St. on the Infallibility of General Councils of the Church

CHRISTIAND. WASHBURN / SAINTPAUL

St. Robert Bellarmine's (1542-1621) greatest work, the Disputationes de con• troversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, is a two million word defense of nearly every point of Catholic doctrine, including a fairly comprehensive defense of Catholic ecclesiology. For the most part, Bellar• mine's name is associated with his teaching on the powers of the papacy. Indeed, his influence was so great that at the First Vatican council, a few council fathers objected that a council's duty was to define the faith of the Church and not the opinion of one man, of course alluding to Bellarmine. Although the resulting scholarly emphasis on Bellarmine's teaching on the papacy is understandable, it has unfortunately meant that other important aspects ofhis ecclesiology have been the object of some neglece. This arti• cle will examine one of these lesser known aspects, Bellarmine's teaching on and defense of the infallibility of councils. In addition two issues inti• mately connected to his teaching will be examined. The first is a discussion of the way in which the , with his gift of infallibility, functions within the context of a council. The second of these is Bellarmine's comparison of the authority of an ecumenical council to the authority of sacred scripture.

Background The first volume of Bellarmine's massive Disputationes de controversiis Chris• tianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos appeared in 1586 in Ingolstadt with a dedication to His Holiness Sixtus V2• In the Preface to the first vol-

1 Bellarmine's teaching on councils has been rarely treated. On Bellarmine's numbering of ecumenical councils, see V. PERl, 11 numero dei concili ecumenici nella tradizione cattoli• ca moderna, in: Aevum 37 (1963) 430-501 and H.]. SIEBEN, Robert Bellarmin und die Zahl der Ökumenischen Konzilien, in: Thph 61 (1986) 24-59. The issue of conciliar infallibility is equally rare in the scholarly literature but is treated by Th. DIETRICH, Die Theologie der Kir• che bei Robert Bellarmin (1542-1621), Paderborn 1999,380-405; Th. LÖHR, Die Lehre Robert Bellarmins vom allgemeinen Konzil, Limburg 1986 (= Excerpta ex dissertatione in Pont. Univ. Gregoriana); H.]. SIEBEN, Die katholische Konzilsidee von der bis zur Auf• klärung, Paderborn etc. 1988 (= KonG.U), cap. IV: "Konzilien in der Sicht des Kontrovers• theologen Bellarmin", 163-167.

2 J. BRODRICK, S. J., The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis Cardinal Bellarmine, Lon• don 1928, vol. 1, 132. There are a number of authors who suggest that the De Controversiis

IAHe 42 (2010~ 172 Christian D. washbum urne, Bellarmine writes that he desires to bring together the many and most diverse questions in one place, making them quickly, cheaply, and easily obtaina• ble3• Prior to Bellarmine, a number of Catholic controversialists had written works, either wholly or in part defending the Church's teaching on the au• thority and infallibility of councils. Anyone wishing to pursue the issue would be confronted by a wide body of works by controversialists who were more or less successful in their aims4• These controversialists, cited by Bellarmine, include: Cano (1509-1560), Alonso de Castro (1495- 1558), Josse clichtove (c. 1472-1543), Johannes Cochlaeus (1479-1552), Jo• hannes Delphius (1524-1582), Johannes Eck (1486-1543), John Fisher (1469- 1535), Stanislaus HOzyusz (1503-1579), Dominico Jacobatius (d. 1527), wil• helm Lindanus (1525-1588), Albert Pigge (c. 1490-1542), Josse Ravesteyn (1506-1570), Petro de Soto (1495/1500-1563), Gaspar Cardillo de Villalpando

were first published in 1581. Thus J.-B. COUDERC, Le venerable Robert Bellarmin, Paris 1893, vol. 1, 112, n. 1; N. FRlZON, Vie du Cardinal Bellarmin, de la Compagnie de Jesus, Avignon 1827, 94; J. FULIGATI, La vie du Cardinal Bellarmin, de la Compagnie de Jesus, Paris 1625, 129; A. C. PIEPKORN, Martin Chemnitz's Views on Trent: the Genesis and the Genius of the Examen Concilii Tridentini, in: Concordia 37 (1966) 32, n. 93. I have found no actual bibliographical re• ference to such a work. Moreover it seems contrary to Bellarmine's own admission in his autobiography when he states, In 1584, if I remember rightly, N. began to publish books. First he published his Hebrew grammar. Then came three books Oe translatione imperii Romani contra Illyricum. Then the first volume of the Controversies, which afterwards was divided into two vol• umes because of its length, was published. Then the second volume was published, wh ich subse• quently became the third. At the same time some smaller wor/(5 were published, which are among the Opuscula (BELLARMINE, The Autobiography of St. Robert Bellarmine, trans. G. F. GIBLIN, wood• stock, MD 1960, 18).

3 Aggredior de Controversiis adversus omnes hujus temporis haereticos disputare, et quaestiones plurimas, ac diversissimas, in unum quasi locum cogere, et tanquam unius corporis membra, pro viri• bus, quas Deus e coelo suppeditare dignabitur, singula quaeque complecti (ROBERT BELLARMINE, prae• fatio, Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini Politiani Societatis Jesu, de Controversiis Christianae Fidei, adversus hujus temporis Haereticos, 4 vols. Paris 1613, vol. 1, sig. avj'. Hereafter, cited as De Controversiis. Unless otherwise noted, citations refer first to the number of the controversy, then the book within the controversy, the chapter within the book, then the overall volume of the De Controversiis and finally the page number.

4 of the theologians cited by Bellarmine, the works of Melchior Cano and Josse clichtove are quite excellent. The difficulty with a number of the texts written on the topic is that they are occasional responses rather than systematic responses. Thus, Stanislaus Hozyusz's work against Johannes Brenz, while good theologically, was to a large extent a line by line response to Brenz's arguments rather than a more systematic treatment that would have facilitated ease of use.