Pierre Blet has dealt with this subject in exhaustive fashion, also availing of non-Vincentian sources like the correspondence of the nuncios; yet he was not aware of the notes of the Chancellor, SÈguier.
Here, I will touch on this subject from another point of view, closer to the life of St. Vincent and his theology of the episcopate, which he touches on without developing it.
At the doctrinal level, the theology of the degrees of the Sacrament of Orders and of the specific nature of the Episcopate is succinct; episcopacy alone confers the fullness of the sacrament of orders, adding to the power to consecrate the Eucharistic Body of Jesus Christ that of sanctifying and directing his Mystical Body (which priests possess only by delegation) and that of ordaining to sacred orders.¯ The Council of Trent defined this in its 23rd session in 1563, in chapter 4, paragraph 3, and in Canon 7.¯ Despite this, as has been the case since the end of the fourth century, some people maintain the equality of priests and bishops, episcopacy being only an honorific and juridical distinction.
In M. Vincentís time, in 1611, the theologian, Edmond Richer (1559-1631), of the Sorbonne, maintained not only that the Church of France should rely more on its assemblies and on the King than on the Pope (Gallicanism), but also that priests were the equals of bishops.¯ While this was condemned and revoked, it did not stop these ideas spreading into the 18th century. ¯M. Vincent was to be resolutely attached to the bishops and to the Pope.
At the practical level, the power of the bishops was limited ‚ on the one hand by the large number of abbeys ënullius,í each with its parishes free of the bishop of the place; ‚ on the other hand, by the right of patronage, which gave certain rights over a church or chapter to someone (ecclesiastic or lay) who had given funds to that church or chapter; ‚ and, finally, in France, by the ëcommendeí (the gift of a ëlivingí or ecclesiastical office) which diverted the revenue and temporal power of dioceses or abbeys to lay-people granted this gift by the king in gratitude for services rendered; they needed only to receive the tonsure.¯ In these cases, the bishop could hardly do anything but ratify the candidates presented to him.¯ Vincent himself had to accept, from 1643, to be Vicar General to the grandnephew of Richelieu, who was the titular abbot of three large abbeys, which governed more than 150 parishes in all.¯ I have been able to receive photocopies of six presentations, all signed in Vincentís hand, to the Bishops of Rouen and Rennes, with regard to parish priests.¯ Moreover, since the time of Charles VII and the ëPragmatic Sanctioní of Bourges, the King of France played a role in the appointment of bishops.
However, the frequency of nomination of unworthy candidates has been exaggerated; the Assemblies of Clergy at the end of the 16th century show that there was a majority of good bishops and even before the participation of St. Vincent, Louis XIII surrounded himself with good advisers, such as the Cardinals de la Rochefoucauld and de Gondi.¯ Above all, approval and signing of bulls of consecration always came back to the Pope, who refused them more than once.
It is in this context that Vincent de Paul lived, completely faithful to the Council of Trent, loyal both to the Pope and the bishops, and, therefore, neither Gallicanist or ëRichÈrist.í
For the complete text visit Vincentiana 2001-6
