Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: John XXII, Quia nonnunquam  (Read 492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LeDeg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Reputation: +147/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • I am responsible only to God and history.
John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
« on: July 20, 2018, 12:46:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The following is the opening paragraph of the papal bull by John XXII.

    John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
    Translated by John Kilcullen from Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, vol. 2, col. 1224 ff. "B" refers to the text of Bullarium Franciscanum, ed. H. Sbaralea and C. Eubelp. 224 ff.)


    "Since sometimes what conjecture believed would be useful subsequent experience shows to be harmful, it should not be judged reprehensible if the maker of the canons desires to revoke, modify or suspend canons (or things contained in them) published either by himself or by his predecessors, if they seem to him to be obstructive rather than useful."


    Now, compare this:

    Pope Pius VI condemned the Jansenist synod of Pistoia for suggesting that the “existing liturgical order received and approved by the Church might be in any part due to forgetfulness of the principles that ought to guide her” – he taught  that this idea was impossible because “the Church, guided by the Spirit of God, cannot establish a discipline …that is dangerous or harmful”.  Dz 1533 and 1578. 


    Concerning encyclicals, Pope Pius XII wrote what follows in Humani Generis:
    “Neither must it be thought that what is set forth in encyclical letters does not of itself demand consent on the grounds that in writing such letters the pontiffs do not exercise the supreme authority of their Magisterium.   For these things are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, concerning which the words ‘He that hears you hears me’ are also applicable…  The greater part of what is proposed and set forth in encyclicals already belongs to Catholic doctrine on other grounds.  But if the sovereign pontiffs should pronounce an express judgment in their official documents upon a matter previously subject to dispute it is plain to all that according to the mind and intention of the same pontiffs this point cannot be any longer considered a matter of free dispute among theologians.”  (Dz 2313)


     Now, keep in mind that Bulls are to be held at the same level as encyclicals. In fact, sedevacantist's often point to past bulls as authoritative in defending theological positions of the Church as being definitive. 


    How do ultramontanist's reconcile John XXII's statement here with Pius VI?
    "The whole secret of the campaigns unleashed against Europe can be explained in two words: Masonry and Communism... we have to extirpate these two evils from our land." -Franco

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3296
    • Reputation: +3956/-199
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
    « Reply #1 on: July 20, 2018, 02:55:49 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is not controversial among anyone that positive laws may be amended or even abolished (indeed, this happens frequently, and great saints are often responsible for abolishing the laws of previous great saints).  What you've quoted is just the preliminary remark of a bull which is concerned quite squarely and narrowly with the constitution of religious orders.  Different concessions and restrictions, over time, become more or less applicable than when they were first devised-- such is the very nature of any temporal law, so of course it'll likely be subject to change in the future when the conditions in which it was first written are no longer relevant.
    .
    Of course, the traditionalist argument is not that Vatican II erred on prudential matters-- which the pope is perfectly free to do.  He can suppress a religious order to some degree or another, even without good reason, because there's nothing intrinsically evil about telling some order or another to pack their bags.    What he can't do (i.e., what infallibility prevents him from doing) is publish some law or another which is intrinsically evil.  So, he can't make a law that compels all the religious orders to celebrate black masses.  He can make a law that tells some religious order to disband, and he can do it with better or worse reasons, or even no reasons at all.
    .
    So you can't really compare the suppression of orders (certainly not in this case, given that the Fraticelli were heretics-- but even if they weren't, the point holds) or some other instance of positive legislation amended to positive legislation which, of its very nature, is intrinsically harmful to the Christian faith (like the New Mass, say).

    ETA: Also "ultramontanist" is a Gallican slur-- probably not the word you want to be using, it signals the wrong allegiances.  I know it's "en vogue" now but it's very ill-considered.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline LeDeg

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 236
    • Reputation: +147/-24
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
    « Reply #2 on: July 24, 2018, 02:44:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I disagree. I can because Pius VI did not differentiate. The Spirituals were preachers, just like the Conventuals, and therefore would be spreading their viewpoints. Otherwise, why suppress individuals and place them on the suspicion of heresy lists? 

    I am very familiar with your viewpoints throughout the years, so I'm sure you'll counter with a response.
    "The whole secret of the campaigns unleashed against Europe can be explained in two words: Masonry and Communism... we have to extirpate these two evils from our land." -Franco

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3296
    • Reputation: +3956/-199
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
    « Reply #3 on: July 24, 2018, 02:50:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I disagree. I can because Pius VI did not differentiate. The Spirituals were preachers, just like the Conventuals, and therefore would be spreading their viewpoints. Otherwise, why suppress individuals and place them on the suspicion of heresy lists?

    I am very familiar with your viewpoints throughout the years, so I'm sure you'll counter with a response.
    .
    Actually I'm not sure what you're disagreeing about.  Can you please clarify?
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline LeDeg

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 236
    • Reputation: +147/-24
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
    « Reply #4 on: July 24, 2018, 03:48:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    .
    So you can't really compare the suppression of orders (certainly not in this case, given that the Fraticelli were heretics-- but even if they weren't, the point holds) or some other instance of positive legislation amended to positive legislation which, of its very nature, is intrinsically harmful to the Christian faith (like the New Mass, say).

     
    This.
    "The whole secret of the campaigns unleashed against Europe can be explained in two words: Masonry and Communism... we have to extirpate these two evils from our land." -Franco


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3296
    • Reputation: +3956/-199
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
    « Reply #5 on: July 24, 2018, 05:03:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Evidently, neither of us read the bull as carefully as we could have, nor sought greater context elsewhere. The object of the bull is to remove penalties previously attached to the sort of commentaries allowed on Pope Nicholas III's bull Exiit, which dealt with the Franciscan constitution.
    .
    So you understand pope Pius VI to be saying that no law of the Church can ever become more or less useful than when it was first enacted?  
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline LeDeg

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 236
    • Reputation: +147/-24
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
    « Reply #6 on: July 24, 2018, 05:57:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    So you understand pope Pius VI to be saying that no law of the Church can ever become more or less useful than when it was first enacted?  
    Not exactly. What I'm saying is that Pius VI has stated that it is impossible for the Church to allow a discipline that is dangerous or harmful. John XXII, regardless if it's the opening statement of his bull or not, said that it was possible.
    "The whole secret of the campaigns unleashed against Europe can be explained in two words: Masonry and Communism... we have to extirpate these two evils from our land." -Franco

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3296
    • Reputation: +3956/-199
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
    « Reply #7 on: August 20, 2018, 11:12:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not exactly. What I'm saying is that Pius VI has stated that it is impossible for the Church to allow a discipline that is dangerous or harmful. John XXII, regardless if it's the opening statement of his bull or not, said that it was possible.
    .
    Hi LeDeg,
    I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
    .
    In both instances, one is best served by a deeper, rather than superficial level of what's being taught.  In the case of Pius VI, he is saying that the Church cannot approve of any disciplines which is intrinsically harmful.  If you are doubting whether or not this qualification is just, (i.e., if you think I'm merely adding it ad hoc), then simply draw your attention to the context:
    .
    Denz 1533 is contra the Jansenist/Pistoian belief that the liturgy approved by the Church could abandon the principles of the liturgy.  Denz 1578 is more of the same, condemning the notion that the Spirit of God (i.e., providential infallibility) would not protect against such a scenario: of the Church's discipline itself being injurious to souls.
    .
    John XXII, on the other hand, with his prefatory remarks, makes it abundantly clear that matters extrinsic to the discipline established have made the discipline less advisable.
    .
    Do you see the difference between a law which is only extrinsically made less advisable and a law which, of its very nature, leads to some error or another?
    .
    If you do not, which pope do you think is right, and why?
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16