Dominicans and the Great Western Schism
An observatory of long-term ecclesiological issues at stake
p. 145-170
Résumés
Unsurprisingly, the Great Schism is an insightful tool to reveal the internal tensions of the Dominican Order at that time. In other words, the Dominican Order might prove to be the small-scale resonance of the Catholic Church’s large-scale dramas. Beyond that, this narrative – religious orders as micro-mirrors of the Catholic Church – could be very broad and banal, but it deals more deeply with the more modern and recent reworkings of the very fundamental ecclesiological issues at stake. How have the structures of the Dominican grand narratives been reused?
Il n’est pas surprenant que le Grand Schisme soit un outil efficace pour montrer les tensions internes au sein de l’ordre dominicain à l’époque. En d’autres termes, l’ordre dominicain nous permet d’observer, à petite échelle, les drames auxquels l’Église catholique était confrontée à plus grande échelle. En outre, si cette perspective – les ordres religieux comme modèles miniatures de l’Église catholique – peut sembler très générique et triviale, elle nous permet d’approfondir des questions ecclésiologiques fondamentales plus modernes et plus récentes. Comment les structures des grands récits dominicains ont-elles été réutilisées ?
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Ordre dominicain, schisme, grands récits, listes d’hommes illustres
Keywords : Dominican Order, schism, grand narrative, lists of illustrious men
Texte intégral
Introduction
1This chapter concentrates on the Dominican Order during the Great Western Schism. The analysis begins with the official discourse of the Dominicans on the Great Schism, as this Dominican grand narrative was the source of an ecclesiological construction of identity over a long period of time. The chapter then continues with discussing the Dominican sources belonging to the genre of The List of illustrious men. Subsequently, the text will discuss how the collective memory of the Order has integrated this episode into its historical narrative up to the present day.
2Unsurprisingly, the Great Schism is an insightful tool for revealing the Dominican Order’s internal tensions. In other words, the Dominican Order might prove to be the small-scale resonance of the Catholic Church’s large-scale dramas. This narrative of scales of effect – religious orders as micro-mirrors of the Catholic Church – may be very broad and banal, but ultimately it deals with the more modern and recent reworkings of the very fundamental ecclesiological issues at stake.
3There are few works on the topic. Gilles Meersseman discussed the Dominican Order during the Great Schism in the 1950s; more recently, Bernard Montagnes wrote an article in the Cahiers de Fanjeaux dealing with the Dominicans of the southern provinces.1 Nevertheless, to date, no synoptic study has taken stock of the issue. The main question addressed in this chapter is: how have the Dominican grand narratives reused or even invented the main ideas of official Roman and papalist historiography?
The official Dominican grand narrative
4Like other orders, the Dominicans were not spared the effects of the Great Schism’s immense rifts. The obediential division is also included in the historical narrative of the Order. The Ordo Praedicatorum was divided both during the Great Schism and by the Great Schism. The master, Elie Raymond, chose Clement VII at the end of 1378 and, at the beginning of 1379, he pushed the other Dominican members to join the Clementist obedience. In Rome, Urban VI deposed Elie Raymond, the now-Clementist master, and nominated a new general vicar of the Order: Thomas of Bozzolasco, the provincial prior of Superior Lombardy. The Order exploded. In each obedience, a General Chapter was planned to elect a new head. On the Clementist side, the General Chapter, planned before the Schism and initially scheduled to be held at Saragossa in 1379, was rescheduled to take place at Lausanne during Pentecost in 1380. On the Roman side, the Dominican vicar planned a General Chapter in Bologna to elect a new general master, during which meeting Raymond of Capua was elected. This Schism was undeniably an internal Dominican schism: both of the masters anathematized each other, and each took the title, previously unused, of “General Master”, creating a claim to universality at a time when each was the head of only a fraction of the Order. Later historiography spoke about a “master” and an “antimaster”.
5Furthermore, each master campaigned for the pontifical candidate of his own obedience. It is well known, according to recent scholarship, that in this first age of the Schism each camp used proselytism to advocate for the authenticity of their preferred pope. As we now know, this political program failed and was abandoned in 1394. From that point onwards, the desire for union prevailed over confrontation. With the death of Clement VII on 16 September 1394 and the arrival of Benedict XIII in the pontifical See, dissensions emerged within each obedience; such a reaction is also evident within other religious orders, main issues, and contemporary events of the time. Within the 1396 General Chapter of the Avignonese obedience, silence on this subject was imposed and criticism “against Benedict XIII’s legitimacy” was forbidden.2 Within each obedience, the provinces themselves could also be divided: the province of Toulouse, for example, remained intractably Clementist, while the province of English Guyenne followed, as one might suspect, the Roman Pope Urban VI and the Urbanist General Master Raymond of Capua. At the General Chapter of Avignon in 1386, Jean of Lovardo, the Toulouse provincial, was condemned and labeled as “antiprovincial” because he supported the Roman papacy.3
6Dominicans assisted in the polemics concerning the resignation of the pontiff (via cessionis) and the withdrawal of allegiance (substractio obedientiae), but none had voted in favor of the subtraction of obedience. In fact, only one Dominican, Sanche Mulier, participated in the vote during the French Church’s Third Council in July 1398, and he voted against it. As for the Catholic Church, the hope of unity and reunification of the Dominican Order was reborn with the Council of Pisa and the election of Alexander V in 1409. The Roman General Master Thomas of Firmo was present at Pisa with 12 other Dominican Masters of Theology. The Avignonese General Master, who at this time was John of Puinoix (Jean de Puinoix), allied from the beginning with the Avignonese papacy, remained faithful and loyal to Benedict XIII and did not attend the Council of Pisa. On the contrary, he was present at the Council of Perpignan, convened and organized by Benedict XIII in 1408. The Dominican Order was subsequently divided into three obediences represented by three Masters, each of whom was supposedly “General”: John of Puinoix for the Avignonese obedience; Thomas of Firmo for the Pisan obedience; and Ugolin of Camerino, elected vicar by the Roman Pope Gregory XII for the Roman obedience in response to the so-called “defection” of Thomas of Firmo.
7The Catholic Church did not achieve unity after the Pisan council. Indeed, from 1409 onwards, the frontiers moved. The Dominican Order shifted subtly towards the Roman movement. In other words, the Roman obedience won in the power struggle that resulted from the establishment of the third, Pisan, obedience. The clearest sign of this change was visible in the Toulousian province, which covered the Atlantic Coast4, during the time when Thomas of Firmo’s influence began to emerge. The Pisan master deposed the Toulousian provincial John of Merle on 28 July 1409, and instituted Brother Peter Barossa, followed by Peter of Mommas. Like Benedict XIII after Pisa, John of Merle did not resign. He even appealed to the Paris Parliament. No fewer than three General Chapters were necessary to solve the division within the Order: Bologna in 1410, when Thomas of Firmo was confirmed as the sole Dominican Master by the Pisan Pope; Genoa in 1413, when the General Chapter of the Pisan obedience under the leadership of Thomas of Firmo gathered all the Order’s provinces except Aragon and Sicily, which was under Aragonese domination, and confirmed Peter of Mommas as provincial Prior; and Strasbourg in 1417, when, following Leonardo Dati’s election, the reunified chapter validated the legitimacy of Peter of Mommas.
8The chapter had elected Leonardo Dati, the former Roman provincial, as vicar of the Order in Florence in 14145 to follow Thomas of Firmo, who had died on 10 March 1414. Leonardo Dati was proclaimed sole Master of the Dominican Order by Martin V on 2 March 14186; the Ordo Praedicatorum was thus reunified. The Dominican John of Puinoix attended the Council of Constance from the 22nd session on 15 October 1417 until the election of Martin V on 11 November 1417. On that historic day, he was asked to deliver the sermon of the day in front of the other Conciliar Fathers. At the beginning of 1418, Martin V appointed John of Puinoix Bishop of Catania.7 Although a Dominican, he was thus far from the Order’s affairs. Nevertheless, he was not alone: the Dominican delegation at the Council of Constance comprised numerous bishops, masters, theologians, provincials, priors, and simple brothers. To name a few of them, the Italian prelates included: Giovanni Dominici; Dominique of Florence, Archbishop of Toulouse; Pierre of Rupa Transcona, Archbishop of Corinth; Andrew of Rhodes, Bishop of Colocza; Conrad, Bishop of Oristano; Simon, Bishop of Brugnato; Antoine, Bishop of Caprula; Garcia, Bishop of Coria; Antoine Corrario, Bishop of Ceneda; Antoine Ponticorona, Bishop of Céfalu; Grégoire Malefardo, Bishop of Césène; Garin, Bishop of Sahona; Pierre Monticelli, Bishop of Comacchio; Thomas, Bishop of Civitanova; Gualter, Bishop of Isola; François, Bishop of Capo of Istria; Jacques Arigonio, Bishop of Lodi; Frédéric Frezzi, Bishop of Foligno.
9Archives have been unequally preserved. The province of Toulouse possesses rich archives, whereas that of Provence has none. Archives are also lacking on the Roman side, which impedes comparison between the Avignonese and Roman obediences. Indeed, there is a scarcity of archives overall, which hinders detailed study of the history of the Mendicant convents and individual Dominican positions, except for the famous case of Sanche Mulier, whose cedula at the vote of the obedience withdrawal was preserved. What consequences does this imbalance in archival preservation have?
Behind narratives: the construction of a long-term ecclesiological identity
10As demonstrated above, the Dominican Order was definitely a small-scale mirror of all the obediential fractures taking place within the Catholic Church more broadly. The Order undeniably selected and manipulated facts and events from the 15th century onwards in their narrative. The Dominican narrative regarding the Great Schism tends to be influenced by the Roman perspective. From the 15th century and Early Modern period onwards, Dominican historiography was wholly papalist or “papalist”, in the words of Thomas Izbicki, in its editions of sources, its famous editors, its restitution of the lists of legitimate popes, and in its moral attribution of “good” provincials and Order Masters and damnatio memoriae of “bad” ones. Bernard Montagnes wrote in 2004:
The traditional Dominican historiography, definitely papist, made no room for the Avignonese Obedience: neither Clement VII’s bulls nor Benedict XIII’s has found place in the Tomus II of the Bullaire de l’Ordre published in Rome in 1730 and surveying the period from 1281 to 1430. On the contrary, what was collected were Alexander V’s bulls and the words of John XXIII and Martin V. Except for Jacques Echard’s praise in 1719 of Elie Raymond and John of Puinoix, the Avignonese lineage of the Masters of Order has found no favor among historians. We can see this in the judgment of Father Mortier in 1907 concerning Elie Raymond, who was responsible for not having made allegiance to Pope Urban VI: “We must consider the adherents of the Avignon antipopes as discharged, despite their good intentions, their dignity and their charges.” While acknowledging the benefit of good faith to Elie Raymond, Mortier holds that as early as 1379, Elie, who had become schismatic and excommunicated, ceased to be the legitimate head of the Order: “His successors in the Avignon obedience participated in this same decline.”8
11That is to say, Dominican historiography was consistent with official Roman and papalist historiography, which had oriented the Church’s narratives with regard to the Great Schism and had rewritten the sole lineage – the supposedly legitimate lineage – of the Roman pontiffs as well as (and especially) the a posteriori victory of the papalist and Roman positions on conciliar and conciliarist debates.
12In his History of General Masters of the Ordo praedicatorum, Father Mortier “excused” Elie Raymond for having joined Clement VII9: “He thought he was doing the right thing, but was wrong.”10 All the Masters of the Avignonese obedience were subsequently considered to have been discharged. Hence, without transition, the following chapter on Raymond of Capua called him the “twenty-third Master General of the Order of Friars Preachers (1380-1400)”11 and hailed him as “the second founder of this Order”.12
13What must be clearly understood is that the obediential division ultimately covered another division, very profound because it was more ecclesiological, between the papalist and the constitutionalist positions (that is, cessionism, subtractionism and conciliar theories or conciliarism). How should we understand the archival state of the sources and interpret the perspective these archives provide? The archives and texts that have been preserved promote the doctrinal points of view defending the pontiff’s power against the powers of the council. To put it another way, the manuscripts do not so much address the obediential divisions between the Clementists and Urbanists, and between the Avignon popes and the Roman popes, as they do the doctrinal and ecclesiological debates between the papalist and the defenders of the councils. Indeed, only the speeches of the papalist advocates remained in the archival corpus: those of Sanche Mulier, Jean Hayton, Nicolas Eymeric, Leonardo Dati, and Giovanni Dominici, to name but a few. What Thomas Izbicki rightly called “Dominican papalism” bursts out in these authors’ doctrinal constructions of Dominican papalism.13 Using the marked papalist discourses through the preservation of particular sources and the development of a specific historiographical narrative, the Dominican Order seems to have constructed its identity on a strong ecclesiological foundation: the adherence to pontifical supremacy against collegial, oligarchic, and conciliar movements. The aim seemed to have been to make the Dominican Order the champion of pontifical orthodoxy.
14To illustrate the strength of this position and the assertiveness of its ecclesiological adherence, let us turn to a few examples. The manuscript Grenoble, BM, 988, is an ecclesiological collection commissioned by Benedict XIII to counter the positions of the Parisian academics who defended the path of surrender. In other words, it is a compilation of canonical texts defending the pontiff’s powers against the proposal of his resignation, which had been presented by this camp of academics as a panacea. Of the eight authors of the composite collection, three were Dominicans close to Benedict XIII: Jean Hayton, Sanche Mulier and Nicolas Eymeric. The context of the production of Grenoble, BM, 988, is well known: following the publication of Novem questiones by the masters of the University of Paris at the end of August 1395, a publication that accused Pope Benedict XIII of not respecting the oath of the conclave and thus of being a perpetrator of Schism, a counter-offensive was organized by Benedict XIII, who commissioned this collection by calling on his best and most faithful canonists. All of them rejected the academics’ attack. The invective reversed the accusations by turning them against the university. The weapons used were the same: violence, defamation, and legal technicalities. The tone was distinctly theocratic. The spirit was still partisan, with all authors still insisting on demonstrating the “truth” of the Pope, and of “their” pope against the Roman pope, as the only way out of the Schism. This series of about ten replies was made up of the great names of the papal party: aside from the three Dominicans mentioned above, Simon Colomb, Aimery Nadal, Gérard du Puy, and last but not least, Martin de Zalba, the Cardinal of Pamplona, all contributed to the collection.14 Nicolas Eymerich himself supplied two texts in this manuscript.15
15Eymerich, a famous Dominican, was, as a fellow Aragonese, a compatriot of Benedict XIII.16 He was hostile to Urban VI from the outset and was an ardent activist in the early Clementist rallies. An inquisitor since 1357, he was familiar with the court of Avignon from before the Schism and was an authorized master of theology. Having already written De potestate pape in 138317, Eymerich wrote no fewer than three texts on the questioning of oaths at the conclave in 1395 to defend Benedict XIII against the masters of the University of Paris.18 On the occasion of the debate on the oath clausule, an ecclesiology with the pontiff or without the pontiff was brought into play. Nicolas Eymerich argued using a pronouncement. He reminded readers, Papa non habet in terris superiorem nisi Deum19 (“The pope has no superior on earth except God”). The quotations are borrowed from the Extravagantes in the spirit of Unam Sanctam, the summit of the theocratic ideology20: Verum quia etiam ecclesia catholica est unica juxta fidei symbolum quo dicitur unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam et apostolicam. Una est columba.21 And again: Unam sanctam: recedere a obediencia ecclesie unitate est scisma proprie et per consequens ille dicitur proprie scismaticus qui ab obedientia ecclesie est divisus. [...] Papa autem verus non potest.22 Thus, the pope cannot be said to be a schismatic fautor: Papa non potest dici congrue neque esse scismatis fautor neque scismati favere.23 In the eyes of Nicolas Eymerich, as a Dominican inquisitor, the Parisian academics were slanderers deserving of infernal condemnation.24 In his turn, Jean Hayton also took up the rhetoric of truth from the supreme pastor.25 Sanche Mulier based his rebuttal in favor of Pope Benedict XIII on the massive double authority of St. Thomas Aquinas and Unam Sanctam in addition to biblical quotations and quotations from the Decree.26 He alone represented the Dominican papalism of which Thomas Izbicki spoke: Sanche Mulier was the only Dominican present at the Third Council of the French Church; furthermore, he, Jean Coste, and Aimerie Nadal (the latter two non-Dominicans) were the delegates to the University of Toulouse, and they voted against the subtraction of obedience.27 Their cedulae detailed their argumentation, and the assertions sound like reaffirmations of pontifical supremacy:
Non lis substrahere obedienciam pape nec totalem nec particularem. Sic ergo hic papa non potest judicari, multominus obediencia subtrahi; Similiter est dicendum non esse decens prelatos et clerum substrahere obedienciam pape cui sunt astricti juramento…28
16Just as powerful a representative of Dominican papalism, the master of the reunified Order, Leonardo Dati, was himself a theorist of pontifical supremacy.29 In his sermon for the feast of St. Francis at the Council of Constance on 4 October 1416, he deployed the Gregorian image of the sword to diminish the theses of the conciliar theorists, of which he was undeniably wary; and yet, he could not deny the action of reunification for the Church. Four assertions structured his sermon, three of which concerned the pontiff: spiritual power resides in the pope; spiritual power resides totally in the pope and not in the General Council; and the pope alone can define what is to be approved and disapproved in the Church and not the council. Hence, a series of conclusions with a strong decretist and theocratic tone followed: the council could not depose the pope30; the council meant to be malicious31; and the pope had no superior on earth32.
17Finally, Giovanni Dominici was also a Dominican of the observance who was known for his papalist rigorism.33 His writings from the time of the Council of Constance called for the refutation of Simon de Cramaud.34 It was not surprising, therefore, that Giovanni Dominici persevered in defending the Roman Pope Gregory XII before the opening of Council of Constance in the spring of 1414: Item ex dictis infero, dominum nostrum papam Gregorium non posse ignorare se esse verum Romanum pontificem.35
A Dominican memorial genre: the List of illustrious men
18These great proponents of Dominican papalism were honored in the genre prized by the Order, the List of illustrious men, a genre based on the exaltation of the collective sanctity of the Order.36 The period of the Great Schism was propitious for the composition of these lists, as they could be used to better establish the legitimacy of masters, provincials, and doctors: think of the 1413 catalogue of Laurent Pignon (1368-1449), the Dominican confessor and adviser to the dukes of Burgundy and then Bishop of Auxerre, whose list was dominated by scholastic theologian-philosophers37, or the Tabula of Louis of Valladolid, completed in 1414, which also honored Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.38 Ecclesiological affiliation, but also and above all scholastic formation, conditioned the constitution of these lists; indeed, the memory of the Order is built up in them. As mentioned previously, the Order had adopted a Roman and papalist line, which was colored by an identity openly claimed as scholastic and thomist. The memory of the Order, therefore, had to have its foundation in the official narrative of papalist Roman historiography. In the binary model of popes and anti-popes, masters and anti-masters, provincials and anti-provincials, chapters and anti-chapters were then divided into two camps. The partisans of Avignon were stigmatized. More importantly, Dominicans who were susceptible to collusion with the conciliar doctrines became less visible in the archives. What remained of the non-papalist Dominicans? Had they never existed, or had they simply not been documented? Were they considered dissidents? One could go so far as to suppose that a certain damnatio memorie might even have led to the destruction of some archives. Jean de Paris, the initiator of a proto-conciliarist position as early as the 1300s, appears in the List of illustrious men mentioned above, but nothing is mentioned of his treatise De potestate regia et papali.39 The very Clementist Nicolas Eymerich is absent from the catalogues of Laurent Pignon, the Catalogus Stamsensis, and the Catalogus Upsalensis, otherwise listing important Dominicans.40 John of Ragusa remained present in the lists of illustrious men for having slain the Hussites, but also for having compromised himself with Felix V and the schismatic Fathers of Basel.41 He was, however, a major proponent of the conciliar theories at the Council of Basel in his Tractatus de Ecclesia42: he insisted on the infallibility of the council and the Church. The same was true for the other Dominican conciliarist in Basel, Heinrich Kalteisen.43 On the other side of the coin, Juan de Torquemada, great master of the Roman historiography, is an ideal example of the ways in which the Dominican Order based its identity on a Roman and papalist ecclesiology.
19There were also Dominican figures close to the court of Burgundy; namely, Laurent Pignon, Jean Marchant and Martin Porée. Porée, who was familiar of the Duke of Burgundy and his confessor from 1398-1408, received the diocese of Arras (1407), and as a result distanced himself from the affairs of the Order. Thus, although he still appeared in the early modern lists of illustrious men, he was not emblematic of the Order’s ecclesiological positions.44 In Constance, he appeared as a representative of the Duke of Burgundy and not as a Dominican. The question of the conflict of loyalty could be raised,45 as several Dominicans came to the Council of Constance as ambassadors. Louis of Valladolid represented the king of Castile; Antoine Ponticorona spoke on behalf of the king of Aragon; Antoine Coste was the prosecutor of the bishop of Grenoble. After the death of Jean Petit, Martin Porée defended Jean Petit’s proposals when they were attacked by Jean Gerson.46 It is known that Martin Porée, the head of the Burgundian embassy’s delegation in Constance, was effective: the Conciliar Fathers agreed with him over Gerson. Fr. Mortier saw this as a sign of “the influence that the Order of Preachers enjoyed at the Council of Constance, a preponderant influence”.47 Bernard Guenée spoke of an “old and unfulfilled hatred” between Pierre d’Ailly, Gerson, and their clan on the one hand, and the Mendicants on the other, since the affair of 1389 concerning the Immaculate Conception.48
20Vincent Ferrier provides an interesting case study.49 He occupies an interestingly ambiguous place in the history of the Schism and in the lists of illustrious men. Vincent Ferrier was close to Cardinal Pedro de Luna, the future Benedict XIII and was subsequently his confessor until 1398. He had written a treatise at the beginning of the Schism to convince Peter the Ceremonious, King of Aragon, to pronounce himself in favor of Clement VII. This was the subject of the Tractatus de moderno ecclesiae schismato.50 Vincent Ferrier adopted the position of Nicolas Eymerich: according to Bernard Montagnes wrote, the Aragonese Dominican had evolved and his positions of 1380 were no longer the same in 1398 or even later in 1400 and 1410, when he moved away from Benedict XIII.51 But, Philip Daileader has shown that he was still close to the Pope. Let us just keep in mind his major role in the mass conversion missions towards Jews in Spain supported by Benedict XIII and the Tortosa disputation in 1415. At any rate, the Council Fathers of Constance, led by Gerson, asked for him and established a correspondence with him.52 What remains of these historical events, of this indication of Vincent Ferrier’s openness to the Conciliar Fathers’ position, and even of their combined influence of the lists of illustrious men on modern scholars? It should be noted that Vincent Ferrier was not the subject of any entry in André Touron’s list of famous Dominicans (1686-1775). Father Mortier conceded: “There were Saints in every obedience. This was proof that, for his contemporaries, the question was far from being clear.”53 Even though Ferrier insisted above all on the reversal of 1398 meaning he distanced himself from the “intractable old man” that was Benedict XIII, he still seems to be the major agent of Benedict XIII in Spain regarding the papal antijudaic politics there.54 Moreover, Mortier took care to specify that Vincent Ferrier did not go to Constance: “Saint Vincent Ferrier did not believe he had to go to Constance. His motives were not known to us.”55
21If we can trace Dominican papalism back to the time of the Great Schism and its debates, we must admit that the framework of Dominican papalist ecclesiology was built well before that polemical episode. This point makes it possible to bring nuance to the binary opposition between Dominican papalism – itself forged using the model of Roman papalism – and the conciliar theories of the collegiate type and the Parisian university movement. The working hypothesis consists of envisaging a long-term ecclesiological position that reached back to the “querelle” between the Seculars and the Mendicants. The Dominicans’ papalism would not be so much an ecclesiology forged by an antinomy of conciliar theories to aid a pontiff in need of canonists and theorists as much as a fundamental movement that began much earlier, as early as the middle of the 13th century in reaction to the attacks of the Secular Masters. The crux of the problem revolved around the question of the limitation of pontifical power. Mendicants received their privileges directly from the Holy See, without intervention of the local bishops, and sometimes even against them. The numerous bulls that followed were, in turn, contradictory, oscillating between pontifical largesse in the granting of Mendicant privileges on the one hand,56 and restrictions on the freedom of ministry of the religious people on the other,57 with regular swinging back and forth.58 According to Yves Congar, “the Parisian Masters obviously did not deny the papal primacy (...), but (they) took (the option) which limited the pontifical power, in its exercise first of all, but also in itself”.59 Furthermore, “(the) ecclesiological base of the position of the Secular Masters, from Guillaume de Saint-Amour to Jean de Pouilly, was their conception of the Public Law of the Church and its structure” based on parish cohesion, which gave all its authority to the bishop and the parish priests, the lower prelates who received their potestas from Christ himself, the only Head of the whole Church and not from the Pope”.60 Hence the differences in ecclesiological sensitivity and approach: “The Masters speak of the Pope differently than we see the Mendicants do, often with a rather sensitive reticence. One may wonder if primacy belongs, for them, to the dogmatic definition of the Church.”61
22In addition to this primarily ecclesial data, there were also the tensions between Mendicant and Secular Masters that punctuated historical events at the medieval university. Let us consider the case of Juan de Monzon (1387-1389), a Dominican condemned by Clement VII in 1389. He was found guilty of having argued that the Virgin was conceived in sin like everyone else and that she was thus not exempt from original sin. He denied the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, while the generation of young theologians (including Pierre d’Ailly and Jean Gerson) defended it.62 After the affair, the Dominicans were expelled from the University of Paris from 1389 to 1403. Let us also consider the 1395 scandal of the Dominican John Hayton, whose expulsion from the University of Paris was requested by the king. Hayton, who was a Dominican and English and a “famous doctor in theology”, was a papal penitentiary in Avignon.63 At the behest of Benedict XIII, he wrote eight proposals against the resignation of the pontiff (via cessionis) in June 1395.64 The tone was doctrinaire and the text was denounced as defamatory.65 He attracted the Parisian academics’ vindictiveness, which was traditionally especially hostile to Mendicants, as well as that of Charles VI’s curial counselors. Gonthier Col qualified him as the “bad Jacobin of England”.66 The matter was turned into an issue when the King’s ambassadors and academics insisted that the King of France demand Hayton’s arrest in the court of Rome before he had retracted his statement and made amends.67 Hayton was detained in the papal palace in Avignon and eight Dominicans humbly apologized to the dukes, “protesting with an oath that they had never adhered to the doctor’s proposals”.68 The academics, having been rebuffed, had five violent proposals displayed in Avignon as doctrinal objections to the Dominican’s remarks. This story demonstrates the academic virulence against the man who was a protégé of the pope, a Dominican and an Englishman. Let us also recall the debates on the theory of tyrannicide at the heart of the Council of Constance: Jean Petit and Martin Porée, defender of the Duke of Burgundy, were both confronted by Jean Gerson, master of theology and chancellor of the University of Paris. Finally, if we observe the glosses by Simon de Cramaud of the text by Giovanni Dominici to the German King (and later Emperor) Sigismund, we find the paradigmatic confrontation between a canonist and anti-papalist academic on the one hand, and an observant, rigorist, theologian and profoundly papalist Dominican on the other.
23Unquestionably, papalism had existed within the Dominican sphere for a long time and significantly contributed to the Order’s identity. This papalism was forged by an anti-universitarianism that went far beyond the local and very focused debates during the Great Schism.
The memory of the Order and the erosion of an ecclesiological identity
24How then did the archival and narratological reshaping and revision of the Dominican Order’s experience of the Great Schism play out? For the sake of brevity, we will only make a few probes into this topic. It has been said that the Dominican publishers and authors of the Early Modern Era are mostly of a Roman tendency, champions of papalist orthodoxy to such an extent that they could become its official spokespersons. The figures of Juan de Torquemada69 and Cajetan (1469-1534)70 are relevant in this respect. It was, in fact, Juan de Torquemada who, in his Summa de Ecclesia, established the official account of the Great Schism as “an accident of Church history” “with heretical origins” (Marsile of Padua and William of Occam) that was “exogenous to the traditions of the Church” and “destined to die in any case”. He was also the one who contributed to making Thomist ecclesiology an unambiguously papalist position.71 Conciliarism was a plague, as the bull of Eugene IV reiterated at the time, and it was enough to go a few decades further to see the definitive triumph of the papacy over that painful episode. Thus, Dominican papalism and anti-conciliarism heralded the manufacture of Thomism, thanks to the doctrinal theorizing of Juan de Torquemada’s writing in the service of Roman papal ideology. The whole Order was papalist, became the message of the official discourse. In so doing, as Jean-Louis Quantin has explained for a later period, “we are moving from a corporate celebration to a contribution to the general history of the Church”. The Dominican narratives and the official Roman narratives of the Church gradually merged. At the Council of Basel, assimilation was achieved and Thomas Aquinas became the main theological source of an affirmed papalism.72
25However, when the 17th and 18th centuries came, the Dominicans began to follow contemporary trends in scholarship.73 In 1698, Jacques Échard (1644-1724), following Jacques Quétif, proposed a new position regarding Dominican papalism in their Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, the masterpiece of the genre of lists of illustrious men, called “the bio-bibliography of the Order”.74 A particular marker of historical scholarship of the time (of a Mabillon, for example), was the conversion of the biographical list into a chronological list. Furthermore, it proposes a novel reconciliation between the traditional papalist ecclesiological tradition of the Preachers and an early Gallican anti-Jesuitism, with its declared allegiance to the monarchy like in the days of Philip the Fair. Marked by the atmosphere of and his belonging to this Gallican learned milieu, Jacques Échard, in the opening of the first volume of the Scriptores, wrote: “Tradition, on which a large part of the Christian faith is based, can only be confirmed more surely by the constant witness of ecclesiastical writers in their works over the centuries.”75
26Jean-Louis Quantin has also commented that Dominican scholars reject Roman claims without hesitation as soon as they appear to contradict the historical data.76 Dominican and more generally modern erudition was a real challenge for Rome, as the papacy was contested in the name of history.77
27These ambiguities in Dominican-Gallic historiography were further highlighted thanks to Noël Alexandre, a figure well studied by Jean-Louis Quantin.78 Born in 1639, he entered the Dominican Order in 1654. In 1676, Noël Alexandre began to publish a series entitled Chapitres choisis de l’histoire ecclésiastique et dissertations historiques, chronologiques, critiques, dogmatiques sur les passages remarquables de celle-ci.79 History and criticism are both worth mentioning in this context. Noël Alexandre was a reformist theologian, sensitive to critical scholarship even if he could easily have turned out to be a Gallican partisan. In 1955, Anton Hänggi described Alexander as “the first person who had ventured to undertake a critical and complete treatment of the entire ecclesiastical history”, yet Jean-Louis Quantin observes that while “(a)critical in France, Alexander was still too critical in the eyes of certain Roman theologians”.80 Reminiscent of conciliar theories, he also taught that the pope was only infallible if confirmed by the consent of the whole Church.81 We find the accents and phrases of conciliar theories from the time of Constance; hence, the condemnation of Pope Innocent XI on 10 July 1684, is not entirely surprising. Here again appear the grievances of the Master General of the Order, Antonio de Monroy, who forbade Alexandre from continuing his history. Monroy accused Alexander of having “aggressively torn the dignity of the Apostolic See”, of having failed in his duties as a disciple of Thomas Aquinas, and of having withered the entire Dominican Order.82 This led to a double censorship by the Dominican Giulio Maria Bianchi, Secretary of the Congregation of the Index in 1687, in the form of a list of critical annotations (eight hundred scholia) on the text that were then authorized to reappear in 1699,83 as in the case of the censorship of Emmanuel Schelstrate, Prefect of the Vatican Library, the expert in Rome and for Rome of the Council of Constance, between 1685 and 1687.84 In 1717, following the bull Unigenitus (1713), Noël Alexandre took a step forward: he called for the council in 1717, as did Jacques Échard in 1718, with a significant part of the Dominican convent of the Annunciation in rue Saint-Honoré, Paris. For Antoine Touron, there is no doubt that “his appeal, which belies his own principles, shows that he was indeed mistaken”.85 As Jean-Louis Quantin has further explained, the Dominicans’ scholarship of that time welcomed historical criticism, even the critical turning point of the episode that would later be described as “modernist”. For the Dominicans of the 17th and 18th centuries, it was therefore necessary to hold together the inherited scholastic tradition, with its strong papalist charge that, for them, was noticeably confused with Thomism, as well as that tradition’s theoretical support, with positive, critical, and Gallican theology; i.e., also rigorist by virtue of its anti-Jesuit reaction.
Conclusion
28Let us conclude these few thoughts by looking back to the debates around the Second Vatican Council from the 1960s. In 1957, Josef Ratzinger had published on the influences of the “Querelle des Séculiers et des Mendiants” on Bonaventure’s ecclesiological theories.86 In 1961, it is not insignificant that Yves Congar, a Dominican of the Saulchoir, published his voluminous article in the Archives doctrinales et littéraires du Moyen Âge concerning the “Querelle”.87 In this article, Congar highlighted the ecclesiological implications of the Querelle. Commenting on Ratzinger’s own argument, he wrote: “Josef Ratzinger gave a very suggestive sketch of the influence that the ‘Querelle’ had on the development of a theology of the universal primacy of the Pope, especially in S. Bonaventure”.88 Marie-Dominique Chenu, the author of Une école de théologie: le Saulchoir (1937)89, a manifesto of a specific critical turn in the Order, quoted the famous words of Noël Alexandre:
A man who would be only versed in scholastic matters and who, on the other hand, would be far from Sacred Scripture, from ecclesiastical history, from councils, from the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, could hardly be considered half a theologian.90
29Can we, therefore, speak of a discrepancy between the ecclesiological position of Dominican papalism, forged only a few decades after the foundation of the Order in the 13th century, and the slow redefinition of the Order’s identity from the 17th century to the present day, marked by the turn of historical-critical, not to say modernist, erudition within the Order?
Bibliographie
Archives
AAV = Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Vatican City.
ACDF = Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Vatican City.
Avignon, BM = Bibliothèque municipal d’Avignon, Avignon.
Bibl. Barberini = Biblioteca Barberini, Rome.
Bibl. Bartomeu March = Biblioteca Bartolomeu March, Palma de Mallorca.
Bibl. Colombina = Biblioteca Capitular y Colombina, Sevilla.
Bibl. Mazarine = Bibliothèque Mazarine, Paris.
BnF = Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.
BSB = Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich.
Grenoble, BM = Bibliothèque municipal de Grenoble, Grenoble.
LB = Landesbibliothek, Hannover.
NB = Nationalbibliothek, Vienna.
Primary sources
Alexandre 1676 = N. Alexandre, Selecta Historiae Ecclesiasticae capita, et in loca ejusdem insignia Dissertationes historicae, chronologicae, criticae, dogmaticae. Authore R. P. Fr. Natali Alexandro, Ord. Praed. in Sacra Facultate Parisiensi Doctore Theologo, et in majori Conventu et Collegio Parisiensi ejusdem Ordinis Regente. Saeculi I Pars Prior, Paris, 1676.
Alexandre 1676-1686 = N. Alexandre, Selecta Historiae Ecclesiasticae capita, et in loca eiusdem insignia Dissertationes historicae, chronologicae, criticae, dogmaticae, 26 vol., Paris, veuve du Puis puis Dezellier, 1676-1686, t. XIX, Dissertatio IX.
Auer 1933 = A. Auer (ed.), Ein neuaufgefundener Katalog der Dominikanerschriftsteller, etc. (Commendacio virorum magnorum ordinis Sancti Dominici praedicatorum, qui scripserunt multa utilia in Ecclesia.), Paris, 1933.
Bellaguet 1840 = M.L. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du religieux de Saint-Denys : contenant le règne de Charles VI, de 1380 à 1422, 2, Paris 1840.
BOP, II = Bullarium Ordinis Praedicatorum, II, ed. A. Bremond, Rome, 1730.
CUP, I = Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, ab anno 1200 usque ad annum 1284, ed. H. Denifle, E. Chatelain, Paris, 1889.
CUP, III = Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, III: ab anno 1350 usque ad annum 1394, ed. H. Denifle, E. Chatelain, Paris, 1894.
Finke 1896 = H. Finke (ed.), Acta Concilii Constantiensis, 1, Akten zur Vorgeschichte des Konstanzer Konzils (1410-1414), Münster, 1896.
Finke 1923 = H. Finke (ed.), Acta Concilii Constanciensis, 2, Konzilstagebücher, Sermones, Reform- und Verfassungsakten, Münster, 1923.
Glorieux 1960 = Jean Gerson, Œuvres complètes, II, L’Œuvre épistolaire, ed. P. Glorieux, Tournai, 1960.
Hodel 2008 = Vincent Ferrier, Tractatus de moderno ecclesiae schismato, ed. P.-B. Hodel, Fribourg, 2008.
Kaeppeli 1975 = Th. Kaeppeli (ed.), Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, II, Rome, 1975.
Kaeppeli 1980 = Th. Kaeppeli (ed.), Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi, III, Rome, 1980.
Martène 1733 = E. Martène (ed.), Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium, amplissima collectio. Tomus VII, complectens varia concilia, episcoporum statuta synodalia, actaque plurima quae concilium Pisanum praecesserunt, ac subsecuta sunt. Prodiit nunc primum studio et opera Domni Edmundi Martene, et Domni Ursini Durand, presbyterorum et monachorum Benedictinorum è Congregatione S. Mauri, Paris, 1733.
Millet – Poulle 1988 = H. Millet, E. Poulle, Le vote de la soustraction d’obédience en 1398, I: Introduction, édition et fac-similés des bulletins du vote, Paris, 1988.
MOPH, VIII = Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, VIII: Acta capitulorum generalium ordinis praedicatorum, III: ab anno 1380 usque ad annum 1498, ed. B.M. Reichert, Rome, 1900.
MOPH, XVIII = Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, XVIII: accedunt catalogi stamsensis et upsalensis scriptorum O.P. Laurentii Pignon catalogi et chronica, ed. G. Meersseman, Rome, 1936.
MOPH, XXIV = B. Guidonis, De fundatione et prioribus conventuum provinciarum Tolosanae et provinciae ordinis predicatorum, P.A. Amargier (ed.), Rome, 1961.
Quétif – Échard 1719 = J. Quétif, J. Échard (eds), Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, I, Paris, 1719.
Quétif – Échard 1723 = J. Quétif, J. Échard (eds), Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, II,Paris, 1723.
Sanjek 1983 = Johannes de Ragusa, Tractatus de Ecclesia, ed. F. Sanjek, Zagreb, 1983.
Scheeben 1931 = H.-Ch. Scheeben (ed.), Die Tabulae Ludwigs von Valladolid im Chor der Predigerbrüder von St. Jakob in Paris, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1, 1931, p. 223-263.
Touron 1749 = A. Touron, Histoire des hommes illustres de l’Ordre de saint Dominique, V, Paris, 1749.
Secondary sources
Binder 1955 = K. Binder, Wesen und Eigenschaften der Kirche bei Kardinal Juan de Torquemada Op, Innsbruck, 1955.
Binder 1976 = K. Binder, Konzilsgedanken bei Kardinal Juan de Torquemada OP, Vienna, 1976.
Certeau 1969 = M. de Certeau, L’histoire religieuse du XVII siècle : problèmes de méthode, in Recherches de Sciences religieuses, 57, 1969, p. 231-250.
Cessario 2005 = R. Cessario, A Short History of Thomism, Washington, D.C., 2005.
Chenu 1937 = M.-D. Chenu, Une école de théologie : le Saulchoir, Paris, 1937.
Congar 1934 = Y. Congar, Bio-bibliographie de Cajétan, in Revue thomiste, 19, 1934, p. 1-49.
Congar 1961 = Y. Congar, Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre Mendiants et Séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle et le début du XIVe, in Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, 28, 1961, p. 35-151.
Coulon 1912 = R. Coulon, Jacobin, Gallican et ‘Appelan’, le P. Noël Alexandre. Contribution à l’histoire théologique et religieuse du XVIIIe siècle, in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 6, 1912, p. 279-331.
Courtenau 1996 = W.J. Courtenay, Between Pope and King. The Parisian Letters of Adhesion of 1303, in Speculum, 71, 1996, p. 577-605.
Cracco 1963 = G. Cracco, Banchini, Giovanni di Domenico, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, Rome, 1963, p. 657-664, on line.
Cracco 1990 = G. Cracco, Giovanni Dominici e un nuovo tipo di religiosità, in Conciliarismo, Stati nazionali, inizi dell’umanesimo. Atti del XXV Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 9-12 ottobre 1988, Perugia-Spoleto, 1990, p. 3-20.
Creytens 1944 = R. Creytens, L’œuvre bibliographique d’Échard, ses sources et leur valeur, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 14, 1944, p. 43-71.
Daileader 2016 = Ph. Daileader, Saint Vincent Ferrer, His World and Life, New York, 2016.
Dejoux 2023 = M. Dejoux, Reformatio. Les mots pour dire la réforme à la fin du Moyen Âge, Paris, 2023.
Dondaine 1952 = A. Dondaine, Documents to serve the history of the province of France. L’appel au Concile (1303), in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 22, 1952, p. 381-439.
Elm 1989 = K. Elm (ed.), Reformbemühungen und Observanzbestrebungen im Spätmittelalterlichen Ordenswesen, Berlin, 1989
Emden 1957 = A.B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, I, Oxford, 1957.
Eubel 1900 = K. Eubel, Die Avignonesische Obedienz der Mendikanten-orden, Paderborn, 1900.
Eubel 1913 = K. Eubel (ed.), Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificum, S. R. E. cardinalium, ecclesiarum antistitum series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documentis tabularii praesertim Vaticani collecta, digesta, edita per Conradum Eubel, Regensburg, 1913.
Fages 1905 = P.-H.-O. Fages, Notes et documents de l’histoire de Saint Vincent Ferrier, Louvain-Paris, 1905.
Field 2017 = S.L. Field, Philippe le Bel et ses confesseurs dominicains : une question de loyauté, in N. Bériou, A. Vauchez, M. Zink (eds), Les Dominicains en France (XIIIe-XXe siècle), Paris, 2017, p. 431-442.
Finke 1928 = H. Finke, Drei spanische Publizisten aus den Anfängen des grossen Schismas. Matthäus Clementis, Nikolaus Eymerich, der hl. Vincente Ferrer, in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens, 21, 1928, p. 174-195.
Fournié 2020 = M. Fournié, Mirificus praedicator. Saint Vincent Ferrier d’après l’enquête de canonisation de Toulouse, in E. Nadal, M. Vène (eds), La Bibliothèque des dominicains de Toulouse, Toulouse, 2020, p. 137-147.
Guenée 1987 = B. Guenée, Entre l’Église et l’État. Quatre vies de prélats français à la fin du Moyen Âge, Paris, 1987.
Hänggi 1955 = A. Hänggi, Der Kirchenhistoriker Natalis Alexander (1639-1724), Fribourg, 1955.
Heimann 2004 = C. Heimann, Nicolaus Eymerich (vor 1320-1399), Praedicator veridicus, inquisitor intrepidus, doctor egregius. Leben und Werk eines Inquisitors, Aschendorff, 2004.
Horst 1972 = U. Horst, Grenzen der päpstlichen Autorität. Konziliare Elemente in der Ekklesiologie des Johannes Torquemada, in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Theologie und Philosophie, 19, 1972, p. 361-388.
Horst 2004 = U. Horst, Kardinal Juan de Torquemada und die Lehrautorität des Papstes, in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 36, 2004, p. 389-422.
Izbicki 1981 = Th.M. Izbicki, Protector of the Faith. Cardinal Johannes de Turrecremata and the Defense of the Institutional Church, Washington, D.C., 1981.
Izbicki 1995 = Th.M. Izbicki, Dominican Papalism and Arts in Fifteenth-Century Rome, in L.J. Simon (ed.), Iberia and the Mediterranean World. Studies in Honor of Robert I. Burns, 1, Leiden, 1995, p. 270-289.
Izbicki 1997 = Th.M. Izbicki, The Council of Ferrara-Florence and Dominican Papalism, in G. Alberigo (ed.), Christian Unity. The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438-1439-1989, Louvain, 1997, p. 429-443.
Izbicki 2000 = Th.M. Izbicki, Reform and Obedience in Four Conciliar Sermons by Leonardo Dati, O.P., in Th.M. Izbicki, C.M. Bellitto (eds), Reform and Renewal in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Studies in Honor of Louis Pascoe, S.J., Leiden, 2000, p. 174-192.
Laurent 1949 = M.-H. Laurent, Cajétan (Thomas de Vio), in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, 11, Paris, 1949, p. 248-252.
Lamy 2000 = M. Lamy, L’Immaculée conception : étapes et enjeux d’une controverse au Moyen Âge (XIIe-XVe siècle), Paris, 2000.
Lécrivain 2003 = P. Lécrivain, La ‘Somme théologique’ de Thomas d’Aquin aux XVIe-XVIIIe siècles, in Recherches des Sciences Religieuses, 91/3, 2003, p. 397-427.
Mandonnet 1910 = P. Mandonnet, Cajétan (Thomas de Vio, dit), in A. Vacant, E. Mangenot (eds), Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 2, Paris, 1910, p. 1313-1329.
McGuire 2005 = B.P. McGuire, Jean Gerson and the Last Medieval Reformation, University Park, PA, 2005.
Meersseman 1955-1957 = G. Meersseman, Études sur l’ordre des frères prêcheurs au début du Grand Schisme, I, Le mouvement réformateur avant le Grand Schisme, II, Provinciaux de Toulouse durant le Grand Schisme, III, Prosélytisme clémentiste à la Curie généralice, IV, La Curie généralice urbaniste de 1378 à 1380, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 25, 1955, p. 213-257; 26, 1956, p. 192-248; 27, 1957, p. 168-199.
Montagnes 1980 = B. Montagnes, Saint Vincent Ferrier devant le Schisme, in Genèse et débuts du Grand Schisme d’Occident, Avignon, 25-28 septembre 1978, colloques internationaux du CNRS, Paris, 1980, p. 603-613.
Montagnes 1994 = B. Montagnes, L’histoire littéraire de l’ordre des Frères prêcheurs, œuvre de Jacques Quétif et de Jacques Échard, in Mémoire dominicaine, 4, 1994, p. 75-83.
Montagnes 2001 = B. Montagnes, les Dominicains en France et leurs réformes, Paris, 2001.
Montagnes 2004 = B. Montagnes, Le rôle du Midi dominicain au temps du Grand Schisme, in Le Midi et le Grand Schisme d’Occident. Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 39, 2004, p. 305-330.
Morerod 1994 = Ch. Morerod, Cajetan et Luther en 1518 : édition, traduction et commentaire des opuscules d’Augsbourg de Cajetan, Fribourg, 1994.
Mortier 1907 = A. Mortier, Histoire des maîtres généraux de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs, III, Paris, 1907.
Mortier 1909 = A. Mortier, Histoire des maîtres généraux de l’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs, IV, Paris, 1909.
Neveu 1993 = B. Neveu, L’Erreur et son juge. Remarques sur les censures doctrinales à l’époque moderne, Naples, 1993.
Perarnau 1974 = J. Perarnau i Espelt, Sermones de Sant Vincent Ferrer en los manuscritos de Barcelona, biblioteca de Catalunya, 477, y Avignon, Musée Calvet 610, in Escritos del Vedat, 4, 1974, p. 611-646.
Prügl 1995 = Th. Prügl, Die Ekklesiologie Heinrich Kalteisens OP in der Auseinanderstezung mit dem Basler Konziliarismus, Paderborn, 1995.
Prügl 2003 = Th. Prügl, Dominicans and Thomism at the Council of Basel (1431-1449), in J. Grohe, J. Leal, V. Reale (eds), I Padri e le scuole teologiche, Rome, 2006, p. 385-403.
Prügl 2007 = Th. Prügl, Modelle Konziliarer Kontroverstheologie: Johannes de Ragusa OP und Juan de Torquemada OP auf dem Basler Konzil, in J. Helmrath, H. Müller (eds), Die Konzilien von Pisa (1409), Konstanz (1414-1418), und Basel (1431-1449). Institutionen und Personen, Ostfildern, 2007, p. 257-287.
Prügl 2013 = Th. Prügl, Dissidence and Renewal. Developments in late medieval ecclesiology, in Les nouveaux horizons de l’ecclésiologie: du discours clérical à la science du social, in BUCEMA, h.s., 7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4000/cem.12782.
Quantin 2004 = J.-L. Quantin, Document, histoire, critique dans l’érudition ecclésiastique des temps modernes, in Recherches des sciences religieuses, 92, 2004, p. 597-635.
Quantin 2006 = J.-L. Quantin, Entre Rome et Paris, entre histoire et théologie : les Selecta Historiae Ecclesiasticae capita du P. Noël Alexandre et les ambiguïtés de l’historiographie gallicane, in Mémoire dominicaine, 20, 2006, p. 67-99.
Quantin 2011 = J.-L. Quantin, La menace des faits : érudition moderne et condamnations romaines, in Ph. Levillain (ed.), Rome l’unique objet de mon ressentiment. Regards critiques sur la papauté, Rome, 2011, p. 154-163.
Quantin 2017 = J.-L. Quantin, L’érudition dominicaine dans la France moderne, in N. Bériou, A. Vauchez, M. Zink (eds), Les Dominicains en France (XIIIe-XXe siècle), Paris, 2017, p. 173-194.
Ratzinger 1957 = J. Ratzinger, Der Einfluss des Bettelordensstreites auf die Entwicklung der Lehre von päpstlichen Universalprimat, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des hl. Bonaventura, in J. Auer (ed.), Theologie in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festgabe M. Schmaus, Munich, 1957, p. 697-724.
Reltgen-Tallon 1999 = A. Relgten-Tallon, La mémoire d’un ordre. Les “hommes illustres” de la tradition dominicaine (XIIIe-XVe siècle), Thèse de doctorat, Universitè Paris-Nanterre, 1999.
Reltgen-Tallon 2004 = A. Reltgen-Tallon, L’observance dominicaine et son opposition à l’humanisme: l’exemple de Jean Dominici, in P. Gilli (ed.), Humanisme et Église en Italie et en France méridionale (XVe siècle-milieu du XVIe siècle), Rome, 2004, p. 43-62.
Reltgen-Tallon 2017 = A. Relgten-Tallon, La construction d’une mémoire dominicaine, du Moyen Âge aux temps modernes, in N. Bériou, A. Vauchez, M. Zink (eds), Les Dominicains en France (XIIIe-XXe siècle), Paris, 2017, p. 111-128.
Schmitt 1958 = Cl. Schmitt, La position du cardinal Léonard de Giffoni, O.F.M. dans le conflit du Grand Schisme d’Occident, in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 51, 1958, p. 25-72.
Schmutz 2018 = J. Schmutz, From Theology to Philosophy: the Changing Status of the Summa Theologiae, 1500-2000, in J. Hause (ed.), Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. A Critical Guide, Cambridge, 2018, p. 221-241.
Smoller 2014 = L.A. Smoller, The Saint and the Chopped-up Baby. The cult of Vincent Ferrer in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, New York, 2014.
Strika 2000 = Z. Strika, Johannes von Ragusa († 1443). Kirchen- und Konzilsbegriff in der Auseinandersetzung mit den Hussiten und Eugen IV., Augsburg, 2000.
Valois 1901 = N. Valois, La France et le Grand Schisme d’Occident, 3, Paris, 1901.
Vranzic 1998 = P. Vranzic, Die Grundzüge der Konzilstheologie des Johannes de Ragusa, in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 30, 1998, p. 287-310.
Notes de bas de page
1Meersseman 1955-1957. See also Montagnes 2004.
2MOPH, VIII, p. 60.
3MOHP, VIII, p. 24.
4See the two meridional provinces (Toulouse and Provence) in MOPH, XXIV, appendix.
5BOP, II, p. 518-519.
6BOP, II, p. 535. It should not be forgotten that within the history of the Order the caesura of 1380 corresponds to the development of the Observant movement, which in the following century accentuated other tensions, specifically those between the Observants and the Conventuals. See also Kaeppeli 1980, p. 73-77; Elm 1989; Montagnes 2001; McGuire 2001; Dejoux 2023.
7Eubel 1913, p. 177.
8Montagnes 2004, quoting BOP, II, 504 and 532; Quétif – Échard 1719, p. 660-661, 708-709; Mortier 1907, p. 489.
9Mortier 1907, p. 489.
10Mortier 1907, p. 493.
11Mortier 1907, p. 491-492.
12Mortier 1907, p. 498.
13On Dominican papalism, see Izbicki 1995, 1997 and 2000.
14Nicolas Eymeric, Contra universitatem Parisiensis Dei Ecclesiam impugnantes, inc.: “Cur tentavit Satanas…” (after 11 October 1395), Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 43r-72v; Paris, BnF, lat. 3171, fol. 30r-45r: Sevilla, Bibl. Colombina, 141-23-14, fol. 41r-54v. Nicolas Eymeric, Responsiones ad questiones XII, Avignon, BM, 321, 33v-37v; Paris, BnF, lat. 8975, p. 148-154 (modern copy). Nicolas Eymeric, Contra emissum in conclavi per papam promissorum juramentum, Paris, BnF, lat. 3171, fol. 21r-30r; Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 103r-117v. Sanche Mulier (or Molinar), Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 20r-25v. Simon Colomb, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 30r-42v. Aimery Nadal, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 14r-19r. Jean Hayton, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 74r-77v. Gérard du Puy, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 78r-94r. Martin de Zalba, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 117r-127r; Paris, Bibl. Mazarine, 1689, 16r-30v; Paris, BnF, lat. 1475, fol. 33r-53r.
15Born around 1320, he entered the Order in 1334 and was a master student at the studium of Barcelona (1351), master of theology and vicar of the province of Aragon (1362), and Inquisitor General of Aragon during the reigns of the Aragonese Kings Peter IV and John I (1357-1360, 1365-1375 and 1387-1392); he was deposed by John I in 1392, joined the convent of Urgell in 1393, and died on 4 January 1399, cf. Kaeppeli 1980, p. 156-165. See the most recent biography by Heimann 2004.
16See Finke 1928, esp. p. 184. Urbain VI described Nicolas Eymerich: vir scelestus, vir non a virtute sic dictus sed a virus, […] consciencia nullus, astucia multus, sanctitate egenus, perversitate plenus.
17Nicolas Eymerich, De potestate pape (1383), Avignon, BM, 321, fol. 19r-33r; Palma de Mallorca, Bibl. Bartomeu March Ms 104-II-7, fol. 301r-322v; Paris, BnF, lat. 8975, pp. 74-88 (modern copy).
18Nicolas Eymerich, Cur temptavit Sathanas, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 43r-72v; Paris, BnF, lat. 3171, fol. 30r-45r (Avignon, after 11 October 1395), inc.: Cur temptavit sathanas cor tuum, hoc est: quare permisisti te a sathana decipi…; Kaeppeli 1980, n° 3078b, dates the manuscript to around 1400. The summary of the first treatise is in Avignon, BM, 321, fol. 33v-37v and Paris, BnF, lat. 8975, p. 148-154 (modern copy): Utrum papa possit et debeat papatui renuntiare” inc.: “Hic est considerandum utrum papa possit vel debeat papatui renuntiare… cf. Kaeppeli 1980, n° 3078a. A third text is in connection with the first two. We find it under two titles: Contra emissum in Conclavi per papam promissorum juramentum or Allegationes magistri N. Aymerici Inquisitoris Aragonensis de ordine predicatorum, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 103r-117v; Paris, BnF, lat. 3171, fol. 21r-30r; Sevilla, Bibl. Colombina, 141-23-14, fol. 33r-45v; Vatican City, AAV, Arm. LIV, vol. 36, fol. 99r-107r. inc. (Prol.): Loquebantur adversus justum iniquitatem… (after June 1395). Kaeppeli did not note that this third text is also conserved in the manuscript of Grenoble, BM, 988, cf. Kaeppeli 1980, n° 3077. See also Valois 1901, p. 73 and p. 74, note 1.
19Nicolas Eymerich, Cur temptavit Sathanas, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 43r-72v, specifically fol. 54r, sexta quaestio.
20Regarding the numerous quotations of Boniface VIII, see, for instance, Nicolas Eymerich, Contra emissum in conclavi per papam promissorum juramentum, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 103r-117v, esp. fol. 111r or 112r.
21Nicolas Eymerich, Cur temptavit Sathanas…, fol. 54r-v, septima quaestio: “It is true that even the Catholic Church is one according to the symbol of faith, which is said when we say: unam, sanctum ecclesiam catholicam et apostolica.” Una est columba mea (Cant. 6, 8).
22Nicolas Eymerich, Cur temptavit Sathanas…, fol. 54v: “Unam sanctam: Schism in the strict sense of the word withdraws from obedience to the unity of the Church. Consequently, it is said that the one who separates himself from the obedience of the Church is schismatic. But the true pope cannot.”
23Nicolas Eymerich, Cur temptavit Sathanas…, fol. 54v.
24Nicolas Eymerich, Cur temptavit Sathanas…, fol. 56r, nona quaestio: “Quas penas incurrat seu qualiter puniri deberent de premissis et aliis papam diffamantis et ei detrahentes in scriptoris, cedulis sive in sermonibus, disputationibus, collationibus seu aliis seu hoc procurantes seu in hiis dantes auxilium consilium vel favorem.”
25Jean Hayton, Contra viam cessionis credo Magister Johannis Aton…, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 74r-77v, specifically p. 74v: Veritas pia concernens reverenciam Christi et ecclesie et sacrorum canonum at obedienciam et sequelam populi christiani ad proprium pastorel et verum Christi vicarium.
26Sanche Mulier, Determinationes magistri Sancii Mulerii, Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 20r-25v.
27Cédule n° 141, in Millet – Poulle 1988, p. 175-177.
28Millet – Poulle 1988, p. 176-177: “It is not licit to withdraw obedience to the pope either totally or partially. If, therefore, the pope cannot be judged, a fortiori cannot obedience be withdrawn from him. In the same way, it must be said that it is not decent that prelates and clergy should be able to withdraw their obedience from the pope to whom they are bound to obey by oath.”
29Léonard Statius (or Leonardo Dati), O.P., Quatuor assertiones de gladio spirituali (4 October 1416) in Finke 1923, p. 705‐729, esp. p. 705: Prima: Gladii spiritualis suprema potestas residet in ecclesia militanti inseparabiliter quoad jurisdictionem, separabiliter vero quoad execucionem; Secunda: Gladii spiritualis suprema potestas est in papa separabiliter tam quoad jurisdictionem quam quoad execucionem; Tertia: Gladii spiritualis suprema potetats est in papa legitime presidente et residente totaliter quoad execucionem talis gladii, et nullomodo in concilio generali; Quarta: Gladii spiritualis suprema potestas sic est in papa legitime presidente et residente in ecclesia, quod apporbanda et reprobanda in eadem solus ipse habet diffinire, et non concilium generale. See Izbicki 2000, p. 187.
30Finke 1923, p. 709: Unde sequitur, quod nullo casu concilium potest ferre sentenciam deposicionis contra papam.
31Finke 1923, p. 709: Item ponam, quod concilium velit malignari.
32Finke 1923, p. 709: … qui non habet in terra superiorem, ad quem possit appellari et coram quo possit opponi vel contra processum vel contra sentenciam nec ipse judex vult eam revocare; Ergo etc.
33About Giovanni Dominici, see Cracco 1963; Cracco 1990. See also Reltgen-Tallon 2004.
34Simon de Cramaud, Gloses sur le traité de Johannes Dominici adressé à Sigismond, (summer 1414), Hannover, Landesbibliothek, I, 176; München, BSB, 15183, fol. 127‐144; Wien, NB, 5100, 50ff; Finke 1896, p. 277‐289 (on the lemmes, p. 272‐275).
35Finke 1896, p. 274.
36Relgten-Tallon 1999, p. 4: “C’est en effet très tôt que les Prêcheurs, négligeant le traditionnel culte du fondateur, ont choisi d’accorder une place essentielle à celui de leurs ‘hommes illustres,’ selon leur propre terminologie, privilégiant ainsi d’emblée une orientation fortement corporatiste au détriment d’un type plus traditionnel d’autocélébration.” See also Relgten-Tallon 2017, esp. p. 112: “(Dominique) ouvre la voie à une auto-célébration de l’Ordre sous forme de catalogues d’hommes illustres qui déclinent de façon typologique les différentes facettes possibles de cette mission. Une telle littérature historico-hagiographique, tout à fait originale dans le paysage des ordres religieux à l’époque de son apparition était appelée à une fortune qui ne se démentit pas, dans les rangs des Prêcheurs, jusqu’à la Révolution française.”
37Laurent Pignon, Catalogus fratrum spectabilium Ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum, edited in MOPH, XVIII, p. 5. See also the edited anonymous catalogs: Catalogus Stamsensis, edited in MOPH, XVIII, p. 56-67; Catalogues Upsalensis, edited in MOPH, XVIII, p. 69-77; Catalogus Pragensis, edited in Auer 1933, p. 84-109.
38Louis de Valladolid, Tabula Alberti Magni aliorumque scriptorum Ordinis Praedicatorum, edited in Scheeben 1931.
39Laurent Pignon, Catalogus fratrum spectabilium Ordinis…, in MOPH, XVIII p. 26, §34; Catalogus Stamsensis…, §32; Catalogus Upsalensis, §29. Only Quétif and Échard discuss the treatise on p. 501: “11. Tractatus de potestate regi et papali.”
40Only in Prag Catalog and Quétif – Echard 1719.
41Quétif – Échard 1719, p. 797-799. On John of Raguse, see Prügl 2013; Vranzic 1998; Strika 2000; Prügl, 2007.
42Johannes de Ragusa, Tractatus de Ecclesia, edited in Sanjek 1983.
43See Prügl 1995.
44Quétif – Échard 1719, p. 777-778. Échard joined Gerson’s arguments in the debate on tyrannicide and labeled Martin Porée’s “erroneous” position.
45On the Dominicans’ conflicts of loyalty between religious affiliation and monarchical membership at the time of the confrontation between the king of France and Boniface VIII, see Field 2017. The author specifies that on this date in 1303, at the time of the appeal to the council against Boniface VIII, 133 Dominicans signed the letter of 26 June 1303 and promised their adherence the royal cause against papal claims. See Dondaine 1952 and Courtenay 1996.
46Cf. the manuscript Paris, BnF, lat. 9598.
47Mortier 1909, p. 102.
48Guenée 1987, p. 284.
49On Vincent Ferrier, see recent publications such as Fournié 2020; Smoller 2014; Daileader 2016.
50Vincent Ferrier, Tractatus de moderno ecclesiae schismato, edited in Hodel 2008.
51Montagnes 1980, esp. p. 612.
52Letter of Jean Gerson from 9 June 1417, inviting Vincent Ferrier to come to the Council of Constance and to move away from the Flagellants, in Glorieux 1960, p. 201. The sermon Attendite a falsis prophetis on Mt. 7, 15, pronounced on 13 August 1413, in Barcelona, is edited by Perarnau 1974. The invitation letter addressed by the Council of Constance to Vincent Ferrier is edited in Fages 1905, p. 322.
53Mortier 1909, p. 42.
54Mortier 1909, p. 44.
55Mortier 1909, p. 107.
56For instance, Martin IV’s bull Ad fructus uberes (13 December 1281), which permits religious superiors to grant to their members the faculties of preaching and confessing without the authorization of the ordinary, cf. CUP, I, 508.
57See Boniface VIII’s bull, Super cathedram (18 February 1300), which cancels Martin IV’s bull: Mendicants must hear confession with the consent of the bishop, preach in the streets outside parish preaching hours, and preach in the parish with the authorization of the parish priests.
58In 1409 at the Council of Pisa, the theses of the Seculars were condemned by Alexander V, the Franciscan Pope, in the Bull Regnans in excelsis (12 October 1409). Because the University of Paris was strongly opposed to this bull, Alexander V’s successor, John XXIII, withdraw the bull.
59Congar 1961, p. 52-53.
60Congar 1961, p. 54.
61Congar 1961, p. 70.
62On this topic, see Lamy 2000.
63Bellaguet 1840, L. XVI, c. VIII, p. 298-299. On Jean Hayton (also named Johannes de Aconis, Haconis, Acton, Atton), see Kaeppeli 1975, p. 374: Johannes Acton Anglicus. Master in Theology at the studium of Oxford, he was the Pope’s penitentiary in Avignon in 1390. See also Eubel 1900, n. 596, 901; Emden 1957, p. 12: “Acton John (Acon, Akon, Atonis, Hacon, Hatonis).” See also CUP, III, n°1683, p. 624, 663, 667.
64Grenoble, BM, 988, fol. 74r-77v. Same text in Rome, Bibl. Barberini, 872, fol. 88r-92v. See also Martène 1733, p. 501-503 for the edition of Conclusiones: Istas octo conclusiones subscriptas posuit frater Johannes Haconis ordinis Praedicatorum, (1394), inc.: Christus ita vere dedit claves Ecclesie uni sicut unitati. For the French text of Hayton in the manuscript of Grenoble, see the translation in Bellaguet 1840, L. XVI, c. VIII, p. 298-305. See Valois 1901, p. 55-56.
65Bellaguet 1840, L. XVI, c. VIII, p. 298: Nam conclusiones quasdam ubique dogmatizabat in dedecus regis et regni Francie atque Universitatis Parisiensis…
66Martène 1733, c. 501, quoted by Schmitt 1958, p. 27.
67Paris, BnF, lat. 14643, fol. 52v: Requeste Francie regi Francorum per Universitatem Parisiensis (31 August 1395): Sexta quod scribat ad curiam Romanam ut magister Johannes Haconis ordinis Jacobitarum detineatur in carceribus donec errores suos correxerit et injuriam regi, ducibus et Universitati illatam reparaverit.
68Bellaguet 1840, L. XVI, c. VIII, p. 304-305.
69On Juan de Torquemada, see, among numerous others, Prügl 2013; Izbicki 1981; Binder 1955; Binder 1976 (on the third book of Summa de Ecclesia); Horst 1972 and 2004.
70On Cajétan, Mandonnet 1910, Congar 1934; Laurent 1949; Morerod 1994; Lecrivain 2003; Cessario 2005. See more recently Schmutz 2018.
71Prügl 2006, esp. p. 374: “Torquemada contributed essentially to shape Aquinas’ ecclesiology as an unambiguous papalism.”
72Prügl 2006, p. 363: “Nonetheless, I want to shed some light on the fate of Thomas Aquinas’ theology at the Council of Basel as its use and reception underwent a remarkable change, becoming the main theological source of an enhanced papalism.” The author points out a few pages later that Thomas Aquinas’ texts and his ideas were widely circulated at the Council of Basel.
73In this context, the appeal made by Antonin Cloche, General of the Order, on 4 May 1688, is important: he invited all the provinces and convents to write their histories.
74Quétif – Échard 1723. See, for the quotation, Quantin 2017, p. 175. See also Montagnes 1994; Creytens 1944, p. 44-45.
75Quétif – Échard 1719, fol. a2r.
76Quantin 2017, p. 183.
77See Quantin 2011. See also Certeau 1969; Neveu 1993.
78On Noël Alexandre, see Quantin 2006, 2011 and 2004; Coulon 1912.
79Alexandre 1676.
80Hänggi 1955, esp. p. 197: “Natalis Alexander wagte sich als Erster an eine kritische und umfasssende Bearbeitung der gesamten Kirchengeschichte heran!”; Quantin 2006, p. 88.
81Quoted by Quantin 2017, p. 184: N. Alexandre, Selecta Historiae Ecclesiasticae capita, et in loca eiusdem insignia Dissertationes historicae, chronologicae, criticae, dogmaticae, 26 vol., Paris, veuve du Puis puis Dezellier, 1676-1686, t. XIX, Dissertatio IX, p. 150: Certo persuasum habere, eius Decretis et Constitutionibus, de his quae ad fidem pertinent seu quae ad salutem aeternam necessaria sunt, ex cathedra, editis, id est, accedente Ecclesiae consensu, firmatis, nullum errorem subesse posse.
82Quoted by Quantin 2006, p. 73, note 23: Letter from Antonio de Monroy to Noël Alexandre, 31 August 1683, ACDF, Censurae Librorum, 1686-1687, n° 18.
83Quantin 2006, p. 73 quoting ACDF, Censura Librorum 1686-1687, n° 18, fol. 251r et 299r for Bianchi’s censorship: Quo loquendi modo contituere videtur infallibilitatem, non in Papa definiente, sed in Ecclesia acceptante.
84See Quantin 2006, p. 72, note 20.
85Touron 1749, p. 840, quoted by Coulon 1912, p. 40.
86Ratzinger 1957.
87Congar 1961.
88Congar 1961, p. 36.
89Chenu 1937.
90Alexandre 1676, fol. e4r, quoted by Chenu 1937, p. 134.
Auteur
-
Bénédicte Sère
University of Paris Nanterre, benedicte.sere@icloud.com
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge
Les bains siennois de la fin du XIIIe siècle au début du XVIe siècle
Didier Boisseuil
2002
Rome et la Révolution française
La théologie politique et la politique du Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789-1799)
Gérard Pelletier
2004
Sainte-Marie-Majeure
Une basilique de Rome dans l’histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle)
Victor Saxer
2001
Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)
Charges, hommes, destins
Armand Jamme et Olivier Poncet (dir.)
2005
La politique au naturel
Comportement des hommes politiques et représentations publiques en France et en Italie du XIXe au XXIe siècle
Fabrice D’Almeida
2007
La Réforme en France et en Italie
Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes
Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi et Alain Tallon (dir.)
2007
Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge
Jacques Chiffoleau, Claude Gauvard et Andrea Zorzi (dir.)
2007
Souverain et pontife
Recherches prosopographiques sur la Curie Romaine à l’âge de la Restauration (1814-1846)
Philippe Bountry
2002
