Pope John XXII, Quia quorundam, and Papal Infallibility

[Duane1966]

ok. so Pope John XXII says this was not a matter of faith, and therefore he has the power to change previous rulings, yet at the same time, he denies he is actually changing anything to begin with.i think that is right? but what about this matter with the key of knowledge vs. the key of power? he denies the key of knowledge exists? but he says one needs both the key of knowledge and the key of power to examine and define something. so what does that leave him with? merely the power to define - but not the power to examine so as to bind accurately?

He never denies that the key of knowledge exists. He denies the separation of the two keys, or that only the key of knowledge was needed to define, which the Franciscans were arguing. Read what he says here:

. For they say, those things, which are established by the key of knowledge, have one affect, and those things, which are established by the key of power, another, supposing that some things, by the key of knowledge, and others, by the key of power, have been determined or even defined, which is evidently false.

 

[Gorgias]

He never denies that the key of knowledge exists.

Are you sure about this?

it seems that knowledge is not the key, but rather the ability to bind and loose should be said to be the key.

And later,

by means of the key of knowledge, or by the authority to discern or examine among [one] leper and another leper, (if We would call this a key)

(emphasis mine)

So… I’m thinking that you might want to reconsider your position.

 

[Duane1966]

Are you sure about this?

Yes. Read what you posted. He doesn’t say it doesn’t exist, just that it cannot be separated from the key of power when binding, which the Franciscans were attempting to argue for.

And later,

(emphasis mine)

So… I’m thinking that you might want to reconsider your position.

In your quote, he compares the key of knowledge to the ability to discern or examine.
And yet he goes on to say this:

For by means of the key of knowledge, or by the authority to discern or examine among [one] leper and another leper, (if We would call this a key), nothing other except the authority to examine [them]** is attributed by means of IT to him to which IT has been given.**

(emphasis mine) The IT is the key of knowledge. And he says this in the same passage:

Wherefore it remains, that to establish anything conveniently, or to define it, each of the keys, namely, of **examining **and defining, is required as necessary;

(emphasis mine) So in the passage he says the key of knowledge consists of examination and discernment, and later in same passage he says that examining (which earlier he said is part of the key of knowledge) is required.

So…I’m thinking you might want to reconsider yours.

 

[TaylorDonBarret]

well he does deny that Priests are given the key of knowledge…

 

[PluniaZ]

he denies the key of knowledge exists? but he says one needs both the key of knowledge and the key of power to examine and define something.

No, he explicitly says the key of power alone is sufficient define a matter:

“Wherefore it remains, that to establish anything conveniently, or to define it, each of the keys, namely, of examining and defining, is required as necessary; or that to only the key of power does it belong to establish [anything], and even to define [it]; but, just as the material light directs the keybearer in the use of a material key, so likewise he obtains as much as regards this matter from knowledge instead of light.”