Logo DBNL
The Modern Devotion (1968)

The Modern Devotion

(1968)–R.R. Post–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism


Vorige Volgende

P. The Struggle. Suspension from Preaching

Unfavourable reaction there certainly was, but at first it seemed that Groote had gained success. Joyfully he informed his friend Salvarvilla of the details.1 It must have been a disappointment for Groote, to judge from his answering letter, Number 202 that his friend and teacher did not share his enthusiasm. We shall return to this letter presently.

Something much more serious had occurred! Probably around September or the beginning of October 1383, the bishop of Utrecht, Floris von Wefelinkhoven (1379-1399) issued a decree forbidding all deacons to preach. Groote however, concluded that this decree was directed only against him since the other deacons, one after the other, had permission to preach restored to them.3 He wrote this plainly to the bishop, not concealing that in his opinion the clerics and priests with focariae had worked together to obtain this decree.4 This measure of the bishop hampered Groote in a great part of his task, preaching, and it is no wonder that he and his friends, in their attempt to regain permission for Groote to preach, stressed his success and the maintenance of the doctrine of the Bible, Tradition and Church. Groote testified to this openly,5 wrote a letter to the bishop6 and one to a friend, a certain Bernard who was to further his cause in Rome.7 Salvarvilla in the meantime was composing a petition for Pope Urban VI and one for a chamberlain.8 Only that of Salvarvilla to the Pope is dated, on 21st October 1383. The others must have been composed at around the same time. It was a worthy action which is interesting for various reasons. It shows principally how greatly Groote desired to be allowed to preach again. It also clearly demonstrates what he desired or con-

sidered as unimportant, and how deeply he was convinced of his orthodoxy.

During this period1 Groote visited Liège, probably to speak with Salvarvilla, who did not refuse to help him.2 The document which Salvarvilla drew up to be presented to the Pope was very suitable for its purpose, composed by someone who knew the ropes. He began by listing the studies of the suppliant Groote, the deacon. After completing his course in the faculty of letters, he was instructed in two other high faculties (theology and canon law). He gave up his prebend and his considerable paternal inheritance, retaining only a small income to provide the necessities of life. He was completely dead to the world. He was in addition a persecutor of heretics, a zealot for the unity of the Church and a fiery preacher against the faults of both laity and clergy. He receives nothing from those for whom he preaches. This man asks no temporal or ecclesiastical benefice, but only requests that he should be given instruction to preach, under papal authority, so that he might be able to do so freely and without opposition. In Salvarvilla's opinion it would be fitting if the pope conferred on Groote the authority to preach, and at the same time commissioned him to start an inquisition into the heretics. Furthermore he should be allowed to propagate the canonical vindication of pope Urban VI in the province of Cologne or at least in the diocese of Utrecht. Thus, to the request to be allowed to preach he added two further matters which would give particular proof of his zeal for Urban VI.

In this way Groote's affair almost becomes that of pope Urban VI, and on top of this Salvarvilla cunningly conceals the fact that the bishop of Utrecht had forbidden Groote to preach.3 Groote needed only an extension of his territory and his task. It was Cologne that mattered and at least Utrecht.

Florens Radwijns would give the letters for the pope and for his chamberlain to a certain priest called Bernard, who was due to leave shortly for Rome, and would further Groote's cause. At the same time he would also give him two guilders in Groote's name. This letter was intended to accompany the two already mentioned4 of which Groote

gave a short resumé. In neither of these is there any mention of being forbidden to preach. Groote added three requests. He would like to have an altar stone, if one could easily be obtained, so that Low Mass could be said upon it in the presence of himself and his companions (the Brethren of the Common Life) and so that he, if he ever became a priest, could celebrate Mass on it. Further that a good man should be given the general authority to grant a dispensation to the notorious fornicatores who were suspended according to the general law, and who, if they had celebrated during their suspension, had in the opinion of many scholars incurred irregularity. There are only a few who hold a different view. Around Easter of the following year, 10th April 1384, he continues, the provost of the Cathedral Chapter of Liège, Jean Sillis, Doctor of Law, will go to Rome, where he has been the referendary of the pope. ‘I have discussed the matter of the fornicatores with him and believe that he would be willing to cooperate in obtaining this authority. Such an authority might perhaps be granted to the cantor, i.e. Salvarvilla, or the provost, and I believe that the provost will gladly give his assistance for my case (i.e. permission to preach). But he hopes that your zeal and that of the chamberlain will at least obtain the permission to preach before the provost arrives at the Curia.’

‘I am not especially interested in the honorary chaplaincy.1 My spirit is entirely set upon the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. If however the opportunity easily presents itself, and the chamberlain or provost show themselves favourably disposed to obtain it, you may attempt it.’ Then comes the description of Groote's attitude towards pope

Urban of Rome. Bernard has to know this exactly since he will surely be questioned about it. The matter in question is to appoint a preacher with the commission to defend pope Urban. For the contents see page 151 where this letter is discussed in connection with Groote's ideas on the schism.

Groote then goes on to mention a certain power, but impresses on him to keep everything secret. Then the pastor of souls comes again to the fore. Time is short, eternity long. ‘I should in the end desire more the good state of your soul than any thing you might obtain from the Pope.’ He ends with a not unimportant reflexion on the priesthood and the cura animarum: ‘You know that the priesthood is a lofty undertaking and demands a pure conscience, but in these latter days (from the decline of the world) and even if viewed solely from the spiritual side, the cura animarum is dangerous for anyone who wishes to enter the kingdom of heaven. For a person is scarcely sufficient for himself, seeing how charity grows cold and the unrighteousness of many is great. What St. Bernard said in his time is even more true now that the world is growing evil and old.’ Here too there is no word about the prohibition from preaching although this Bernard must have been well aware of it.1 Most significant, besides the permission to preach, is the request for an altar-stone and the slight value he attached to the honorary chaplaincy. On the other hand he continued to fear the responsibility of the pastor's task. One strange item is the request for power to grant dispensations in the question of the fornicarii. What does he mean by this? Not, naturally, that anyone who had received the dispensation could carry on as before and live as a married man. It seems to me that dispensation could be granted in the case if any irregularity was incurred, since the scholars were not unanimous on this subject. At the same time we receive here the first indication that some church scholars opposed him, and precisely on this point, that the celebration of Mass by a priest in a state of suspension was necessarily and eo ipso followed by irregularity.

At or around this time Groote also wrote the above-mentioned letter to the bishop of Utrecht, with the object of having the prohibition to preach withdrawn in some way or other.2 He began by pointing out the evangelical and apostolic doctrine he had preached, directed principally against heretics, usurers and clergy with focariae and always with the permission of the pastor. It had borne good fruit. Now this

permission to preach had been withdrawn at the instigation of the focarists, to the joy of the heretics and focarists. Groote would have preferred to devote himself to study, but love for his neighbour and zeal for the house of the Lord had compelled him to preach. He desired greatly to be allowed to continue.

If he could not obtain special permission, he asked that the pastors should be given the right, according to the custom in Utrecht, to allow him to preach in their churches. If it really was the intention to forbid him to preach then he humbly requested that the origins and reasons for such a prohibition should be revealed to him and that he should not be deprived of the right without any warning. He is prepared to give an account of his preaching and to support what he proclaims with the writings of the saints. If necessary he is prepared to lay the question before the pope. He did not mention that he was already working to obtain authority to preach from the pope, or was preparing such a step.

In the paper which was intended to be distributed he also testified to his orthodoxy, his obedience to the Holy See and to the bishop.1 That which is de fide he has preached and defended as the sure and untainted Catholic faith. In the domain of morals he has also taught the established and indisputable evangelical and apostolic doctrine according to the divinely inspired scriptures. In this he has followed the works of Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, Jerome, Chrysostom, Dionysius, Bernard, Bede, Isidore and Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, whose books he - together with those of others - esteemed above the temporal and sought to obtain. ‘What I have written concerning human law and the matter of the Decretum and the Decretals especially with regard to the scandalous notorious fornicators will, I hope, be found by lawyers to be certainly or probably as I have presented it.’ He is ready to subject himself to the Pope and will also give to the bishop the honour due to him. This latter, however, only with the reservation which Bernard made to the pope, namely that our bishop is either deceived by lies or overcome by attacks2 which caused him a great deal of trouble.

The affair began to assume unpleasant proportions. Groote attempted, by means of small publications and the formulating of theses, to make his opinions clear. We have first of all the 24 articles which, apart from their sequence, show great similarity to the 26 of the treatise. In a Parisian manuscript they are attributed to Konrad of Soltau, at first a professor in Prague and later in Heidelberg, who outlived Groote by

several years.1 On the basis of this Tiecke suggests that these 24 articles, whether written by Groote or Soltau, were the basis, the preliminary sketch, of the sermon. Tiecke bases his opinion on a letter by Groote,2 in which he writes that he intends to come to Utrecht shortly to publish an apologia against the notorious fornicatores and ‘I then propose to return to Deventer in order to compose the piece as soon as I am free.’ The 24 articles would therefore be displayed in Utrecht and, thus fortified, Groote would have been able to elaborate them in Deventer. This would have been the origin of the sermon and the treatise. This work, which Groote calls an apologia, had still to be composed at the time of writing the letter. However, according to my study of the chronology of Gerard Groote's letters,3 this letter must have been composed not on March 17th 1383, as suggested by Mulder, but on April 5th 1384. This does away with the grounds for this opinion. In any case the word apologia can hardly refer to Groote's sermon, which was certainly given before the end of 1383, apart entirely from the fact that the meaning of the word would scarcely admit of such an interpretation. Tiecke derives his other argument from the fact that some manuscripts contain the mention: ‘I shall set down more carefully a paper on these matters which is partly ready so that all may know at once the roots with the branches.’4 It seems to me, however, that these words might apply equally well to a later document as to the sermon. The 24 articles were not the actual document referred to as the apologia but contained the matter to be dealt with in this document. It may have been the sermon, but can also have been a later writing, the treatise of the apologia in question. The other documents against the focarists have been described by Tiecke5 and at roughly the same time by T. Brandsma,6 who was also responsible for editing them.7 They are: Magistri Gerardi Groet ad et contra obiecta,8 Videntur fornicarii presbiteri which is shown by the inscription Quedam extracta ex quodam sermone cuiusdam sollemnis doctoris utriusque iuris (in margine G. Groote), to be by someone other than Gerard Groote himself, someone who

was making an abstract of the sermon.1 Finally the Quinque puncta, the five points, of which we possess the Latin text in two and the Dutch text in three manuscripts,2 published by T. Brandsma.3 The conclusion testifies that it is a work written by Groote himself: ‘In a sermon which I openly held at a synod in the cathedral of Utrecht I have expounded discursively and in detail upon these five theses or points held by me and many others on this matter and proved them by quotations from the sacred canons and the law and by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures and the doctors in theology. I afterwards wrote it (the sermon or treatise) down and give it to be copied by anyone who desires to write it and to copy it.’4

This last remark alone is extremely interesting. Groote wishes to disseminate this work. At his own order he had the treatise5 copied by two of the first Brethren of the Common Life at Zwolle, Wichman Ruerink and Jacob Hermanus, and destined this copy for John Cele. Poor Cele was obliged to pay for it himself but according to Groote he would be pleased to have it. Anyone who showed an interest in it could obtain it: ‘But I leave the choice to them.’6 Thus wrote Groote after July 5th 1384. The distribution was then in full swing. His promotion of this thesis shows that Groote clung to his opinion and withdrew nothing of what he had said. The Brethren therefore could speak out boldly against the notorious fornicators, so long as they keep to his document.6 The minor writings just mentioned also display Groote's steadfastness in this struggle. In the five points Groote starts by expressing his opinion that the validity of the sacraments was not affected by the fact that the officiant is a suspended, excommunicated, priest, under the interdict and removed from his office. That is the first point. The second point is a resumé of the sermon in which he states in the plainest terms that he is referring to the fornicator who is notorious by evidence of the fact, i.e. without a pronouncement by the judge. The third point (tertium meum) is similar to Chapter II of the Sermo: anyone who knowingly and willingly assists at the mass of such a notorious fornicator, is committing mortal sin. Here Groote relies principally on the authority of St. Thomas. The fourth point coincides with Chapter

III of the sermon: Although the prelates tolerate such priests who are fornicators, one must shun them and not assist at their masses. The fifth point on the other hand, which concerns both the clergy and the laity, coincides with Chapters IX, X and XI of the second section which deals mainly with scandal and charity to one's neighbours. By conversing with a suspect woman either inside or outside the house, both clergy and laymen, without there being any question of carnal sin, may yet commit mortal sin by giving scandal.1

The piece: Videntur fornicatores presbiteri notorii ex multis causis de iure divino sive de nobis moribus vitandi, is written in the spirit of Groote's sermon, but in my view not derived from it, notwithstanding the inscription: quedam extracta ex quodam sermone. The first piece however (No. 1) coincides to some extent with Chapters XVIII and XXIII, No. 3 with Chapter XV.

The only piece of writing against Groote's thesis which has come down to us was discovered and published by Brandsma.2 It is evidently directed against the sermon and the treatise and not against the five points.3 Contrary to the opinion developed by Groote in his first chapters, this lawyer considers that the consequences for the notorious fornicator (suspension, expulsion) only hold good if the fornicator is declared as such by a judge. He thinks that the pieces quoted by Groote must be interpreted differently. Moreover, the general practice is different. Besides, it is absurd, since the enemies of the clergy (laity) have the right to expel an undesired priest. So long as the Church tolerates the fornicator, the faithful may receive the divine sacraments from him.4 In reply to the second chapter of the sermon he says simply that the person sins who assists at the mass of a fornicator whose suspension has been declared by the judge. To Chapter III the writer objects that, as St. Bernard has declared, one may receive the sacraments from any evildoer.5 The authoritates of the fourth Chapter, who say that the priest who celebrates mass becomes irregular, are matched by texts from other authoritative persons. The jurist also employs this method with the fifth chapter, saying that only the pope may grant a dispensation to such an irregular priest to say mass; he counters authority with authority.

In the face of this opinion Geert Groote insists that according to the canones the notorious fornicator is established as such per evidentiam rei, and that the theory quoted by his opponent is hackneyed. He is amazed that anyone should wish to abandon the theory approved by so many doctors, theologians and lawyers on the strength of opinions uttered by the ignorant, laymen and those with no knowledge of the law. It would be a dangerous matter for you, says Groote, to hold such an opinion, if it should come to the ears of the pope.1 ‘It is not only Thomas who supports this theory, but all the foregoing whom I have quoted in the Sermo.’ No lawful custom to the contrary can exist in the face of the doctors, the ecclesiastical law, the trials and synodal statutes and the punishments.

In this manner, Groote undermined the arguments of his opponents. He did not deal with the two succeeding problems, namely that the notorious fornicator in question becomes irregular through celebrating mass and that in such a case only the pope can grant a dispensation. He will have been convinced that here his opponent had only countered one authority with another, and that no refutation was necessary. It does not seem needful here to refer to the concluding remark of the piece as though Groote had not completed his answer, surprised as he was by death, since the answer was found after his death, written on a few sheets of paper. In his own opinion he had sufficiently refuted his opponents' arguments. It does not say either that he had not completed his answer, but that it might contain errors. Groote indeed did not release it for publication.

Brandsma assumes that this piece is the same as the scriptum mentioned in letter 54,2 a writing directed against his dicta (chapters), which was probably sent rather to the canons of Groenendaal than to Groote. This is possibly but not necessarily true. Groote asserts that he was surrounded by all sorts of barking dogs. It may thus be that others too wrote against his theories. Or perhaps these barking dogs did not bite? Be that as it may, Groote would be glad to have the piece mentioned in letter 54. He could then accept what was good in it, but chiefly refute what was wrong. It is clear in the meantime that his opponents too did not consider it permissible to keep focariae and that something would have to be done about these situations. The only opponent we know of found that Groote went too far in making the legal consequences of such a life on the part of a priest dependent only on sufficient know-

ledge of the reprehensible fact. According to this opponent the application of the sentence had to be preceded by a juridical pronouncement. He also thought that in certain cases the bishop might give a dispensation (i.e. give permission to hear the mass of such a priest). We know, moreover, that Groote commenced the struggle on August 14th 1383, that he was forbidden to preach in October 1383 and that the conflict had not yet died down in July 1384. Shortly before this last date, on April 5th 1384, Groote wished to write an apologia against the publications, probably an apologia of his sermon against the Focarists. I would not be able to state which of the above mentioned works Groote wrote in April or May or later. It may have been the elaboration of his sermon for, as we saw, publication was still at its height in July 1384 and it was only then that John Cele received a copy.1 But was this indeed an apologia? Does not he himself call his sermon the dicta and is this not also rather late? He had already been forbidden to preach in October 1383. But what remains. It is extremely probable that Groote did not manage to write an apologia in the period after Easter 1384. Groote's letters to Salvarvilla and the latter's replies shed some light upon the course of the struggle and Groote's successes.

It is certain that Groote very quickly informed his friend and teacher of the situation. This will have been some time before 21st October 1383, the date of Salvarvilla's petition to the Pope.2 Groote was in Liège before this date - at least he spoke with the cathedral provost there concerning the fact of the fornicatores.3 He probably also met Salvarvilla. Shortly afterwards he must have written to Salvarvilla on this matter, in a document which preceded letter No. 20. This last must be dated at the end of 1383 or the beginning of 1384, in any case before 3rd February 1384. At the time of writing this letter Groote was fairly optimistic about the result achieved by his sermon in Utrecht. Salvarvilla did not share this optimism and replied in a letter which also precedes No. 20, and to which No. 20 is a reply: ‘What you wrote,’ says Groote to Salvarvilla, ‘about the concubinarii is true; not all have been converted, but all have been reproved and the conscience of many has been touched.’4 This was not enough for Groote, however, and therefore he continues: ‘Believe me, many have simply improved their lives, those whose hearts have been touched by God. Many are more

careful in their actions. For many the fornicarii are a scandal, many shun their offices. The mouths of those who wished to defend the fornicarii and who are worse than they, are stopped. Before, doubt reigned, now certainty. A few of the chapterhouses of canons in Utrecht have been purged, others are still infected. The mouths of the heretics, who mocked the Church on account of these people, are stopped. The sin or scandal is no longer attributed to the Church; indeed, even all her opponents see that the Church is holy and her doctrine sure, no matter how her prelates and priests behave. The change for the better comes from God, but the reproof also comes from the people. “Groote makes this clear by various examples from the Bible and ecclesiastical history. Notably he refers to the actions of Gregory VII, Alexander II, Nicolas II and Urban II, from the history of the purification of the Church before and during the investiture struggle.” Must not we too work to purify the church. And if she cannot become completely whole, is it not worth the trouble to bear the lepra, prolong life and guard others from infection? You know, father, that according to the prophet of the Apocalypse the decline of the Church at the end of time will come through the deeds of the spiritual Nicolaites and through the teaching of Balaam, joined with the impure priests; yea, it is already pointed with the finger. Is not that being demonstrated in vain at the present time, which has already been so long predicted? And if no other good should be achieved than the pronouncement that the fall of the Church and the profusion of evils have proceeded from the remissness of those have gone before and not from the teaching or structure of the Church, then it seems to me that the work has been useful enough. It is clear that we are following not the old worldly life of the clergy, but the true preaching and doctrine of the Church, derived not from the works of the clergy but from the books and from the truth. Indeed, to tell you the truth, things have even come about, beyond my good intention, which I did not dare to imagine. I did not set out to improve the clergy in Utrecht, but openly to proclaim the doctrine of the Church, should there be any who held other ideas. For formerly, superficial Utrecht lawyers were wont to excuse it. It is useful and necessary that the good should have a firm foundation. The Lord reigns, the peoples are incensed. Passive persecution is a true sign of God's people, just as active persecution is a sign of the race of Cain and of the devil, as Chrysostom says at or near the end of his book Operis inperfecti.1’

This was Groote's view of the situation around the turn of the year 1383-1384. Salvarvilla had somewhat different ideas. On February 3rd 1384 he replied: I rejoice that your efforts against the concubinarii have borne and are still bearing fruit, but I pity the devout people who are troubled in their conscience on account of their association with the concubinarii in question. Truly, in my opinion and under correction, although you have acted well, you would have done even better to devote all your energies to working against the schism.1

It was indeed scarcely encouraging. The answer followed quickly, even before 23rd February 1384.2 Groote informed Salvarvilla that the focarists who had sent away their women, were taking them back again. He asked him if he would be willing now to defend the content of his document if he were questioned about it or asked for advice. If he had doubts on any point would he then examine his arguments and at the same time consider what harm the Church suffered through these practices. In his view this abuse was one of the principal causes of the schism. He had aroused the heads of the Church, and insisted that according to the doctors, the simonists and notorious focarists were more and sooner to be shunned than the other public sinners, even though they were tolerated by the prelates. For through them the sons of the Church were corrupted while she herself becomes old and sterile. It is important and fitting that all should confess this unanimously, otherwise we will bring the waters into motion.

As we saw, Groote remained preoccupied with this question until the last day of his life (†20th August 1384). He expressed himself more freely on this matter than on the prohibition to preach, probably hoping that the pope would again give him authority to do so. Did this permission ever come? It was written later that the document was received after his death, but we do not know. The archive of Urban VI has been badly preserved.

In the summer of 1384 Groote continued to work hard and showed interest in his books. Although he no longer preached, his difficulties did not cease: ‘The daily cares leave me no time to set down what I should like, or to write to those to whom I should wish to write, even what I have vaguely promised. I have promised to write on virginity and on other promised essential matters. There is no peace. I write almost nothing, except to reply to some who oppose me. I am ill in my mind and have no time to take care of my body or to write what would

be useful for my meditations. I am very distracted. I am extremely touchy and excitable. I do my best to care for others, but I do not see what helps me.1 Pray for your unhappy and distracted Gerard.’2


Vorige Volgende