Profiles in Courage
In our own day, when
many tell us that the worst sin is not submitting to the will of the Pope, we
do well to remember the example of the following three brave Dominicans. Hidden
for far too long between the pages of dusty history books, I now intend to do
my small part in bringing the heroic actions of these Catholic men to light. I
will let Fr. O’Daniel tell their tales in their entirety:
“Among those of the
order who were made to feel the anger of John XXII, we shall single out three:
“1. Barnabas of
Vercelli, then its Master General, as head and leader of a great host of
opponents to the theory of the delay of the full and direct vision of God, had
incurred the Pontiff's ill will. Barnabas, after having made a
canonical visitation of his order in Spain, and presided over a
General Chapter assembled in Victoria, had returned to Avignon, intending to go
thence into Italy, possibly for the purpose of continuing his visitation
in the provinces of the Italian peninsula. But he received positive orders from
the Pope not to enter his native land. Apparently because impeded in the
government of his order from Avignon and feeling deeply the fact that he was persona
non grata at the Papal Court, he later sought and obtained from John
permission to retire to Paris, where he died soon after, January 10, 1332.
Though the meekest and most fatherly of men, he was fearless and unbending in
his defence of the traditional doctrine.
“2. Durandus of
Saint-Porcain, at the time Bishop of Meaux,
was one of the first to challenge John’s propositions. Scarcely had the news of
the Avignon sermons reached him, when
he hotly entered the arena of controversy, writing a treatise on the state of
the just souls after death, in which he vigorously attacked the doctrine they
advanced. He widely disseminated his work, and sent a copy of it to the French
king. Its author was soon in disfavour. Unfortunately for Durandus himself, in
the heat of controversy some ill sounding propositions found their way into an otherwise well-reasoned treatise.
The reputation of the writer as an independent thinker, it would seem,
suggested to the Pontiff the idea of subjecting the book to a searching
examination, with a view of finding errors that might discredit it. So it happened. A
commission of thirteen masters in theology, all, or most, of
whom were favorably disposed to the new view, and among whom were the
Franciscan and Dominican whom we have seen pleading the cause of the Pope at
Paris, after much acrimonious discussion censured eleven of
its propositions as savouring of heresy.
“3. Thomas Walleys,
or Walleis, was an Englishman by birth, and
a master of the Oxford University, of whose faculty he had long been an honoured
and illustrious member. He was a man of deep piety, a profound theologian, and
possessed of a courage that amounted to heroism. Having come to Avignon, he
became the leader there of the Friars Preachers in their heroic defence of the
doctrine that the beatific vision is given to departed souls immediately
that they are found worthy. He became the victim of expiation for his
order.
“On January 3,
1333, Master Thomas preached in the Dominican church of Avignon to
an audience composed of cardinals, bishops, priests, religious of every
order, and the faithful. Despite the contrary opinion of some few writers, John
XXII, it seems certain, was not present at the preaching of this discourse.
Walleys vigorously attacked the Pontiff's opinion, and, in answer to those who
had pretended the great Thomas Aquinas favoured that doctrine, he took occasion
to show that that saint, canonized by John himself, characterizes it as
heretical. That men's souls were wrought to a high pitch on the subject is
evident from the aggressive tone running all through the Englishman's
discourse. However, if we are correctly to appreciate Thomas' method
of speech, we must remember that shortly before other sermons, in which the rancour
of heated controversy found a
conspicuous part, had been preached in favour of the opposite view.
It was a period, too, of direst confusion in affairs both political and
religious. The atmosphere was literally palpitant with the scandal and unrest
that had been caused by the Avignon sermons. The minds of theologians were
stirred and their hearts aflame. The people were as a unit on the
side of the defenders of the universal belief of the Church. It was, further,
an age of outspoken, blunt language; an age when the faith was defended with
all the energetic sincerity of a deep, living credo. A child of his
time Thomas Walleys simply defended the teaching of the Church with the
plain-spoken, brusque language of the period.
“Walleys' sermon was
preached on the third day of January; on
the ninth of the same month seven of its propositions were censured by William
of Monterotundo, a Minorite Inquisitor, as savouring of heresy; by the
fourteenth of February he was confined in a prison of the
Inquisition; and in September the same commission of thirteen
who examined Durandus's work, condemned seven propositions of Walleye taken
from his sermon and a vindication he had hurriedly written while in prison. The
English Dominican's name is still to be seen on the inquisitorial
account book. He has himself left us an idea of the treatment accorded him as a
prisoner. “Neither confinement nor harsh treatment could break his spirit, or
cause him to relax one iota in the doctrine he had preached.”
Faithful Catholics
in our own time have had to endure various persecutions at the hands of the
post-Conciliar Church over the last 50 years for adhering to Tradition and
protesting novelty. Nevertheless, we cannot say that we have ever been banished
from our homeland, had our writings condemned as “savouring heresy” by a
Vatican commission, or were thrown in prison for our efforts. Yet the men
mentioned above, as well as many others, gladly endured these punishments for
the sake of the Faith.
Can one imagine the
scorn these noble men would have received if there had been a Neo-Catholic
media in the 1330’s? All three would have been pilloried as heretics and
schismatics who have given grave scandal through their public disobedience to
the Holy Father. Condescending tomes of pitiable disapproval would have been
heaped upon them by the apologists.
The Vatican
commission’s “official” condemnation of their Traditional defences as “savouring
of heresy” would have been quoted ad nauseam by the Neo-Catholic press. The
Register would likely have worked this phrase into all Dominican news stories
as it currently works the word “schismatic” into every SSPX news story. One can
see the headline now: “Dominican Savorers of Heresy Claim to Defend Catholic
Tradition.”
But a funny thing
happened in 1333. The faithful did not act as our Neo-Catholic friends would have
predicted. The pope’s oppressive actions, far from putting the matter to rest
and teaching the stubborn Dominicans a lesson, only angered the faithful even
more.
Fr. O’Daniel
explains:
“John XXII had shown
a far better spirit and much more of the wisdom of the skilled diplomat, had he
been more moderate and conceded his opponents the full liberty of discussion
he professed to allow to all. His repressive measures were productive of no
good; nor was the imprudence of his actions slow in becoming manifest. The
imprisonment of Walleys created an impression that was far from being favourable
to the Pope. Indignation ran particularly high at the University of Paris and at the Court of Philip VI. In vain did John, writing to the
French monarch or his Queen consort try to create the impression that the English Dominican had been
imprisoned, not because of his antagonism to the views advocated in
the Avignon sermons, but on account of the heresies contained in his own
sermons. In order to appease the displeasure aroused by the incarceration of
Master Thomas, the Pontiff finally acceded to public opinion so far as to
transfer the prisoner to the Papal Palace during the month of October,
1333. There, it is true, Walleys' position was bettered; yet, as he continued to
be denied his liberty, the minds of men refused to be calmed.”
These resisters, dear readers,
were the epitome of faithful Catholics. They saw the pope commit a grave
injustice on a priest who defended Catholic Tradition against the pope’s own
novelties and they refused to accept it. Even in the face of condemnations from
Papal commissions and the imprisonment of their heroic priest, they refused to
yield.
The Final Resistance
Fr. O’Daniel relates what happened
next:
“Determined to bring
matters to an issue, Philip VI called a meeting of the theological faculty of
the University of Paris for the purpose of having them express their opinion on
the subject in debate. Accordingly, on December 19, 1333, a commission of twenty-three
masters in theology assembled in the royal palace under the presidency of
Peter de la Palud, the Dominican patriarch of Jerusalem ; and there in
the presence of the Kings of France and Navarre, many bishops, priests, secular
and regular, princes, and faithful, they unanimously declared their firm belief
in the Catholic teaching, that the souls departed and freed from all
stain of sin and debt due to sin enjoy the beatific or full and direct vision
of God before the day of judgment. And on the second day of
January, 1334, they and six other Masters who did not attend the first meeting,
affixed their names to a profession of their faith wherein they
declared that: "After the death of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus
Christ, the souls of the faithful who have
departed this life exempt from all purgatorial purification, or have been
liberated therefrom, enjoy a perfect, beatifying, intuitive and immediate
vision of the divine essence and the Most Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost."…
“The same day,
January 2, 1334, these nine and twenty master theologians forwarded John XXII a letter,
expressing in polite and respectful, but clear and firm language the result of
their deliberations. While affirming their filial devotion and submission to
the Vicar of Christ, they recalled his express declaration that he had spoken,
not as Head of the Church, defining a doctrine, but as an individual
theologian, exposing a personal view; and that all theologians were permitted
to give their minds on the subject. They proclaimed their firm belief in the
doctrine to which they affixed their names, declared that, after the example of
the apostle, they were ready to give singly a reason of the faith that was in
them, and expressed a strong desire that the Pope would deign to give his
apostolic sanction to their decision.”
Thus, the Catholic
resistance leaders of the 1330’s launched their final and last-ditch effort to
change the mind of the pope and to end the crisis that kept the Church in
turmoil for four long years. The very fate of the Church lurched in the
balance. Events had grown to a fever pitch. Pope John was growing more
aggressive in persecuting those who espoused the Traditional doctrine and
seemed to be defending and spreading his own doctrine with renewed vigour. Many
in the resistance had to wonder if John might be on the verge of trying to use
his infallible papal power to settle the issue in his own favour.
The final tactics of
the resistance were shrewd. First they used their united numbers and their many
distinguished and educated members as their strength. Some of the most
accomplished and respected theologians of the Dominicans and other orders put
their name to the Profession of Faith. By signing this Profession of Faith,
they were publicly declaring that they accepted the Traditional teaching as a
matter of Faith. This logically meant that they believed Pope John’s new
teaching was against the Faith and in error. Signing the Profession also meant
that these erudite men would not budge from Tradition, no matter what actions
the Pope took to the contrary. This meant that if Pope John wanted to escalate
the conflict and try to solemnly declare his own position correct, he would
have had an apparent schism of epic proportions on his hands.
Second, the
resistance’s letter ignored Pope John’s actions and held him to the letter of
his words. It treated Pope John’s admonitions that he was speaking as a private
doctor and not as Pope seriously, even if John himself, by his actions, had not
taken his own words seriously. This put Pope John in an awkward position. If he
condemned the Traditional doctrine and demanded allegiance to his own, he would
have to contradict his words of tolerance and appear as a hypocrite.
Third, after
implying the “sticks” that awaited Pope John if he acted rashly, the resistance
explicitly pointed out the carrot. They very politely reaffirmed their loyalty
to Pope John as the Vicar of Christ and presented the avenue by which he could
heal the Church and once again win them as allies. Pope John could save face by
reiterating his own previous position that he meant his new doctrine to be
subject to the judgment of the Church, and then acting like it by recognizing
the voice of Tradition in the Profession of Faith and sanctioning it.
How does the saga
end? Stay tuned for Part IV!
No comments:
Post a Comment