Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:35:53.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doctrine and Discipline in the Church of Jean Gerson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

B. J. Caiger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of ascertaining by what means and what authority true teachings may be distinguished from false is fundamental to any ecclesiology, since the ecclesiastical community is based, above all, on commonly accepted doctrine. It is a community whose limits are defined — and the parameters within which it operates set — by the body of teachings which is accepted within it as true. Thus, the fundamental practical question which any ecclesiology must address becomes, in effect, who has authority to determine what is taught and what is not; and the answer reveals the main thrust ofthat ecclesiology. In broad terms, two principal, and often conflicting, emphases may be noted: on the community of Christian pilgrims (whom any structure exists to serve), and on the formal ecclesiastical structure (within which the faithful may find security). Pastorally, these emphases are associated to some degree with two different assumptions: either that the believer gains confidence in the institution because of the truth that is taught in it, or that a teaching will be received with confidence by believers ior he reason that it is taught within the institution. In the second case, the pursuit of truth may be subordinated to the support of the expedient.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 389 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The duties of the chancellor of Paris (‘cancellarius ecclesiae Parisiens’) included oversight of education within the city. As a result he came to have some responsibilities towards and within the university as it developed; however, he was, and remained, primarily an ecclesiastical functionary rather than an officer of the university. See: Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. Powieke, F. M. and Emden, A. B.London 1936, i. 278–82Google Scholar; 304–12, 333–4, 338–41, etc. Despite Rashdall's strictures, however, there was occasional confusion over the position even m the late medieval period. See, for example, the letter of Conrad of Vechta, archbishop of Prague, to Gerson, included in Gerson, Jean, Oeuvres Complètes, ed. Palémon Glorieux, Tournai 1960-1973. ii. 161.Google Scholar

2 Oeuvres ix. 162–6.

3 Throughout the medieval period the mystical writings of Dionysius the Areopagite provided a theoretical foundation on which official ecclesiology was constructed. The essential points were that the hierarchy of the Church on earth reflected the hierarchies of heaven, and that, within each hierarchy, superiors purged, illumined and perfected inferiors but were not themselves purged or illumined by them. Quite apart from the practical attractions of such a theory in reinforcing ecclesiastical structures, there was a further advantage in basing an ecclesiology on Dionysian speculation : Dionysius argued that a sign need not be ‘like’ the thing it signified; see Mystical Theology and ike Celestial Hierarchies of Dionysius the Areopagite, trans, and ed. the Shrine, of Wisdom, , Surrey 1965, 23fr.Google Scholar

4 Oeuvres iii. 36–56. This and the following work have been translated by Paschal Boland, The Concept of discretio spirituum in John Gerson's De probatione spirituum and De distinctione verarum visionum a falsis, unpublished PhD diss., The Catholic University of America 1959; Boland did not translate the third, disapproving of its conciliarism. The three works, and this one in particular, may be contrasted with the almost contemporary treatises in English by the author of The Cloud of Unknowing; see Hodgson, Phyllis (ed.) Deonise hid Divinile and Other Treatises on Contemplative Prayer Related to The Cloud of Unknowing, London 1955.Google Scholar Gerson's tract is apparently original, unlike Deonise, which is explicitly based on the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. Gerson's work differs also in its setting, since the first treatise assumes a parochial rather than a monastic setting, although it was sent to monks, while the later ones are concerned with discernment as it affects the maintenance of order within the ecclesiastical institution. The English tracts edited by Hodgson are concerned rather with self-discernment by cloistered contemplatives; in keeping with this emphasis, the principle question addressed in Deonise appears to be ‘how’ rather than ‘whence’, as in Gerson's case.

5 Oeuvres ix. 177–85.

6 Ibid. ix. 458–75. A similar change over time may be perceived in Gerson's writings specifically on ecclesiastical power; though no attempt is made here to study these two blocks of material together, the subject will be considered in a forthcoming book on Gerson as pastor, theologian and churchman.

7 The second Gospel found few medieval commentators. Gerson seems to have been particularly fascinated by the figure of John the Baptist, a fascination which is briefly but strongly reflected in the treatise in his discussion of the meaning of the name ‘John’ as well as in his other university lectures of the period which take various aspects of the Marcan portrait of the Baptist as their starting points. The later description of Gerson as ‘like a hermit in the desert’, and the inscription on his tombstone, ‘Repent and believe the Gospel’, which partially echoes John's message, may also suggest a continued interest.

8 Combes, André, Essai sur la critique de Ruysbroeck par Gerson, Paris 1945-1972, i. 297–329.Google Scholar

9 Oeuvres ix. 162–6.

10 Ibid. iii. 36–56.

11 Christian, William A. Jr, Apparitions in Late Medieval and Renaissance Spain, Princeton 1981, 192Google Scholar, notes that in this Gerson was following Hugh of St Victor.

12 Oeuvres iii. 43; sec Boland, , Discretio, 87–8.Google Scholar

13 The standard authority on dreams during the Middle Ages was Cicero's Dream of Scipio with the commentary by Macrobius. The commentary on ch. iii, which discusses five types of dreams, three of them reliable in varying degrees and the remaining two deceptive, is particularly relevant to the present discussion. For a readily accessible example of the way that the waking-dreaming dichotomy could be used to promote radical doubt outside the Christian tradition, see Theodore de Bary, W., Chan, Wing-tsit and Watson, Burton (eds), Sources of Chinese Tradition, New York-London 1960, i. 73Google Scholar, for the story of Chuang Chou and the butterfly.

14 Oeuvres iii. 48.

15 Ibid. iii. 54. Cf. n. 32, below.

16 Ibid. ix. 177–85. It should be borne in mind that the treatise is a contribution to a particular argument within the council, concerning the canonisation of certain persons, and that the argument had considerable ramifications in the context of the long-running schism — acceptance of Urbaniste as saints of the Church implied criticism of the Clementine wing, and Gerson — as French and therefore Clementine — is at pains here to limit the damage as far as possible. If Combes is correct Gerson's effort at this point was already a rearguard action.

17 I John iv. 1.

18 Oeuvres ix. 178. Contrast with the order given in the third treatise.

19 Bridget is referred to specifically in the text, ibid. ix. 179. Some scholars also see references to Catherine of Siena in Gerson's remarks about an ecstatic woman being the cause of the schism, and in his later comment about women who call priests ‘son’, see ibid. ix. 467.

20 Ibid. ix. 180.

21 Ibid. ix. 182–3.

22 Ibid. ix. 458–75.

23 Ibid. ix. 458.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid. ix. 459.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid. ix. 459–63. The principal line taken in each segment is shown in its opening sentence:

1. A general council is the authoritative and final judge of teachings pertaining to the faith…

2. The pope, supreme on earth after the general council, or with it, is the judicial examiner of teachings pertaining to the faith…

3. Any prelate in his jurisdiction is the judicial and regular examiner obuch teachings, and the Inquisitor reports to him…

4. Any licentiate or doctor in the holy faculty of theology is a partly authoritative, partly doctrinal examiner of such teachings…

5. Anyone sufficiently learned in holy writ is an examiner of such teachings by the method of teaching…

6. Everyone who has discernment of spirits is an examined of such teachings, in so far as he wishes this gift of the Holy Spirit to be increased in him…

28 This point continued to be rather important to one who had formerly been of the Avignon obedience. To agree that canonisation conferred reliability on all a saint's teaching in every respect would have been to admit the legitimacy of the Roman line against that of Avignon; despite all the reservations he had expressed at various times concerning French papal policy, Gerson as a loyal subject of the French king could not go that far.

29 Oeuvres ix. 460–1.

30 Ibid. ix. 461.

31 Ibid. ix. 462. The first of these three causes may sound a note of self-justification.

32 ‘First: it may be the case that some simple unauthorised person might be so outstandingly learned in holy writ that his doctrinal declaration should sometimes be believed more than the pope's exposition; for it is evident that the Gospel is more to be believed than the pope. Thus it is plain that the judgement of one so learned should be preferred if he should teach that some truth is contained in the Gospel, where the pope may be ignorant of it or indeed may be in error. The other truth: if and when a general council is summoned at which one so learned is present, if in some case he feels that the majority, by malice or ignorance, is tending towards opposition to the Gospel, he should state his opposition… Whence, although at the foundation of the Church militant (which was composed of the apostles and their immediate successors, who had recently and certainly been taught by Christ about many things not [yet] written down) more trust was to be placed in the authority of such a Church than in any gospel before it had been received or authorised by her; nevertheless, once the four Gospels had been authorised by this Church more trust should be placed in the Gospel than in any other human authority (one does not say “than in the whole church”, since it is on the authority of God and the Gospel that it cannot err in faith, as the law stands)’: ibid. ix. 463.

33 Ibid. ix. 464.

34 Ibid. ix. 464.

35 Ibid. ix. 185–245.

36 If so, he had changed his mind since the end of the Council of Constance; see ibid. vi. 296–304, and ix. 185–245, which are attempts to justify his actions at the council.

37 See Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: a history of the development of doctrine iv, Chicago-London 1983, 97–8Google Scholar; and Biechler, James E., ‘Nicholas of Cusa and the end of the conciliar movement: a humanist crisis of identity’, Church History xliv (1975), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Like Gerson, Cusanus was trying to find a theoretical justification for his support of a Church that was evidently less than perfect. This concern became academically significant in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as a result of the secularist arguments of John of Paris and Marsiglio of Padua, and (more importantly) the attacks of Ockham, Wyclif and Hus on ecclesiastical abuses.