FEBRONIANISM
24
FEBRONIANISM
jurisdiction. Rut since the ninth century, cliicfly
tlirough the influence of tlio False Decretals of Pseudo-
Isidore, the constitution of the Church has undergone
a complete transformation, in that the papal author-
ity has been extended beyond proper bounds (cap.
iii). By a violation of justice, questions which at one
time were left to the decision of provincial synods and
metropolitans gradually came to be reserved to the
Holy See (cap. iv), as, for instance, the condemnation
of heresies, the confirmation of episcopal elections, the
naming of coadjutors with the riglit of succession, the
transfer and removal of bishops, the establishment of
new dioceses, and the erection of metropolitan and
primatial sees. The pope, whose infallibility is ex-
pressly denied (cap. v), cannot, on his own authority,
without a council or the assent of the entire episco-
pate, give forth any decisions on matters of faith of
universal obligation. Likewise in matters of disci-
pline, he can issue no decrees affecting the whole body
of the faithful; the decrees of a general council have
))inding power only after their accejitance by the indi-
vidual churches. Laws once promulgated cannot be
altered at the pope's will or pleasure. It is also denied
that the pope, Ijy the nature and authority of the
primacy, can receive appeals from the whole Church.
Accortling to Fcbronius, the final court of appeal in the Church is the cecumenical council (cap. vi), the rights of which exclude the pretended monarchical constitution of the Church. The pope is subordinate to the general council; he has neither the exclusive au- thority to summon one, nor the right to preside at its sessions, and the conciliar decrees do not need his rati- fication. CEcumenical councils are of absolute neces- sity, as even the assent of a majority of bishops to a papal decree, if given by the individuals, outside a council, docs not constitute a final, irrevocable decis- ion. Appeal from the pope to a general council is jv;s- tified by the superiority of the comicil over the pope. According to the Divine institution of the episcopate (cap. vii), all bishops have equal rights; they do not receive their power of jurisdiction from the Holy See. It is not within the province of the pope to exercise ordinary episcopal functions in dioceses other than tliat of Rome. The papal reservations regarding the grunting of benefices, annates, and the exemption of religious orders are thus in conflict with the primitive law of the Church, and must be abolished. Having shown, as he believes, that the existing ecclesiastical law with reference to papal power is a distortion of the original constitution of the Church, due chiefly to the False Decretals, Febronius demands that the primitive discipline, as outlined by him, be every- where restored (cap. viii). He then suggests as means for bringing about this reformation (cap. ix), that the people shall be properly enlightened on this subject, that a general council with full freedom be held, that national synods be convened, but especially that Catholic rulers take concerted action, with the co- operation and advice of the bishops, that secular princes avail themselves of the Regium Placet to resist papal decrees, that obedience be openly refused to a legitimate extent, and finally that secular authority be appealed to through the AppcUatio ab abuf:u. The hist measures reveal the real trend of Febronian prin- ciples; Febronius, while ostensibly contending for a larger independence and greater authority for the bishops, seeks only to render the Churches of the differ- ent countries less dependent on the Holy See, in order to facilitate the estalilishment of national Churches in thesc states, and reduce the bishops to a condition in which they wo\ild be merely servile creatures of the civil power. Wherever an attempt was made to put his ideas into execution, it proceeded along these lines.
The book was formally condemne<l, 27 February, 1704, by Clement XIII. By a Brief of 21 May, 1764, the pope required the (ierman episcopate to suppress the work. Ten prelates, among them the Elector of
Trier, complied. Meanwhile no steps had been taken
against the author personally, who was well known in
Rome. Despite the ban of the Church, the book, har-
monizing as it did with the spirit of the times, had a
tremendous success. A second edition, revised and
enlarged, was issued as early as 1765; it was reprinted
at Venice and Zurich, and translations appeared in
German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.
In the three later volumes, which Hontheim issued as
supplementary to the original work, and numbered II
to IV (Vol. II, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1770; Vol. Ill,
1772; Vol. IV, Parts 1 and 2, 1773-74), he defended it,
under the name of Febronius and various other pseu-
donyms, against a series of attacks. Later he pub-
lished an abridgment under the title: "Justinus Fe-
bronius abbrcviatus et emendatus" (Cologne and
Frankfort, 1777). In addition to the "Judicium aca-
demicum " of the University of Cologne ( 1 765) , refuta-
tions appeared from a large number of Catliolic au-
thors, the most important being: Ballcrini, "De vi ac
ratione primatus Romanorum Pontificum et de ip-
sorum infallibilitate in definiendis controversiis fidci"
(Verona, 1766) ; Idem, " De potestate ecclesiastica
Summorum Pontificum et Conciliorum generalium
liber, una cum vindiciis auctoritatis pontificis contra
opus Just. Febronii (Verona, 176S; Augsburg, 1770;
new ed. of both works, Miinster in W,., 1S45, 1847);
Zaccaria, " Antifebronio, ossia apologia polemico-
storica del primate del Papa, contra la dannata opera
di Giust. Febronio" (2 vols., Pesaro, 1767; 2nd ed., 4
vols., Cesena, 1768-70; tr. German, Reichenberger,
Augsburg, 1768); Idem, " Antifebronius vindicatus"
(4 vols., Cesena, 1771-2); Idem, "In tertium Justini
Febronii tomum animadversiones Romano-catholica; "
(Rome, 1774); Mamachi, "Epistola; ad Just. Febron-
ium de ratione regendae Christiana; reipublica; deqvie
legitima Romani Pontificis potestate" (3 vols., Rome,
1776-78). There were, besides, refutations written
from the Protestant standpoint, to repudiate the idea
that a diminution of the papal power was all that was
necessary to bring the Protestants back into union
with the Church, for instance Karl Friedrich Bahrtlt,
"Dissertatio de eo, an fieri possit, ut sublato Pontificio
imperio reconcilientur Dissidentes in religione Chris-
tiani" (Leipzig, 1763), and Johann Friedrich Bahrdt,
"De Romany, Ecclesia irreconciliabili" (Leipzig,
1767) ; Karl Gottl. Hofmann, " Programma continens
examen reguUc exegetica; ex Vincentio Lerinensi in
Febronio repetitic" (Wittenberg, 1768).
The first measures against the author were taken by Pius VI, who urged Clemens Wenzeslaus, Elector of Trier, to prevail on Hontheim to recall the work. Only after prolonged exertions, and after a retrac- tation, couched in general terms, had been adjudged unsatisfactory in Rome, the elector forwardeil to Rome Hontheim's emended recantation (15 Novem- ber, 1778). This was communicated to the car- dinals in consistory by Pius VI on Christmas Day. That this retractation was not sincere on Hontheim's part is evident from his subsequent movements. That he had by no means relinquished his ideas ap- pears from his " Justini Febronii Jcti. Comnientarius in suam Retractationem Pio VI. Pont. Max. Kalendis Nov. anni 1778 submissam" (Frankfort, 17S1; Ger- man ed., Augsburg, 1781), written for the purpose of justifying his position before the public. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the prohibition, the "Febronius" had produced its pernicious effects, which were not checked by the retractation. The ideas advanced in the work, being in thorough accord with the absolutis- tic tendencies of civil rulers, were eagerly accepted by the Catholic courts and governments of France, the Austrian Netherlands, Sjiain and Portugal, Venice, Austria, and Tu.scany; and they recciveil further de- velopment at the hands of court theologians and can- onists who favoured the scheme of a national Church. Among the advocates of the theory of Febronianisin
