Editing Jansenism (section)

==The five propositions==
The opponents of Jansenism wanted ''Augustinus'' to be more thoroughly condemned, since the Jesuits especially considered Jansenism to be [[Heresy|heretical]] in the vein of [[Calvinism]]. {{Interlanguage link|Isaac Habert|lt=Isaac Habert|fr|Isaac Habert|WD=}}, ally of the late Richelieu, who became [[Bishop of Vabres]], published in December 1646 a list of eight propositions taken from the ''Augustinus'' that he considered heretical. A few years later, in 1649, the [[syndic]] of the Sorbonne, [[Nicolas Cornet]], frustrated by the continued circulation of ''Augustinus'', drew up a list of five propositions from the work and two from ''De la fréquente communion'', then asked the Sorbonne faculty to condemn the propositions. Jansen's name was not explicitly mentioned, but it was obvious to all that he was being condemned.<blockquote>The cunning cyndic was careful not to give precise statements, as loyalty made it a duty; he did not attribute these propositions to anyone, and if anyone were to pronounce the name of Jansen, he would even say that it was not a question of him, ''Non agitur de Jansenio'', [It is not about Jansen], whereas inwardly, it was Jansen and him alone who was in question.<ref name="Gazier-1923">{{Cite book |last=Gazier |first=Augustin |year=1923 |title=Histoire générale du mouvement janséniste…, Tome 1 |pages= |language=fr |trans-title=General history of the Jansenist movement, vol. 1}}</ref>{{Rp|page=81}}</blockquote>
Before the faculty could condemn the propositions, the [[Parlement of Paris|''parlement'' of Paris]] intervened and forbade the faculty to consider the propositions. The faculty then submitted the propositions to the [[Assembly of the French clergy]] in 1650. Consequently, Habert wrote to [[Pope Innocent X]] the same year, mentioning five of the initial seven propositions. In his letter, he does not directly mention Jansen, but describes the trouble caused in France by the publication of his work. The five propositions were not formally attributed to Jansen.<ref name="Gazier-1923" />{{Rp|page=84}} The letter provoked controversy; more than ninety French bishops signed it, but it was immediately countered by thirteen Augustinian [[prelate]]s, who wrote a letter of refutation to [[Rome]]. In this letter, the prelates denounced the five propositions as "composed in ambiguous terms, which could only produce heated arguments",<ref>{{Cite book |last=Racine |first=Jean |title=Abrégé de l'histoire de Port-Royal |pages=445 |language=fr |trans-title=Abridged history of Port-Royal}}</ref> and requested the pope to be careful not to condemn Augustinianism too hastily, which they considered to be the official doctrine of the Church on the question of grace. Among these bishops were [[Henri Arnauld]], bishop of [[Angers]] and brother of Antoine Arnaud, and {{Interlanguage link|Nicolas Choart de Buzenval|lt=Nicolas Choart de Buzenval|fr|Nicolas Choart de Buzenval}}, bishop of [[Beauvais]], who would later show fervent support for Port-Royal.<ref name="Gazier-1923" />{{Rp|page=85}} At the same time, Antoine Arnaud openly doubted the presence of the five propositions in the work of Jansen, introducing the suspicion of manipulation on the part of the opponents of the Jansenists.[[File:Portrait of Pope Innocent X (by Diego Velázquez) - Doria Pamphilj Gallery, Rome.jpg|thumb|[[Pope Innocent X]] (1574–1655), Roman pontiff who promulgated ''[[Cum occasione]]'' in 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansenism as heretical]]
The prelates also asked Innocent X to appoint a commission similar to the {{lang|la|[[Congregatio de Auxiliis]]}} to resolve the situation. Innocent X agreed to the majority's request, (that is, the request of the ninety bishops) but in an attempt to accommodate the view of the minority, appointed an advisory committee consisting of five [[Cardinal (Catholicism)|cardinals]] and thirteen [[consultors]] to report on the situation. Over the next two years, this commission held 36 meetings including 10 presided by Innocent X.<ref name="Catholic" /> The supporters of Jansenism on the commission drew up a table with three heads: the first listed the [[Calvinist]] position (which was condemned as heretical), the second listed the [[Pelagian]]/[[Semipelagian]] position (as taught by the [[Molinists]]), and the third listed the correct [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustinian]] position (according to the Jansenists). Nevertheless, in 1653, Innocent X sided with the majority and condemned the propositions, promulgating in the form of a [[papal bull]] the [[apostolic constitution]] ''[[Cum occasione]]''. The first four propositions were declared heretical and the fifth false.

#That there are some commands of God that just persons cannot keep, no matter how hard they wish and strive, and they are not given the grace to enable them to keep these commands;
# That it is impossible for fallen persons to resist interior grace;
# That it is possible for human beings who lack [[free will]] to [[Merit (Catholicism)|merit]];
# That the [[Semipelagianism|Semipelagians]] were correct to teach that [[prevenient grace]] was necessary for all interior acts, including for faith, but were incorrect to teach that fallen humanity is free to accept or resist prevenient grace; and;
# That it is Semipelagian to say that Christ died for all.

The bull was received favourably in France. Some Jansenists including Antoine Arnaud admitted that the propositions are heretical, but argued that they could not be found in ''Augustinus''. They maintained that Jansen and his ''Augustinus'' were orthodox, as they espoused only what Augustine himself taught, and they believed it was impossible that the pope could have condemned Augustine's opinion. Arnauld articulated a distinction as to how far the Church could bind the mind of a Roman Catholic. He argued that there is a distinction between matters ''de jure'' and ''de facto'': that a Roman Catholic was obliged to accept the Roman Catholic Church's opinion as to a matter of law (i.e., as to a matter of doctrine), but not as to a matter of fact. Arnauld argued that, while he agreed with the doctrine propounded in {{lang|la|Cum occasione}}, he was not bound to accept the pope's determination of fact as to what doctrines were contained in Jansen's work. The Jansenists were therefore content with the notion that Jansen himself was not openly condemned, and further that Augustine's doctrine was still considered orthodox. This displeased the [[Jesuits]] and their supporters, who wanted a thoroughgoing condemnation of Jansenism. While the theological problem was technically resolved by Rome, hostility between the Jansenists and the Jesuits became increasingly pronounced.<ref name="Gazier-1923" />{{Rp|page=|pages=91–92}}