• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Councils of the Church - The French System

As late as the 19th Century a second party rejected the councils of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and Trent. These, in general, were the French school, who disclaimed pontifical infallibility and deposition of kings. The French rejected the council of Lyons, which is the thirteenth in the plan of the Italian school. The patrons of pontifical despotism and regal deposition extol this assembly to the sky. Their opponents, on the contrary, load it with ridicule and contempt. Paris, Albert, Trithemius, Platina, and Palmerius deny its universality; and the same idea was entertained by Launoy, Du Pin, and Widrington. Nicolin, Silvius, Sixtus, and Carranza, in their collections, have omitted it as unworthy of general or public attention. Onuphrius, says Du Pin, 'seems to have been the first who invested this assembly with universality.' The French also reject the Florentine council, which they call a conventicle, neither general nor lawful. The fifth council of the Lateran, in 1512, under Julius and Leo, is, in a particular manner, obnoxious to the French nation. Its authority was opposed by the French king, clergy, and parliament. The French, according to Gibert and Moreri, never accounted the Lateran assembly general. Lewis the Twelfth, indeed, who had patronised the Synod of Pisa in opposition to that of the Lateran, submitted, in 1513, to the latter convention, which, in accordance with his majesty's will, annulled the Pragmatic sanction and substituted the Concordat.

The French and Italians differed on the subject of the council of Trent. The Italians asserted its universality ; while the French refused this title to an assembly, which, they said, was celebrated by a few Italians and four Grecians. The Florentians raised the pontiff above a council, and, in consequence, offended the Gallicans, who place the supremacy in an universal and lawful synod. The assembly of Florence, besides, was contemporary with that of Basil, which, in the French account, was general; and two councils, il is plain, could not coexist in Christendom. The Council of Trent was not only rejected in France, but \> also in Spain, Flanders, Naples, part of Ireland, and really /\ though not formally in Germany. Its doctrinal decisions, indeed, embodied the prior faith of these kingdoms; and, therefore, was not opposed. The theology, however, inculcated at Trent, was recognized, not on the authority of that assembly, but on the authority of antiquity and former reception. The Council was utterly exploded by the French, on account of its canons of discipline and reformation.

The friends of the Reformation in Germany detested the faith of Trent, and the friends of Romanism disliked its discipline. The Emperor, indeed, allowed it a formal reception in his dominions. But the admission, clogged as it was with many restrictions, was rather nominal than real. Its recognition was by no means uniform; and those who acknowledged its authority interpreted its canons as they pleased.

The French, in this manner, dismissing the councils of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and Trent, adopt those of Pisa, Constance, Basil, and the Second of Pisa. The French, says Moreri, recognize, as general, the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil. The Pisan Assembly in 1409 has occasioned a variety of opinions. Some have denied its universality. Its name is not found among the eighteen approved by the Italians. The universality of the Constantian council is maintained in the French school. A variety of conflicting opinions, indeed, has been entertained on the ecumenicity of this assembly.