CONCILIU1lf GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERAL£: THE TRANSFORMATION OF DOCTRINAL REGULATION IN THE l\HDDLE AGES
PETER R. McKEoNJ Assistant Professor of History, Uui·versity of Illiuois at Clzicago Circle The accretions and modifications of time often disguise the origin of familiar contemporary institutions. Furthermore Medieval in stitutions must frequently be studied in regard to their development rather than in terms of their function at any one time. Thus this paper will deal 'vith certain aspects of development in conciliar his tory and will examine the relation of this development to the early history of the university. In the councils of the early church the definition of doctrine naturally assumed a position of great importance, due not so much to any specific distinction as to the fact that fides represented a con mon rather than a regional problem.1 In dogmatic questions these assemblies operated at least ostensibly as meetings of experts, quali fied to hear the content of a disputed doctrine and to decide upon its orthodoxy or upon its deviation from doctrine known to be legiti mate.2 In the east this treatment of theological issues came to as sume a somewhat stereotyped form, and the problem of fides dom inated the convocation of an exfraordinary council. 3 But the admin istrative backwardness of the Germanic countries had given the church council in the west a wholly different role. Often the sole retainer of governmental legitimacy, the council assumed concern of matters far beyond the ecclesiastical problems of the ancient church; in other words, problems formerly political had become the proper concern of the church council. Thus, the councils of the Visigoths dominated all government, while those of the Merovingians were seldom con cerned with questions of doctrine.4 The activity of the popes in the years following 1049 ended a long period during which synodal meetings had been infrequent. During the early years of the so-called "papal reform" the papacy achicnd its ait,n of a centralized ecclesiastical administration through the ancient medium of the councils, and the reestablishment of interest in doc trinal catholicity was a natural accompaniment to a goal of universal primacy.G The decision of theological argument was no less closely guarded. by the various supporters of local autonomy. Consequently, doctrine, as one item in the contest between centralization and par ticuiarism, occupied the same ambiguous position as did the other more properly political issues of this controversy.8 Thus, William of Normandy called to Brioude in 1050 a meeting which heard and judged the arguments of Berengar of Tours, while one year later appeal to King Henry. I resulted in a council held at Paris, where a 24 CONCILIUM GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERALE 25 schedule taken from Berengar's writings was read and condemned.'( Similarly, motivated by desire to retain autonomy in what they re garded as a local situation, the French prelates meeting at Tours in 1054 opposed the removal of Berengar's case to Rome,8 while Berengar himself had denied the right of Leo IX to call him to the Council of V ercelli in 1050. 9 Such protests were symptomatic of the reaction to papal asser tions, and must be viewed in the broader perspective of protests by metropolitans against Roman interest in local matters.10 The an swer of the papal protagonists rested upon a differentiation of Ro man governmental function; they argued that the papal primacy, be ing based upon the Petrine commission, was wholly dissimilar from the government of the bishops.11 According to the Roman view, since all government bore a theological orientation, political questions no less than dogmatic took on· the trappings of questions of faith, \vith respect to which Rome was the final arbiter.12 But such expansion of the scope of fides did not affect a more basic distinction, between the enunciation and implementation of pol icy in matters basically political and in doctrinal issues properly so called. This distinction became significant as the government of the church assumed a more sophisticated character. The old conciliar ad ministration was not well-suited to centralized governmental regula tion, and, desiring to create an effective bureaucracy controlled by Rome, the centralized government sought to dispense with the forms as well as the reality of an administration based upon conciliar con sultation. Thus the Roman council, like the office of the papacy, be came differentiated from other governmental organs. In an. extra ordinary occurrence in the mid-eleventh century, under the succes sors of Leo IX it became an annual event; while Gregory VII as serted that to the Roman pontiff alone belonged the right of com·en ing a general counciJ.1 3 Concurrently, it may be noted that the con vocation of such an assembly thus tended to attach to the person of the caller rather than to the scope either of attendance or of bJ..lsi ness and that the prerogative of calling a general council became as sociated with the pope's status as universal. Consequently, such con vocation became a right exercised by convenience rather than deter minedby duty, and the Roman council graduaiiy lost its status as a universal governmental body. 14 In this process the development of canon law played an essential role; the collection of decrees by curial canonists emphasized the Roman primacy, and in addition such col lections, properly utilized, amounted in fact to readily controllable universal judgment. Thus, the advances in canon law and the forrnu lation of a more complete and systematic canon of ecclesiastical reg-: ulation aided transformation in the character of ecclesiastical admin istration; the applicat,ion of canonical norms frequently eliminated the .. 26 CHURCH HISTORY need for a meeting with the capacity to resolve a particular causa. Canon law manuals might thus serve not only as guides for the ac tivity of a council but also as substitutes for the council itself.15 In the area of doctrinal definition, like other governmental mat ters, the papacy asserted both a claim to primacy and the imple mentation of such a claim. In the implementation of their claim to primacy in doctrinal definition, the popes were aided by the inability of local authorities to deal adequately with contemporary problems, for the educational shortcomings of the episcopacy made these pre lates quite unable to cope with the doctrinal complexities which ac companied the flowering of interest in dialectic. Berengar of Tours was not alone in complaining that he was misunderstood/6 for Ros celin, Abelard, and Gilbert of la Poree, as well ,1s their supporters, likewise lamented the incapacity of soi-disa11t authorities.17 The in adequacy of old methods oi synodal im·estigation was evident at Bari in 1098, when the Latin position on the Trinity found 8.n adequate defense only due to the chance attendance of Sair~t Ansc1m. 18 The De processioue was the result of requests to the archbishop that he set down his arguments deli,·ered at that council/9 and the De trinitatc reflects the failure of the council at Soissons in 1093 to define ad equately the anti-Rosccllinist posrtion. 20 The papacy responded to the need for learned counsel in defining questions of faith, while at the same time taking ad,·antage of the inability of the episcopacy to provide such aid from its own ranks; thus \Villiam of Champeaux was summoned to the council of Troyes in 1107, while in 1148 Eu gene Ill called his synod in the north, so that he might utilize the learning of the French scholars.21 In theology as in church govern- ment generally Rome was able by the mid-twclft:h century to func· tion as universal authority, and to oppose to tlY~ particularism of episcopal contentions the assertion that Rome alone might decide a doctrinal controversy. 22 But in the matter of doctrine lay a hidden hindrance to the Ro man primacy, for the intricacies of theological problems were in many wa:ys unique, and hardly similar to other governmental concerns; the theologian could not be declared orthodox or hereticai according to pre-formulated standards so easily as could the erring prelate be judged simoniac or the warring lord a violator of the treuga Dei. Thus in the area of doctrinal decision alone it was necessary to retain the coun cil, that is, a body meeting for mutual determination, or at least mu tual advice, with regard to the solution of a particular problem. As a result, in the case of theology, the centralized Roman authority had to maintain a direct relation with conciliar audition and legislation, and the problem of doctrinal enunciation continued to be linked- not only with a council, but with a Roman, and hence a general coun cil. Two important facts may then be noted. In the first place, dur- CONCILIUM GENERALE AND STUDIUM GENERALE 21 ing the twelfth century the association of doctrinal decisions with a general council was in fact a gratuitous occurrence, stemming from the inability in this instance alone to substitute a fixed canonical rule for a conciliar decision, and from the consequent necessity of retain ing an advisory board. Fides then did not at this time stand as a · category of questions apart, nor did doctrinal concerns alone hold universal significance; rather, theological enunciation persisted in the twelfth century as the only category of questions relevant to eccle siastical supervision which still, and in fact increasingly, required consultation. This circumstance combined by chance with the chang ing conception of a general council as a papal council, while the ca nonical formulations of the twelfth century rigidified the status of this as of so many definitions. Secondly, the failure of the papacy to subsume this one class of problems to its sole aegis was compounded by the application of Roman law principles to ecclesiastical admin istration, for such principles tended to reflect a conception of papal power and rule not monolithic but deriving essentially from con sent ;23 here again the inability to apply fixed canonical norms to doc trinal issues impeded papal assertions, for canonical collections where applicable possessed the aura of regulations having at some time re ceived universal approbation. Thus, by the inclusion and transforma: tion of Roman law principles, the chance identification of general council and fides came to present a unique problem for the papacy, since now the calling of a general council became not only a conve nience, but the sine qua. 110n for doctrinal im·estigation and regulation.24 As a result of these developments, two problems faced the Ro man see. How might the papacy subject the activities of an advisory council to the interests of a Rome-oriented church, and yet retain the consultative capacity which had been shown to be necessary to suc cessful doctrinal elucidation and regulation? How could the legal requirement of a general council in a question of fides be reconciled with the Rome-directed requirements of a centralized authority? The solution to both problems lay in the development of a stand ing committee of experts, dependent directly upon the papacy, and endowed with the legal status of a concilium genera/e. Indeed, the source for such a group had long existed. Eugene Ill had used the skills of the Parisian masters in the case of Gilbert of la Poree,25 and Alexander III had done similarly in the instance of Peter Lom bard.26 The Parisian schools had over many years acquired great reknown as centers for arbitration,27 while on the other hand the need to discipline the content of doctrinal teaching at Paris had been felt . even in the twelfth century.28 At this time no legal differentiation existed between the schools of Paris and other 'ecclesiastical schools, . but by the action of the third Lateran council in 1179 the way was 9 opened for a closer St\bjection of teaching in general by the papacy/ . 28 CHURCH HISTORY while already in 1177 some papal supervision of theological curriculum was being given.3° From this position of negative surveillance to one of positive utilization was a smaii step, especially facilitated in 1200 by the recognition gi\·en to the Parisian scholars by Philip Augustus.31 The function of the University of Paris in papal eyes was the proper education of the ecclesia,32 but this was a broad goal which must be attained in se\·eral ways. The university must clearly transcend the function common to all episcopal schools, that of a training ground for future pastors.33 Thus, soon after the foundation of the Uni versity of Paris the usefulness of such an institution in the promul gation of orthodox doctrine was clear. By 1207 Innocent III had limited the number of theology masters to eight,34 by 1219 Honorius III had forbidden the study of ci\·il law at Paris.35 The legate Rob ert of Cour<;on, in his publication of university ~:;tatutes in 1213, made reference to the special position which Paris, occupied in the eyes of the pope. 36 The pope kne\v. well what he was about. Innocent had himself studied at Paris ;37 'in 1205 it was to Paris that he turned when seeking for proponents of reformation in the Greek east,38 as did Honorius III, looking for similar aid for Toulouse in 1217.39 But the University of Paris sen·ed a further function, and one in which this institution was not only preerninent but unique, namely, the very definition of doctrine. In earlier cases where Parisian mas ters attended conciliar meetings, they had served only as consultants to the assembly; even in 1206, in the condemnation of Amalric of Bene, while the pope made use of Parisian learning in bringing sen tence,40 the later condemnation of the Amalricians reverted to Cl. local form of action, taking place at a proyincial council (at which, in deed, the presence and activity of the Parisian masters is note-· worthy) ;41 and the teachings of Amalric were finally condemned by a general council, that of the Lateran in 1215,42 which was also con cerned with giving universal authority to several other theological definitions.43 But e\·en at this time the status of the theology facu1ty at Paris was chanain 1. Cf. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiae X, general councils a.nd the writings of v on Constantine's motivation in sum the Fathers; in the last session the moning the first Nicene council. prelates gave a judgment opposed to 2. This form of meeting is clearly appar the Type on the basis of the evidence ent by the fifth century, and may be heard. See J. D. l\Iansi ed., Sacrorum observed at Ephesus. See the Acta, ed. conciliorum no-t:a et amplissima collec H. R. Percival, in Select Library of tio (Venice, 1759-li98), X, 863 ff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, XIV Gratian 's view of imperial attendance (New York, 1900), 197-224. Where the at ancient councils is not irrelevant: whole body was too unwieldy, or where '' [u]binam legistis, inperatores ante imperial manipulation of the decision cessores vestros sinodalibus conventibus was desired, a. smaller assembly might interfuisse, nisi forsitan in quibus de be used; this was probably Justinian's fide tracta.tum e&t, que u1tiversalis est, plan in the matter of the Three Chap que omnium communis es.t, que non ters. Cf. C. J. Hefete and H. Leelercq, solum ad clericos, vera.m etiam ad Histoire des CQilciles, IIIl (Paris, laicos et ad omnes pertinet Christi 1909), p. 66. anos t '' (Decretum, ed. E. Friedberg, 3. Perhaps the best e:rnmple of this char in Corpus iuris canonici, .I [Leipzig, acteristic procedure may be found 1879], 338). in the council culled to Rome in 649 4. The council at Orleans in 549 opposed by Pope Martin on the Monothelete Monophvsitism in its first canon question. During the first three sessions (Mansi,.IX, 1~9), but the tenor of ~[er~ the synod heard the Monothclete writ ovingiru1 conciliar activity is best ings, then the definition of the five epitomized by reftJrence to canon one 32 CHURCH HISTORY of the council helcl at C'lcrmont in :133, dorff, Registrum, fiir die deutsche whirh hl'hl that no busines:'l might be Geschichte [Iena., 18-!9], I, no 5). t.'lken up by a counc·il until qncsticHis 11. Cf. W. Ullma.nn, The Growth of Papal of morals had bec•n dealt with pransi, Got·ernmcnt in the .Middle .Ages (Lon· YIII, SGO). don, 1955), espec. eh. 9. 5. Cf J. de Gh,•llinek, Le mourfnwnt 12. By 1113 the question of lay investiture th,-.,z,,gi,1uc d11 X I I c si,·cr~ (Brug<'s, was commonly considered in terms of 1948), pp. 50-51, lOt ff. heresy, either long-standing (cf. God 6. D~o,luinus Ll'<'•lirns:s epi><:Clpll<, Epis frey of Vendome, Libel!us I, in MGH tola (in J. ~igne ed., Pal rolooine Libelli de lite, II [Hanover, 1891], Latina [Pari~, 1844-lSG!], CXI.\'1), 680 633) or by recent but proper deci· H39, a pl~a to king Henry I sion (thus, Placidius of N onantulana, of France for a puhli~ conful:ltion of Liber de honore ecclcsiae, ibid., p. 590). the Bt·rengarian herctin, tempered :For an opposing view, cf. Ivo of Chart with a fear lt>st such a m.-ding estab res, Epistola, ibid., p. 649. Cf. the wid li~h the prrr<'Jent of cordl'n1ning a ening of the definition of faith in the bishop (in this C:l.'e, Ensl'bius Bruno twelfth aml thirteenth centuries de of Ang~rs) without the authori~)- of x riLed in J. T. Me X eill, "The Emer: Romt'. gt>nce of Conciliarism," .lledie·val ana i. On Brioucle, Dura.n tati.! et de incarnatione Verbi (PL, ini paper s{M)ciale habuissemus manda CLVIII), 262 ff. tum, ut statui PariRicnsium scolarium 21. P. Feret, La faculte de theologie de in melius reformando irnpendcremug Pari.! et ses docteurs les plus celebres ope ram officiam ... " (CUP, I, no. 20; en moyen age, I (Paris, 1894), 1. p. 78). 22. An excellent illustration is the case of 37. H. Rashdall, The Universities of Gilbert of la Poree. In 1141 Innocent Europe in the Midd/r Ages. edd. F. ~[. II had permitted the decision made Powickc and A. B. Emdcn, I (Oxford, _against Abelard by the French prelates 1936), 300. at Sens to stand (see Bernard of 38. CUP, I, no. 3. Clairvaux, Epistolae (PL, CLXXXII), 39. CUP, I, no. 25. nos. 194 (of Innocent II) and 337. 40. Thus, Rigonl, speaking of Arnalric 's But seven years later the cardinals teachings, says '' ...(c]um igitur in vigorously opposed Bernard 's influence hoc ei ab omnibus catholicis uni\·ergal· in the affair of Gilbert, stating that iter contradicc-retur, do necessitate ac ''ipsa. [Rome] sola de fide catholica cesit ad sununum pontificem, qui, discutere habens a nullo, etiam absens, audita ejus propositiono et unh·ersita in hoc singulari' honore preiudicium tis scholarium contradictiono, scnten pati potest... " (Ottonus et Rahewinus, tiavit contra ipwm... " ( Gesta Phil Gesta Frederici I Imperatoris (:MGH lippi Augusti, ed. H. F. Delaborde Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in [Paris, 1882], I, 230). 1L8Um scholarium (Hanover, 1912) ], 41. Chronologia Robcrti A /tissiodorensis, in pp. 85 ff.) :Receuil des historicns des Gaules et de 23. Cf. J. B. Moyle ed., bnperatoris Iustin la France, ed. M. Bouquet et al. (Pari~, iani Institutionum (Oxford, 1923), lib. 1736-1876), XVIII, 219. " .•.Congre I, Lit. 2; pp. 102-103. gato igitur episcoporum concilio, as 24. Thus, already, Placidius of Nonantu sidentibus magi~tris Parisiensibus, pro lana, Liber de honore ecclesiae, palantur eo rum ineptiae. . . '' (CUP, p. 629: "(i]n causa fidei sacerdotum I, no. 11). G. C. Capelle, .Autour de debet esse collatio..• " Cf. B. Tierney, decret de 1210: Ill . .Amaury de Bene; Foundations of the Conciliar Theory etude sur son pantheisme forme! (Paris, (Cambridge, England, 1955), p. 53. 1932). 25. See note 21, above. 42. Constitution 2, in Conciliorum Oecu 26. Annales :Reicherspergenses (MGH, SS, menicorum decreta, pp. 207-209. XVII), 471. 43. Cf. Constitutions 1 and 2, ibid., pp. 27. Thus, in 1169, Thomas Becket offered 206-209. to submit his quarrel with Henry II 44. H. Rashdall, QP. cit., pp. 304 ff. ''. . .judicio curie domini sui regis 45. Innocent Ill, Epistolae (PL, CCXV), Francorum vel judicio ecclesie Galli no. 140. Writing to Thomas, patriarch cane, aut scolarium Parisiensium. . . '' of Constantinople, in 1206, Innocent Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, says " ...[l]icet igitur... qua post edd. H. Denifle and A. Chatelain, I ulasti a nobis ut donationes eccle,iarum (Paris, 1889), part i, no. 21; cf. ibid., . . • a dilecto filio, P ., . • . apostolicae i, no. 29. sedis legato, factas, te praesente, ac 28. CUP, I, part i, no. 3. Cf. P. Jaffe, penitus inconsulte, cum nimiam multi :Regesta pontificum :Romanorum ab tudinem ecclesiarum contulerit, easque condita ecclesia ad an?VUm post Christ jure pcrpetuo, absque tuo consensu et um natum 1198 (Leipzig, 1888), no. capituli maioris Ecclesiae tradiderit 11809. The variou3 orJi;,ances against possiuendns, dignaremur auctoritate indiscriminate theological disputation apostolic a irritare. . . " (col. 960). were not strictly followed. See the let Calling the clergy of Vienne to the ter of complaint sent to the pope be fourth Lateran council, Innocent notes ·tween 1192 and 1203 by Stephen of '' .•• ut quia haec universorum fiuel Tournai (CUP, I, part i, p. 48). ium communem statum respiciunt, 29. G. Post, "Alexander III, the Licentia generale condlium jnxt:t priscam sanc docendi and the Rise of the Universi torum patrum consuPtudinum convoce ties," Anniversary Essays in Medieval mus ... "(Mansi, XXII, 960). On this History by Students of Charles Homer characteristic of Lateran IV, cf. Haskins, edd. C. H. Taylor and J. L. B. . Tierney, op. cit., p. 47. On the La Monte (Boston, 1929), pp. 255-277. general legislative tenuency under 30. CUP, I, part i, no. 9. Innocent Ill, ,V. Ullmann, Jledieeal 31. OUP, I, no. 1. Papal ism: the Political Theories of 32.' Thus, the "parens scientiarum" of the Medieval Canonists (London, 1949), Gregory IX, in 1231 (CUP, I, no. 79). pp. 21-22, note. 4. 33. Lateran III, canon 18 (Conciliorum 46. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum decreta, p. Oecumenicorum decreta (Rome, 1962], 215. p. 196). Lateran IV, constitution 11 47. Many interpretations have been- made (ibid., p. 210). of papal aims in establishing control 34. CUP, I, no. 5. over the University of Paris. On the in 35. CUP, I, no. 32. tent from the start to make a unh·ersal 36. " ••.Noverint universi quod eum do m- theological center, A. Luchairc, L'Uni- 34 CHURCH HISTORY t·asit( d.- r.1ri.s SOilS Phili;>pc-A "!l!l.