A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

Such was the Church of France with the “Gallican Liberties,” previously to the great French Revolution of 1789–1793.

Jansenism (see Jansenists) became very prevalent in the Gallican Church before the Revolution; and the antipapal principle of Jansenism, combined with the revolutionary mania, developed in 1790 the civil constitution of the clergy in France, under which false appellation the constituent assembly affected extraordinary alterations in spiritual matters. M. Bouvier, the late bishop of Mans, remarks, that this constitution “abounded with many and most grievous faults.” “First,” he says, “the National Convention, by its own authority, without any recourse to the ecclesiastical power, changes or reforms all the old dioceses, erects new ones, diminishes some, increases others, &c.; (2.) forbids any Gallican church or citizen to acknowledge the authority of any foreign bishop, &c.; (3.) institutes a new mode of administering and ruling cathedral churches, even in spirituals; (4.) subverts the divine authority of bishops, restraining it within certain limits, and imposing on them a certain council, without whose judgment they could do nothing,” &c. The great body of the Gallican bishops naturally protested against this constitution, which suppressed 135 bishoprics, and erected 83 in their stead, under different titles. The Convention insisted that they should take the oath of adhesion to the civil constitution in eight days, on pain of being considered as having resigned; and, on the refusal of the great majority, the new bishops were elected in their place, and consecrated by Talleyrand, bishop of Autun, assisted by Gobel, bishop of Lydda, and Miroudet of Babylon.

M. Bouvier proves, from the principles of his Church, that this constitution was schismatical; that all the bishops, rectors, curates, confessors, instituted by virtue of it, were intruders, schismatics, and even involved in heresy; that the taking of the oath to observe it was a mortal sin, and that it would have been better to have died a hundred times than to have done so. Certainly, on all the principles of Romanists at least, the adherents of the civil constitution were in schism and heresy.

Nevertheless, these schismatics and heretics were afterwards introduced into the communion of the Roman Church itself, in which they propagated their notions. On the signature of the Concordat between Bonaparte and Pius VII. in 1801, for the erection of the new Gallican Church, the first consul made it a point, that twelve of these constitutional bishops should be appointed to sees under the new arrangements. He succeeded. “He caused to be named to sees twelve of those same constitutionals who had attached themselves with such obstinate perseverance, for ten years, to the propagation of schism in France.... One of the partisans of the new Concordat, who had been charged to receive the recantation of the constitutionals, certified that they had renounced their civil constitution of the clergy. Some of them vaunted, nevertheless, that they had not changed their principles; and one of them publicly declared that they had been offered an absolution of their censures, but that they had thrown it into the fire!” The government forbad the bishops to exact retractations from the constitutional priest, and commanded them to choose one of their vicars-general from among that party. They were protected and supported by the minister of police, and by Portalis, the minister of worship. In 1803, we hear of the “indiscreet and irregular conduct of some new bishops, taken from among the constitutionals, and who brought into their dioceses the same spirit which had hitherto directed them.” Afterwards it is said of some of them, that they “professed the most open resistance to the holy see, expelled the best men from their dioceses, and perpetuated the spirit of schism.” In 1804, Pius VII., being at Paris, procured their signature to a declaration approving generally of the judgments of the holy see on the ecclesiastical affairs of France; but this vague and general formulary, which Bouvier and other Romanists pretend to represent as a recantation, was not so understood by these bishops; and thus the Gallican Church continued, and probably still continues, to number schismatical bishops and priests in her communion. Such is the boasted and most inviolable unity of the Roman Church!

We are now to speak of the Concordat of 1801, between Bonaparte, first consul of the French republic, and Pope Pius VII. The first consul, designing to restore Christianity in France, engaged the pontiff to exact resignations from all the existing bishops of the French territory, both constitutional and royalist. The bishoprics of old France were 130 in number; those of the conquered districts (Savoy, Germany, &c.) were 24; making a total of 154. The constitutional bishops resigned their sees; those, also, who still remained in the conquered districts, resigned them to Pius VII. Eighty-one of the exiled royalist bishops of France were still alive; of these forty-five resigned, but thirty-six declined to do so. The pontiff derogated from the consent of these latter prelates, annihilated 159 bishoprics at a blow, created in their place 60 new ones, and arranged the mode of appointment and consecration of the new bishops and clergy, by his bull Ecclesia Christi and Qui Christi Domini. To this sweeping Concordat the French government took care to annex, by the authority of their “corps législatif,” certain “Organic Articles,” relating to the exercise of worship. According to a Romish historian, they “rendered the Church entirely dependent, and placed everything under the hand of government. The bishops, for example, were prohibited from conferring orders without its consent; the vicars-general of a bishop were to continue, even after his death, to govern the diocese, without regard to the rights of chapters; a multitude of things which ought to have been left to the decision of the ecclesiastical authority were minutely regulated,” &c. The intention was, “to place the priests, even in the exercise of their spiritual functions, in an entire dependence on the government agents!” The pope remonstrated against these articles—in vain: they continued, were adopted by the Bourbons, and, with some modifications, are in force to this day; and the government of the Gallican Church is vested more in the conseil d’ etat, than in the bishops. Bonaparte assumed the language of piety, while he proceeded to exercise the most absolute jurisdiction over the Church. “Henceforward nothing embarrasses him in the government of the Church; he decides everything as a master; he creates bishoprics, unites them, suppresses them.” He apparently found a very accommodating episcopacy. A royal commission, including two cardinals, five archbishops and bishops, and some other high ecclesiastics, in 1810 and 1811, justified many of the “Organic Articles” which the pope had objected to; acknowledged that a national council could order that bishops should be instituted by the metropolitan or senior bishop, instead of the pope, in case of urgent circumstances; and declared the papal bull of excommunication against those who had unjustly deprived the pope of his states, was null and void.

These proceedings were by no means pleasing to the exiled French bishops, who had not resigned their sees, and yet beheld them filled in their own lifetime by new prelates. They addressed repeated protests to the Roman pontiff in vain. His conduct in derogating from their consent, suppressing so many sees, and appointing new bishops, was certainly unprecedented. It was clearly contrary to all the canons of the Church universal, as every one admits. The adherents of the ancient bishops refused to communicate with those whom they regarded as intruders. They dwelt on the odious slavery under which they were placed by the “Organic Articles;” and the Abbés Blanchard and Gauchet, and others, wrote strongly against the Concordat, as null, illegal, and unjust; affirmed that the new bishops and their adherents were heretics and schismatics, and that Pius VII. was cut off from the Catholic Church. Hence a schism in the Roman churches, which continues to this day, between the adherents of the new Gallican bishops and the old. The latter are styled by their opponents, “La Petite Eglise.” The truly extraordinary origin of the present Gallican Church sufficiently accounts for the reported prevalence of ultramontane or high papal doctrines among them, contrary to the old Gallican doctrines, and notwithstanding the incessant efforts of Napoleon and the Bourbons to force on them the four articles of the Gallican clergy of 1682. They see, plainly enough, that their Church’s origin rests chiefly on the unlimited power of the pope.—Broughton. Palmer.

CHURCH, GREEK. The Oriental (sometimes called the Greek) Church, prevails more or less in Russia, Siberia, North America, Poland, European Turkey, Servia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece, the Archipelago, Crete, Cyprus, the Ionian Islands, Georgia, Circassia, Mingrelia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. The vast and numerous Churches of the East, are all ruled by bishops and archbishops, of whom the chief are the four patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The Russian Church was subject to a fifth patriarch, from the latter part of the sixteenth century, [1588,] but since the reign of Peter the Great, the appointment to this high office has been suspended by the emperor, who deemed its power too great, and calculated to rival that of the throne itself. It was abolished in 1721. In its place Peter the Great instituted the “Holy Legislative Synod,” which is directed by the emperor.... Many of these Churches still subsist after an uninterrupted succession of eighteen hundred years: such as the Churches of Smyrna, Philadelphia, Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica, Crete, Cyprus. Many others, founded by the apostles, continued to subsist uninterruptedly, till the invasion of the Saracens in the seventh century, and revived again after their oppression had relaxed. Such are the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and others; from these apostolical Churches the whole Oriental Church derives its origin and succession; for wherever new Churches were founded, it was always by authority of the ancient societies previously existing. With these all the more recent Churches held close communion; and thus, by the consanguinity of faith and discipline and charity, were themselves apostolical. They were also apostolical in their ministry; for it is undeniable, that they can produce a regular uninterrupted series of bishops, and of valid ordinations in their churches, from the beginning. No one denies the validity of their ordination.—Palmer.

The descendants of the ancient Christians of the East, who still occupy the Oriental sees, are called the Greek Church. The Greek Church was not formerly so extensive as it has been since the emperors of the East thought proper to lessen or reduce the other patriarchates, in order to aggrandize that of Constantinople; a task which they accomplished with the greater ease, as they were much more powerful than the emperors of the West, and had little or no regard to the consent of the patriarchs, in order to create new bishoprics, or to confer new titles and privileges. Whereas, in the Western Church, the popes, by slow degrees, made themselves the sole arbiters in all ecclesiastical concerns; insomuch, that princes themselves at length became obliged to have recourse to them, and were subservient to their directions on every momentous occasion.

The Greek Churches, at present, deserve not even the name of the shadow of what they were in their former flourishing state, when they were so remarkably distinguished for the learned and worthy pastors who presided over them; but now nothing but wretchedness, ignorance, and poverty are visible amongst them. “I have seen churches,” says Ricaut, “which were more like caverns or sepulchres than places set apart for Divine worship; the tops thereof being almost level with the ground. They are erected after this humble manner for fear they should be suspected, if they raised them any considerable height, of an evil intention to rival the Turkish mosques.” It is, indeed, very surprising that, in the abject state to which the Greeks at present are reduced, the Christian religion should maintain the least footing amongst them. Their notions of Christianity are principally confined to the traditions of their forefathers and their own received customs; and, among other things, they are much addicted to external acts of piety and devotion, such as the observance of fasts, festivals, and penances: they revere and dread the censures of their clergy; and are bigoted slaves to their religious customs, many of which are absurd and ridiculous; and yet it must be acknowledged, that, although these errors reflect a considerable degree of scandal and reproach upon the holy religion they profess, they nevertheless prevent it from being entirely lost and abolished amongst them. A fire which lies for a time concealed under a heap of embers, may revive and burn again as bright as ever; and the same hope may be conceived of truth, when obscured by the dark clouds of ignorance and error.

Caucus, archbishop of Corfu, in his Dissertation on what he calls the erroneous doctrines of the modern Greeks, dedicated to Gregory XIII., has digested their tenets under the following heads: