By Chris Jackson
Part I of this series should be read first. Click here: http://traditionalcatholicisminnigeria.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-catholic-resistance-saved-churchand.html
 |
| Pope John XXII |
Papal Reaction
Once ignited, this
crisis in the Church only began to spread like wildfire. So how did Pope John
XXII react?
“It was not long
before vigorous protests and rumours of angry excitement began to pour in upon the Pope from the four
quarters of the globe. Alarmed at the storm he had stirred up, John XXII
sought refuge behind the Scriptures and the Fathers, particularly St.
Augustine. He maintained that he had not advanced the teaching advocated in his
sermons as of his own making, but had taken it from the great Doctors of the
Church, and from the Sacred Text itself…”
Does this sound
familiar? When confronted with the exact same criticism, proponents of the “New
Theology” at Vatican II delivered a very similar response. Although their
theological opinions were indeed novel, they appealed to the often
cherry-picked writings of certain Church Fathers to show that these were not
their own ideas. They even developed a French word for this tactic called
“resourcement.”
The Vatican II
innovators, as well as John XXII, knew that in the early days of Christianity,
the Deposit of Faith was complete but existed in a more general form. As time
passed different novel doctrines were espoused that needed to be condemned. As
a result, the true doctrine was clarified and made more precise to specifically
exclude these false interpretations. Thus Catholic doctrine always “develops” (in
the true sense of the word) in one direction: towards more precision and
clarity, not towards more ambiguity.
Indeed, the Catholic
doctrine on the Beatific Vision had already “developed” for 1330 years under
the Holy Ghost before John XXII entered the picture and this development was
decidedly against his own position. Thus, Pope John leapt over the past 1,000
years of Church Tradition and instead appealed to Scripture and the Early
Church Fathers in order to justify his novel teaching as “traditional.” Since
Scripture and the Early Church fathers dealt with the Beatific Vision in more
general terms and imagery, these were ripe for “reinterpretation.”
Fr. O’Daniel
continues:
“[Pope John
maintained] that he had preached simply as a private theologian, not as Head of
the Church, defining a doctrine to be accepted as of faith; that, consequently,
his opinion, being given as that of a private doctor, was subject to the
judgment and decision of the Church to be approved or condemned, as it may be
found true or false; that, furthermore, the question was open to discussion,
and every theologian was free to accept and to advocate whichever side of the
controversy he should judge to be the true one. He did not, therefore, give
any ex cathedra decision binding the consciences of the
faithful…”
This should also
sound familiar. When pressed, even the most ardent conservative apologist will
admit that neither Vatican II nor any post-conciliar pope has issued any ex
cathedra decision. Second, although the Vatican has insisted on the
acceptance of “Vatican II” without defining what precisely that means, it, at
least in word, admits Catholics and groups like the Fraternity of St. Peter to
hold to a Traditional view of doctrine as long as they do not condemn the predominate
post-conciliar view or those who hold to it as wrong or in error.
However, as we have
learned well in our time, what is stated as official policy on paper is often
far different than the factual reality of the time. For instance, someone in
the future will look back on our own day and see that Summorum
Pontificum recognized the right of every priest to celebrate the
Traditional Mass. In practice, however, many priests are still denied that
right and punished for exercising it. A similar divergence existed between law
and practice in the 1330’s. Fr. O’Daniel explains:
“The Pontiff,
however, was far from being as unbiased in his
judgment and impartial in his actions as he fancied. Despite these
declarations, as is shown by the difference of treatment accorded its
supporters and adversaries, he continued to entertain a strong predilection for
the opinion he had advanced. On the one hand, as a contemporary informs us, to
support it was a sure passport to honours and preferment; while, on the other,
to oppose it, whether by word of mouth or in writing, meant papal disfavour, or
even punishment. For one it meant imprisonment. Despite, too, the vehement
protests that poured into Avignon, and
the general dissatisfaction excited by his sermons, particularly those of
November 15, 1331, and Jan. 5, 1332, he sought, for a time at least, to defend
and to disseminate the doctrine they contained. At his command numerous copies
of his second sermon were made, and a copy given to whosoever
desired to see the Pope’s side of the controversy.”
Thus, according to
the words of Pope John XXII, one was very free to publicly disagree with his
novel doctrine and advocate against it. Doing so, however, might mean the end
of one’s career or even prison. This calls to mind the present-day case of Fr.
Manelli, the co-founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. On paper,
Fr. Manelli was free to encourage the use of the Traditional Mass and
Traditional doctrine in his order. In practice, however, he finds his order
taken away and himself under house arrest as a result.
The Reaction of King Phillip
 |
| King Phillip |
Vatican II ensured
the demise of the Catholic State. It is practically non-existent in our own
day. Thus there is currently no Catholic head of state who can provide pressure
on an erring Pontiff to change his ways. Not so in the 1330’s.
Fr. O’Daniel explains
how the French King, Phillip VI, reacted to the new doctrine of John XXII:
“The reports
of the strong opposition to the new doctrine on
the part of Phillip VI of France,
the Christian ruler most favorably disposed to
John XXII, and the faculty of the University of Paris seem to
have been the cause of no little uneasiness to the
Pontiff. Letters still in existence show a considerable correspondence on
the subject between Avignon and the King. In the latter part of
1333, Gerard Odonis or Eudes, minister general of the Minorites, and Arnold of
Saint Michael, a papal penitentiary and one of the
few Dominicans who stood with John in this matter
possibly influenced by the many favors he had received at the hands of
that Pope, left Avignon on a mission of restoring
harmony between England and Scotland, and on
their way stopped in Paris to consult with Philip. While
there the Franciscan general, availing himself of the opportunity, made an
attempt to gain over the French monarch to the Pope's cause and to win
adherents among the professors of the University. The attempt proved a complete
failure. The Dominican, frightened by the tumult and
scandal caused by Eudes' sermon, sought to appease the anger
aroused by it and to excuse the Pontiff by showing the scriptural
and patristic authorities on which he had based his opinion. So intense,
however, was the feeling against the Minorite
general, largely due, it would seem, to an impression that he and his companion had been sent to Paris for the
express purpose of making propagandism for John XXII, and that the mission to
England was only a pretence to justify their
coming to Paris, that Philip declared he considered him a heretic, and that,
unless he retracted his scandalous assertions, he would have him burned at the
stake. He is also said to have made threats against John himself.”
Two things can be
said about Phillip VI on this issue. First, he knew Pope John XXII was wrong.
Second, he wasn’t afraid to tell him so. As for the Neo-Catholic apologist’s
admonition that the pope’s teaching must be submitted to with docility, let’s
just say that if Phillip VI lived today, he would be permanently banned from
Catholic Answers’ Forum.
Pope John, seeing
that Phillip VI was obviously a self-absorbed, promethean,
neo-pelagian, did not take very kindly to the
rebuke:
“Feeling
keenly the action of Philip and the University, John wrote the former, November
18, 1333, censuring him for his inordinate zeal before the question as to
whether the beatific vision is granted to worthy souls immediately on their
death, or is delayed until after the final judgment, should be
decided by the Church. He also declared he had only advanced the opinion
attributed to him as probable and supported by authorities both scriptural and
patristic; admonished the King that the question is still, and must be, open to
free discussion; informed him that Peter Roger, Archbishop of Rouen, had been
commissioned, subject to the royal approval, to present his (John's) case and
authorities before the theological faculty of the University; and requested
that they be allowed full liberty of discussion.”
Here we see Pope
John nearly 700 years ago, demonstrating the same apparent contradiction recent
popes have demonstrated between what is said and what is done. In practice,
Pope John vigorously defends his own doctrine as correct, even writing a
treatise to that end and distributing it. He also sends emissaries to Phillip
VI and the University of Paris, one of whom preaches a sermon espousing the
doctrine and the other of which defends it to Phillip using Scripture and the
Fathers. In addition John favors those who accept his doctrine and punishes
those who do not. Do these sound like the actions of a man who is humbly
positing his own opinion, open to correction and disagreement?
But yet, when his
actions in promoting his doctrinal error are challenged, he seems to retreat
back to his official position of only wanting “free discussion.” Even so, one
can see the authority John XXII ascribes to his own view apparently growing.
Whereas before his own doctrine and the Traditional doctrine were presented as
equal options, Pope John now refers to his doctrine “as probable.”
The Dominicans of
the 1330’s: A Model for Our Time
One of the most fascinating parts
of this historical saga is the role of the Dominican order. At no time in Church
history would you find a more fierce loyalty, respect, and defense of the Roman
Pontiff than the Dominicans under John XXII. Yet these Dominicans were keenly
aware that their first loyalty was to the Catholic Faith and to the Office of
the Papacy rather than to the individual man.
The Office of the Papacy was
established by Christ Himself. Its purpose is to pass on and zealously
safeguard the Deposit of Faith to succeeding generations of Catholics. As long
as the Pope was loyal to this mission and used his authority for its God-given
ends, the Dominicans would defend him to the death and undergo any hardship in
order to obey and serve him.
But, however, if the unfortunate
day should come when the Pope began to espouse his own new doctrine as an alternative
to Tradition, these Dominicans, Catholic to the core, knew they had an
obligation to publicly oppose even the Pope on this point.
That the Dominicans of this time,
almost without exception, vigorously resisted their own dear friend who himself
had just canonized the Dominican hero, Thomas Aquinas, is a testament to the
truly Catholic response, at great personal cost, that these men experienced
during their own Church crisis.
Fr. O’Daniel explains:
“So few, indeed,
were the exceptions, that it may be said the theologians of the Order of St.
Dominic rose up as a body in favor of the time-honored, traditional
Catholic teaching, boldly withstanding John's propositions. Neither
fear of feeling the weight of papal displeasure, nor hope of reward, had any
influence on the Friar Preacher, when there was question of an error against
Catholic faith. He was the Pontiff's most pronounced and outspoken antagonist.
The spectacle of an order, whose sons had braved every danger and with
unflinching courage borne untold sufferings in defending the Holy See against
Louis of Bavaria, now resisting with the same unyielding fortitude and fearless
spirit the Roman Pontiff himself in his apparent efforts to propagate a
doctrine they adjudged contrary to faith, elicited from that German monarch
this splendid encomium: " Verily, the Order of Preachers is an order of
truth." And it was certainly inspiring to see an order, equally indifferent to favor and dishonor, to loss and
gain, withstanding with all its might, in the interest of Catholic
truth, a Pontiff who had been one of the best friends it had known in the more
than a hundred years of its existence, who had shown it every favor and every
mark of affection, for whom it entertained the deepest love and esteem, and to
defend whom its brethren had hesitated in the face of no peril.”
Who were some of these noble Dominicans who stood up to John XXII? Read the stories of three unheralded Catholic heroes in Part III.
Who were some of these noble Dominicans who stood up to John XXII? Read the stories of three unheralded Catholic heroes in Part III.
Source: The Remnant.
No comments:
Post a Comment