Dear Otfried,
First I want to apologize for sending the message on the Beatific Vision
three times, instead of one. I had a conflict with my computer.
The question you raise is interesting. In the first sermon (All Saints
1331) on the Beatific Vision, John XXII draws heavily on Bernard of Clairvaux.
Perhaps this sermon was motivated by personal religiosity, or an
admiration for Bernard of Clairvaux, who knows. But the second sermon,
Second of Advent 1331, is clearly a list of authorities in favor of his
opinion, with an open invitation to discussion to all theologians. It
must have been John's intention already then to open theological
discussion on an undetermined field in theology.
Discussion there would be plenty of, but as I said, only after
the imprisonment of Thomas Waleys the discussion became really heated.
The Dominican order seemed genuinely offended. By 1333, we can see the
pope repeatedly asserting that he never wanted to do anything else than
provoking a debate to settle this point. Was he backing up, or is this
genuine? I think it is the latter, but --unlike e.g. Eco' name of the
Rose-- I admire this "sly fox" John XXII.
I myself think John wanted to provoke a discussion and make an
ecclesiastical determination all along, but he may have underestimated
the furore he would provoke. This furore was partly caused by his own
provocative manner, partly by the offended Dominicans, partly by the role
the University of Paris had assigned to itself (as sole source for
doctrinal decisions), partly by the interesting role the cardinal Annibal
of Ceccano played in the entire conflict (did he aspire the papacy after
John's death ?? After all, John was already in his nineties), and partly by
the conflict John had with part of the Franciscan order.
This makes the Beatific Vision conflict such a fascinating episode:
theological conflicts are rarely purely about theology ... don't take
offense; I did an M.Div. once.
The entire conflict had an interesting aftermath 200 years later: in his
Institutions, John Calvin used this case to argue that popes are not
infallible. But ironically, Calvin had very much the saem beliefs as John
XXII when it comes to the theology of afterlife ...
Bests,
Frans van Liere
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Otfried Lieberknecht wrote:
> Dear Frans,
>
> Thank you very much for your highly instructive presentation of the topic.
> Although I now feel much better informed than before, I still wonder whether
> John XXII did know right from the start what kind of discussion he would
> declench, and on a matter which, as far as I know, was of little concern for
> the actual papal politics (or at least to a much lower degree than, for
> instance, the debate on poverty). Does your interpretation, i.e. that the
> pope made an effort in dogmatic centralization and unification, want to
> imply that it mas a premeditated campaign, and that the topic had been
> chosen maybe exactly in reason of its (relative) political neutrality? Or
> would you say that the initial motive was rather a personal
> theological/spiritual/pastoral concern which only afterwards, when
> unexpected resistance was met, did lead to a more organized attempt to
> assert papal authority?
>
> Otfried
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Otfried Lieberknecht, Schoeneberger Str. 11, D-12163 Berlin
> Tel.: ++49 30 8516675 (fax on request), E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Homepage for Dante Studies:
> http://members.aol.com/lieberk/welcome.html
> ORB Dante Alighieri: A Guide to Online Resources:
> http://orb.rhodes.edu/encyclop/culture/lit/Italian/Danindex.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
Frans van Liere
College of Charleston 0 Bee Street
Charleston SC 29424 Charleston SC 29403
tel. (803) 953-8103 (803) 723-4051
fax (803) 953-6349
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|