A heretical Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter knute
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, since I started this thread with questions on infallibility and whether it is theoretically possible for a pope to teach or allow heresy to exist, I’ll chime in again. It would appear that not even theologians can figure out when the pope is speaking infallibly and what belongs to the deposit of faith and what doesn’t. In essense, the idea of being secure in knowing what is infallibly true and what may change in the Church remains completely ambiguous for me. Way too much jargon and parsing of words.
 
40.png
naprous:
A heretical pope: John XXII (1316-1334)

In the last years of his life, John (a brilliant canon lawyer, but no theologian) promulgated a heretical doctrine, usually referred to simply as the Beatific Vision. Briefly, he proclaimed that the blessed will not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment. If this were true, then the intercession of saints would be impossible.

His successor, Benedict XII, was obliged to do some fancy footwork to squelch this.

Naprous
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on John XXII (newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm ):

In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
 
That’s not too bad a version of John’s life, but there is another side of the story, of course, which says that John never repudiated his ideas on the Beatific Vision. A copy of the best “biography” of John has just arrived for me on ILL (for another project!) – so I’ll flip through that section tomorrow after I pick it up.

Naprous
 
I stand corrected, Mutant. However, I was not trying to deny that a debate still exists over whether or not he taught infallibly; I was trying more to point out that the liberals, who of course cannot admit to an infallible statement without conceding defeat, choose instead to try to disprove the claim that the Church has constantly taught against women’s ordination through its actions.
 
40.png
Brain:
well, he is only infallable when he is saying that he is being infallable.
I’m not sure if that’s exactly it. I dont’ think he has to state “This is an infallible teaching”. When he teaches definitively to the Church as a whole on faith or morals, he is in infallible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top