GALLICANISM. The collective name for the body of doctrine which asserted the more or less complete freedom of the Catholic Church, esp. in France, from the ecclesiastical authority of the Papacy. During the Great Schism, such theologians as J. Gerson and P. d’Ailly had ably represented a primitive form of Gallican doctrine which had been taught in the Sorbonne almost from the time of its foundation (1257).

At this period the chief question at issue was the claim of the French Church to a privileged position in relation to the Papacy, these libertés de l’Église gallicane (whence the name Gallicanism) being based upon supposed prerogatives of the French Crown (prerogatives which a sober view of history scarcely warranted).

In 1516 the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) was superseded by the Concord of Bologna in which the French king’s right of nomination to bishoprics and other high ecclesiasical offices was conceded.

The constitutional decisions of the Council of Trent (1545–63) were not received in France, and such writers as P. Pithou, Edmond Richer (1559–1631), and P. de Marca popularized a theory of Church government which [:]

In 1663 the Sorbonne published a declaration, the substance of which was reaffirmed by the Assembly of the French clergy in 1682 in the formula known as The Four Gallican Articles.

Summary of the Four Gallican Articles of 1682

They described the alleged rights and privileges claimed by the French clergy at an assembly of 36 bishops and 34 deputies held at Paris on 19 March 1682. The demands arose from the dispute between Louis XIV and Innocent XI over the appointment of bishops and the revenues of vacant sees. The document was drawn up by J. B. BOSSUET

The Articles were quashed by the constitution “Inter multiplices” of Alexander VIII of 4 Aug. 1690, and by Louis XIV in a letter to the Pope on 14 Sept. 1693, but for over a decade they were taught in the French theological schools and made a test for admission to academic degrees and public office.

 GALLICAN ARTICLES of 1682

This declaration, though solemnly withdrawn by king and clergy in 1693, remained the typical Gallican manifesto.

After the Restoration, however, the work of the Jesuits, and of such writers as J. de Maistre and F. R. de Lamennais, bore fruit in a renascence of Ultramontanism in France, so that F. Dupanloup, H. Maret (1805–84), and A. J. A. Gratry found little support for their moderate Gallican positions at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869–70). The definition of Papal Infallibility at the Council had the effect of making Gallican principles, at least in the field of dogma, incompatible with the profession of Roman Catholicism. Although the main aims of Gallicanism in the 19th cent. concerned matters of administration (the freedom of bishops from undue interference by the Curia) and liturgy (the preservation of local rites, such as that of Lyons) rather than belief, after the Council Gallicanism had only a historical importance.

This declaration, though solemnly withdrawn by king and clergy in 1693, remained the typical Gallican manifesto.

BY the 1780s, every Catholic state in Europe wanted to reduce the Pope to a ceremonial figurehead, and most had succeeded. Kings and princes appointed bishops and abbots, dictated which feast days would be observed and which ignored, policed or prevented appeals to Rome, vetted the publication of papal utterances.

After the Restoration, however, the work of the Jesuits, and of such writers as J. de Maistre and F. R. de Lamennais, bore fruit in a renascence of Ultramontanism in France, so that F. Dupanloup, H. Maret (1805–84), and A. J. A. Gratry found little support for their moderate Gallican positions at the time of the First Vatican Council (1869–70).

The definition of Papal Infallibility at the Council had the effect of making Gallican principles, at least in the field of dogma, incompatible with the profession of Roman Catholicism.

Febronianism. The movement in the RC Church in Germany in the 18th cent. against the claims of the Papacy, esp. in the temporal sphere. It may be considered from some points of view as the German counterpart of Gallicanism. In 1742 the three Archbishop-Electors invited J. N. von Hontheim (q.v.), suffragan Bp. of Trier, to investigate their existing grievances against Rome, and in 1763 he published his findings in De statu ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani pontificis, under the pen-name of ‘Justinus Febronius’. The book, while recognizing that the Pope was the head of the Church and the supervisor of Church administration and (subject to the Universal Church or a General Council) of faith and morals, attacked the medieval accretions of temporal power. It advocated that Church affairs should be kept as far as possible in episcopal and civil hands, and that all Papal claims based on the False Decretals should be annulled. In 1764 it was put on the Index, but in 1769 it received the approval of the Archbishop-Electors, who drew up a list of thirty objections against the Papal claims. The Archbishop Electors attempted to assert their claims at Bad Ems (q.v.) in 1786, but without success. The outbreak of the French Revolution and lack of support from other German bishops caused the movement to collapse.

O. Meyer, Febronius, Weihbischof Johann Nicolaus von Hontheim und sein Widerruf (Tübingen, 1880); J. Küntziger, Fébronius et le fébronianisme (Mémoires couronnés et autres mémoires publiés par l’Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. Collection in-8°, 44; 1891; présenté à la Classe des Lettres dans la séance du 6 mai, 1889). V. Pitzer, Justinus Febronius: Das Ringen eines katholischen Irenikers und die Einheit der Kirche im Zeitalter der Aufklärung (Kirche and Konfession, 20; Göttingen, 1976).

Josephinism was a set of policies and reforms enacted by Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, that sought to bring the Catholic Church in the Habsburg lands under state control. This involved reducing the power of the papacy, dissolving monasteries, and controlling clerical education. While aiming for a more efficient and unified church, these reforms were met with resistance and ultimately had limited success.

State Control:

Joseph II believed the Church should serve the state and its interests, leading to increased state oversight of religious affairs.

Reduced Papal Authority:

He restricted communication between the Austrian Church and the Pope, and insisted on royal approval for papal documents.

Dissolution of Monasteries:

Joseph II closed numerous monasteries, particularly those deemed contemplative or not contributing to society, and confiscated their wealth.

Education Reforms:

He established state-controlled seminaries and made elementary education compulsory.

Religious Toleration:

While primarily Catholic, Joseph II also granted religious freedom to Protestants and Jews.

State Matter of Marriage:

Joseph II made marriage a civil matter rather than a purely religious one.

Motivations and Goals:

Modernization:

He sought to modernize the Church, streamlining its administration and making it more accountable to the state.

National Unity:

By centralizing religious authority and education, he aimed to foster a sense of national unity within the Habsburg Empire.

Ecclesiastical policy

Its development

Joseph was the father of Josephinism, which is nothing else than the highest development of the craving common among secular princes after an episcopal and territorial church. Its beginnings can be traced in Austria to the thirteenth century, and it became clearly marked in the sixteenth, especially so far as the administration of church property was concerned. It was fostered in the second half of the eighteenth century by the spread of Febronian and Jansenist ideas, based on Gallican principles. These notions were by no means new to wide circles of German Catholics or at the court of Vienna. Prince Kaunitz, the chancellor of state, who directed Austrian politics for forty years from 1753, was a personal friend of Voltaire, and thus a zealous champion of Gallicanism. The Jansenist, Van Swieten (court-physician to Maria Theresa), was president of the imperial commission on education. At the university, “enlightenment” had powerful advocates in Martini, Sonnenfels, and Riegger, and it was there that Joseph’s idea of a national state church received its legal basis. According to natural law, the chief object of a state ought to be the greatest possible happiness of its subjects. The chief obstacles, neglect of duty and lack of mutual goodwill in individuals, religion alone can remove by its appeals to conscience. Hence the State recognizes religion as the principal factor in education: “The Church is a department of police, which must serve the aims of the State until such time as the enlightenment of the people permit of its relief by the secular police” (Sonnenfels). The canonist Riegger derived the supremacy of the State over the Church from the theory of an original compact (pactum unionis), in virtue of which the Government exercises in the name of all individuals a certain ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the Jura circa sacra. Another canonist (Gmeiner) formulated the following theory: Any canonical legislation that conflicts with the interests of the State is opposed to natural law, and therefore to the will of Christ; consequently the Church has no right to enact such laws nor can the State accept them. Kaunitz reduced these principles to practice: “The supremacy of the State over the Church extends to all ecclesiastical laws and practices devised and established solely by man, and whatever else the Church owes to the consent and sanction of the secular power. Consequently, the State must always have the power to limit, alter, or annul its former concessions, whenever reasons of state, abuses, or altered circumstances demand it.” Joseph raised these propositions to principles of government, and treated ecclesiastical institutions as public departments of the State. Maria Theresa has been incorrectly represented as favouring Josephinism. Most of the measures that presaged Josephinism in the latter part of her reign had not her approval. Joseph’s entire policy was the embodiment of his idea of a centralized empire developing from within and in which all public affairs, political and ecelesiastico-political, were treated as an indivisible whole. His reforms, a medley of financial, social reformatory, and ecclesiastico-reformatory ideas, have no solid foundation.

The reforms

Bishoprics, religious orders, and benefices were limited by the Austrian boundary Non-Austrian bishops were excluded, which simplified the often very confused overlapping of diocesan authorities. The announcement of papal, in fact of all ecclesiastical, decrees, was made dependent on imperial approval (see PLACET); decisions on impediments to marriage were referred to the bishops; the communication of the bishops with Rome, and of the religious orders with their generals in foreign countries, was forbidden, partly from considerations of political economy. In 1783, while at Rome, Joseph personally threatened that he would establish an independent state-church; he abolished all exemptions from episcopal authority and by an obligatory oath brought the bishops into dependence on the State. The acceptance of papal titles and attendance at the German College in Rome were forbidden, and a German College was established at Pavia in opposition to the Roman institution.

The Edict of Toleration of 1781 granted to all denominations the free exercise of their religion and civil rights; at the same time a series of petty regulations concerning Divine service prescribed the number of the candles, the length and style of the sermons, the prayers, and hymns. All superfluous altars and all gorgeous vestments and images were to be removed; various passages in the Breviary were to have paper pasted over them; dogmatic questions were excluded from the pulpit, from which, on the other hand, all government proclamations were to be announced.

“Our Brother the Sacristan”, as Frederick the Great named Joseph, sincerely believed that in doing this he was creating a purified Divine service, and never heeded the discontent of his people and the sneers of non-Catholics.

The fundamental idea underlying a state-church is that the State is the administrator of the temporal property of the Church. Joseph embodied this idea in a law merging the funds of all churches, religious houses, and endowments within his territories, into one great fund for the various requirements of public worship, called the Religionsfonds. This fund was the pivot measure around which all other reforms turned. Not only ecclesiastical property hitherto devoted to parochial uses, not only the property which the suppressed religious houses had devoted to parochial works, but all ecclesiastical property--the still remaining religious houses, chapels, confraternities, and benefices, and all existing religious endowments whatsoever-was held to be part of the new fund. The suppression of the religious houses in 1782 affected at first only the contemplative orders. The Religionsfonds, created out of the property of the monasteries, gave a new direction to Joseph’s monastic policy. In the foreground stood” the wealthy prelacies”, which from 1783 were the chief object of his suppressions. The journey of Pius VI to Vienna was fruitless, and the laity reacted but feebly against the suppressions. Of the 915 monasteries (762 for men, and 153 for women) existing in 1780 in German Austria (including Bohemia, Moravia, and Galicia), 388 (280 for men, 108 for women) were closed-figures which are often greatly exaggerated. By these suppressions the “religious fund” reached 35,000,000 gulden ($14,000,000). Countless works of art were destroyed or found their way to second-hand dealers or the mint, numberless libraries were pitilessly scattered.

The suppression of the tertiaries and hermits brought no increase to the fund, and the suppression of the confraternities (1783) was likewise a financial failure. They were looked upon as sources of superstition and religious fanaticism; half their property was allotted to educational purposes, the other half was given over, “with all their ecclesiastical privileges, indulgences, and graces”, to a new “Single Charitable Association”, which possessed the features of both a confraternity and a charitable institution and was intended to end all social distress. But the people had little taste for this “enlightened confraternity”.

The suppression of the filial churches and chapels-of-ease permitted the creation of new parishes. In carrying out this measure and in the suppression of the confraternities, Joseph’s reforms met with the first popular resistance. The endowments for Masses and altars, for oratories, chapels-of-ease, and confraternities, for processions and pilgrimages, and for devotions no longer permitted in the new arrangement of Divine service, all went to the Religionsfonds, which undertook to satisfy the provisions for Masses, wherever the fact of endowment could be proved.

Joseph assigned a definite number as pensions for dispossessed monks and as the stipends of parochial clergy. Benefices without cure of souls, prebends in the larger churches, and all canonries above a fixed number, belonging to collegiate churches and cathedral chapters, were forfeited to the “religious fund”, and the incumbents transferred to parochial positions. A maximum was fixed for the endowment of bishoprics, the surplus being turned over to the “religious fund, as were also the incomes of livings during their vacancy.

The first duty of the “religious fund” was to provide for the ex-religious. Their number did not exceed ten thousand. They received a yearly salary of 150 to 200 gulden ($60 to $80), and the monks were transferred to parochial and scholastic work. The state-church reached its fullest expression in the parochial organization. The State undertook to train and remunerate the clergy, to present to livings, and to regulate Divine service.

No parish church was to be over an hour’s walk from any parishioner; and a church was to be provided for every 700 souls. The monasteries which still remained bore the main burden of the parochial organization, and the monks, as well as the ex-monks, were required to pass a state concursus for the pastoral positions, while only in cases of extreme necessity did the “religious fund” furnish the means for the building of churches and rectories, for the care of cemeteries and the equipment of churches. Naturally, the “religious fund” had to pay the costs of placing the clergy under state control, of the general seminaries and the support of the young clerics, who thus became wholly dependent on the Government, of the institutes for the practical education of the clergy, which were to be established in every diocese, and of the support of sick and aged priests after the incorporation with the “religious fund” of the funds created for superannuated priests (Emeritenfonds) and to supply needed support (Defizientenfonds).

The academic reforms of Maria Theresa (Studienreform) and of Rautenstrauch (Studienplan) in 1776, and the introduction of Riegger’s “Manual of Canon Law”, paved the way for the creation of the general theological seminaries. Joseph founded twelve: at Vienna, Graz, Prague, Olmütz, Presburg, Pesth, Innsbruck, Freiburg, Lemberg (two for Galicia, Greek and Latin Rites), Louvain, and Pavia. In 1783 all the monastic schools and diocesan houses of studies were suppressed. The “general seminaries” were boarding-houses (Konvikte) connected with the universities; some of them, however, had their own theological courses.

Five years of study in the seminary were followed by one in the bishop’s training-house (Priesterhaus) or in a monastery. The principles of the seminary directors were Liberal, in keeping with the rationalistic theology of the State. Sharp opposition arose, especially on the part of the ecclesiastical foundations (Stifte) and the monasteries. The novices, educated at their expense in the general seminaries, for the most part lost their monastic vocation. Some of the general seminaries were badly managed, At Innsbruck, Pavia, and Louvain, unsuitable directors were appointed; at Louvain the general seminary was eventually the cause of a civil war and of the revolt of Belgium. However, other seminaries sent forth efficient pastors and learned theologians (Freiburg). The fermentation within the ranks of the clergy of southwest Germany and Austria until after the middle of the nineteenth century came from the Liberal ideas imbibed at this time.

_________________________________________

Spanish Regalism, while sharing Gallicanism's emphasis on royal authority, focused on the king's right to intervene in Church affairs as a way to ensure the Church's loyalty and usefulness to the state.
_________________________________________

Regale (Lat. regale, neut. of regalis, ‘pertaining to the king’). In legal language esp., the right to the revenues of vacant bishoprics and abbeys and to presentation to their dependent benefices claimed by the kings of Europe during the Middle Ages. It was usually held to derive from their position as feudal lords, and taken as analogous to that enjoyed during the minority of a lay tenant. The claim, consistently denied by the Popes, became closely connected with the Investiture Controversy. The earliest known trace of it is met with in France towards the end of the Carolingian period (10th cent.). In England it was successfully asserted by King William II (1087–1100) on the death of Lanfranc (1089), and later became one of the causes of rejection of the Constitutions of Clarendon by Alexander III. In 1176 King Henry II (1154–89) promised to limit the exercise of the right to one year, but it continued, with few exemptions, until the Reformation. It is still enjoyed by the Crown over the temporalities of vacant sees (though the revenues are now restored untouched when the newly elected bishop does homage). In Germany the right was claimed and exercised by Henry V (1106–25) and his immediate successors, but practically ceased after the death of Frederick II (1250). In France, where it was claimed not only by the king but also by certain of the more important territorial lords, it was a continual source of friction between the Papacy and the temporal power from the time of St Bernard to the end of the 19th cent.

The term ‘Regale’ has also, since the 18th cent., been more properly used of the privileges and prerogatives of the Sovereign in general.

P. E. Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen: gestiflet, verschenkt, verkauft, verpfändet (Nachr. (Gött.), 1957, Nr. 5). M. Howell, Regalian Right in Medieval England (1962). G. J. Campbell, SJ, ‘Temporal and Spiritual Regalia during the Reigns of St. Louis and Philip III’, Traditio, 20 (1964), pp. 351–83. J. Gaudemet in DDC 7 (1965), cols. 493–532, s.v., with bibl.

Erastianism. The ascendancy of the State over the Church in ecclesiastical matters, so named from the Swiss theologian, Thomas Erastus (Ger. Lieber or Lüber; 1524–83).

Born at Baden in Switzerland, Erastus studied philosophy and medicine and was appointed professor of medicine at Heidelberg in 1558. When the extreme Calvinists endeavoured to introduce their ‘Holy Discipline’ in the Palatinate, Erastus wrote against them his Explicatio Gravissimae Quaestionis, which, however, was not published until 1589 in London. In Erastus’ view, the civil authorities in a state which professes but one religion have the right and the duty to exercise jurisdiction in all matters whether civil or ecclesiastical, and to punish all offences; and even such purely ecclesiastical sanctions as excommunication are subject to their approval.

The book was translated into English under the title The Nullity of Church Censures in 1659, but its ideas had begun to take root in this country from the end of the 16th cent. Erastian tenets influenced R. Hooker, who defended the supremacy of the secular power in his Ecclesiastical Polity (1594), and they came to the fore in the Westminster Assembly (1643). They were somewhat modified when applied to the modern secularized state as visualized, e.g., by T. Hobbes. In this case the representatives of the state, though themselves professing any or no religion, assert their right to legislate on religious matters concerning the Established Church, e.g., when, in 1928, the revised Prayer Book was rejected by Parliament. In this modified sense the term is now generally understood. See also establishment.

J. N. Figgis, ‘Erastus and Erastianism’, JTS 2 (1901), pp. 66–101. A. Bonnard, Thomas Éraste, 1524–1583, et la discipline ecclésiastique (thesis, Lausanne, 1894); R. Wessel-Roth, Thomas Erastus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche und zur Lehre der Staatssouveränität (Veröffentlichungen des Vereins für Kirchengeschichte in der evang. Landeskirche Badens, 15; 1954). J. N. Figgis in DECH, pp. 206 f., s.v.

This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2002....x....  ’ “”.