a Council held at Tours, and swore never again to separate himself from the Faith of the Catholic Church; but his subsequent conduct proved that he was not sincere in this recantation. In the year 1059, therefore, Pope Nicholas II. convoked a Council in Rome of 113 bishops, and then Berengarius again made his profession of Faith, according to the form prescribed to him, and swore again never to deviate from it, and threw his own works and those of John Scotus into a great fire, which was lighted in the midst of the Council. Still he was unchanged; on his return to France he again relapsed, and even wrote a book in defence of his heresy, and in defiance of the Church of Rome. Alexander II., the successor of Nicholas, paternally admonished him by letter; but he not only obstinately held out, but even sent him a disrespectful answer. Maurilius, Archbishop of Rouen, therefore, considered himself obliged to adopt extreme measures, and in a Council, held in 1063, excommunicated him and all his followers, and the Decrees of this Council were confirmed by another, held in Poictiers, in 1075. Finally, St. Gregory VII., to put an end to the scandal altogether, convoked a Council, in Rome, of one hundred and fifty bishops, in 1079, in which the Catholic doctrine was confirmed, and Berengarius, confessing himself convinced, took an oath to the following



(5) Nat. Alex. t. 14, diss. 1, art. 4. Fleury, l. 8, L. 59, n. 65; Graves. loc. cit.

(6) Gotti, Ver. Rel. t. 2, c. 87, sec. 1 & 2;




effect: “I confess that the bread and wine placed on the altar are substantially converted into the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, by the mystery of sacred prayer and the words of our Redeemer, not alone by the sign and virtue of a Sacrament, but by the truth of substance, &c." (7)

5. Notwithstanding all this, when Berengarius returned to France, he again retracted his confession by another writing (8); but in the year following, 1080, he obtained from the Divine Mercy the grace of a true conversion, and in a Council, held at Bordeaux, retracted this last work of his, and confirmed the profession of Faith he made at Rome; and he survived this last retraction for nearly eight years, and in the year 1088, at the age of nearly ninety years, he died a

, true penitent, in communion with the Church, after spending these eight years in retirement in the island of St. Cosmas, near Tours, doing penance for his sins (9). William of Malmesbury (10) says, that when just about to die, Berengarius exclaimed, remembering all the perversions his heresy had caused: “ To-day Jesus Christ shall appear to me--either to show me mercy on account of my repentance, or, perhaps, to punish me, I fear, for having led others astray.” St. Antoninus, De Bellay, Mabillon, Anthony Pagi, Noel Alexander, Graveson, and several other authors, assert that his repentance was sincere, and that he never relapsed during the last years of his life-a remarkable exception to so many other heresiarchs, who died in their sins.



6. The Petrobrussians. 7. Henry, and his Disciples. 8. Their Condemnation. 9. Peter

Abelard, and his Errors concerning the Trinity. 10. His Condemnation. 11. His Conversion and Death. 12. His particular Errors. 13. Arnold of Brescia ; 'bis Errors and Condemnation. 14. Causes a Sedition, and is burned alive. 15. Gilbert de la Poree; his Errors and Conversion. 16. Folmar, Tanquelinus, and the Abbot Joachim; the Apostolicals and the Bogomiles. 17. Peter Waldo and bis Followers under different Denominations—Waldenses, Poor Men of Lyons, &c. 18. Their particular Errors, and Condemnation.

6. The Petrobrussians made their appearance at this time; they were followers of a monk, Peter of Bruis, who, tired of the restraint of the cloister, apostatized, and fled to the province of Arles, and, about the year 1118, began to preach his errors in that neighbourhood. These may be reduced to five heads, as Peter, Abbot of Cluny (1), tells us: First.—He rejected the baptism of infants till they came to the use of reason. Second. He rejected altars and churches, and said they should be destroyed. Third.—He prohi

(8) Ma

(7) Fleury, t. 9, l. 62, n. 60; N. Alex. loc. cit. art. 17 ; Gotti, loc. cit. 8. 3. billon, pref. 2, sec. 6, n. 31. (9) Fleury, t. 9, 1. 63, n. 40. (10) Villel. Malmesb. de Rebus Angl. l. 3. (1) Bibli. Cum. p. 1120.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »