Page:William John Sparrow-Simpson - Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (1909).djvu/101

] Ultimately it was arranged that a member of the Sorbonne, Claudius Bertin, should advocate the Gallican side. Bertin began with the syllogism: Whatever contradicts an Ecumenical Council is heresy. Your thesis—the Council is in no case superior to the Pope—contradicts the Ecumenical Council of Constance, therefore it is heresy. At this the Papal Nuncio grew visibly indignant. Bertin's opponent mildly answered: "Do not say this assertion is heretical; it is enough to call it misleading, erroneous." He disclaimed any desire to offend the Faculty of Paris. He only desired to ascertain the truth. And where in all the world could this question be discussed if not within this most famous University? Here Richer, the Syndic, interposed. The Sorbonne had always held the Council of Constance as Ecumenical, and, accordingly, that its decision on the supremacy of the Council over the Pope was a matter of faith.

The discussion was resumed, but ultimately, at Cardinal du Perron's request, and evidently in the Ultramontane interests, brought to an abrupt conclusion. The Parliament of Paris followed this up with an injunction prohibiting the Dominicans from disputes on the Pope's Infallibility.

The Jesuits were so enraged by Richer's action that from that day forward they never gave him peace. They were powerful enough to secure his dismissal from office. But he was a person more easily dismissed than suppressed. He wrote a pamphlet on ecclesiastical and political power, to show that the Church is a monarchy, but its government an aristocracy; for neither the Pope nor the other Bishops can decide matters of importance without the guidance of a Council. The infallible authority in matters of faith rests, he taught, with the Universal Council as representing the Universal Church.