In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

110BOOK REVIEWS than a passing reference to the various authorities arguing for or against a particular interpretation. This shortcoming leaves the reader frustrated. William C. Schrader Tennessee Technological University Late Modern European // giansenismo in Italia, Vol. II/l: Roma: La bolla "Auctorem fidei" (1794) nella storia dell'ultramontanismo. Saggio introduttivo e documenti. Edited by Pietro Stella. (Rome: LAS [Librería Ateneo Salesiano], 1995. Pp. cxlii, 745. Lire 80.000.) The bicentenary celebration in 1986 of the Synod of Pistoia under the presidency of Scipione de'Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia and Prato, saw numerous publications on this controversial Synod. The acta of the Synod were republished by the indefatigable Pietro Stella (AtH e decreti del concilio diocesano di Pistoia [2 vols.; Florence, 1986]). Now Stella follows this with a massive volume on the genesis of the papal condemnation of eighty-five propositions from the Pistoia Synod by the bull Auctorem Fidei. There is an explanatory introduction (141 pages) followed by 714 pages of documents, including the correspondence between Ricci and the Pope on the issue of the loyalty of the former to the latter. The dominant theme of the introduction is that behind the condemnation of Pistoia two rather different ecclesiologies were in conflict: the papal,which defined the Church as vertical, and the Pistoian, in which authority was horizontal , or so diffuse as to see in the pope the ministerial head ofthe Church. Stella makes no assertion about the rightness of either interpretation, but it is clear that he attributes no specific unorthodoxy to the decrees of Pistoia except those conditioned by dominant views at a specific historical period, i.e., subordination of the Church to the secular power. When the examination of Pistoia's decrees began, Pius VH considered Summoning an examining commission drawn from all parts of Italy, but at last and perhaps prudentiy in view of widespread Jansenist and regalist tendencies in the several Italian courts he determined that a satisfactory examination could be carried out by Roman clergy. Thus between February, 1789, and September, 1790, the commission held seventy-six sittings, using as a basis for their deliberations the published decrees of the Synod plus a number of anti-Pistoia writings . The examiners were not long in ferreting out theJansenist elements in the decrees, scarcely surprising since many Jansenist works were specifically praised by the Synod, among them die Réflexions morales of Quesnel. Prominent among the examiners was M. Di Pietro, totally incapable ofunderstanding any ecclesiology that was not hierarchical and monarchical with its BOOK REVIEWS111 summit in the pope. Like views were held by Cardinals F. Zelada, V Borromeo, and G. Gerdil. Opposition to this squad of ultramontanes came from G. M. Albertini .O.P, a confirmed devotee of St. Augustine,who stoutiy defended the orthodoxy ofPistoia on matters ofgrace and free will but on other grounds found the Synod unacceptable. Furthermore, Albertini suggested that Di Pietro and those who reasoned similarly were nothing but Molinists. A somewhat reduced commission continued the examination from 1792 until 1794, ultimately producing in the latter year the bull Auctorem Fidei (August 28), condemning eighty-five propositions from Pistoia. Countries other than Spain were slow to accept the bull, but eventually the NeoUltramontanism that developed under Pius LX swept resistance before it so that until the mid-twentieth century hardly a murmur was heard against even the wisdom of the Synod's condemnation. In defense of the Roman position painstaking and scrupulous care was lavished on the examination of Pistoia's decrees. The Synod's decrees contained some glaring inconsistencies. Its recommendation tiiat Italian could on occasion be used as a liturgical language, while not possibly shocking to current practice, could not at all be harmonized with the fact that Italian in the eighteenth century was far from being uniform. That Pistoia explicitly praised the Four Articles ofthe Gallican Clergywas to say the least undiplomatic. Urging the faithful to read works repeatedly condemned by Rome as Jansenist or Philo-Jansenist certainly challenged papal authority in an excessively provocative way. SamuelJ. Miller Boston College (Emeritus) Reform, Revolution and Reaction: Archbishop John Thomas Troy and the Catholic Church in Ireland 1787-1817. By Vincent J. McNaIIy. (Lanham, Maryland: University Press...

pdf

Share