Ockham Redux

 William of Ockham was excommunicated by John XXII, the Avignon prelate who claimed to be a true pope in 1328. Subsequently Ockham went on to demonstrate clearly that John was a heretic. After all, the pope was the Bishop of Rome and Avignon was quite a distance from that place just as a start.

The NY Times relates the excommunication of an Archbishop by the current Bishop of Rome for asserting his heresies. The Times notes:

The Vatican said on Friday that it had excommunicated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the church’s former ambassador to the United States, after finding him guilty of schism for refusing to recognize the authority of Pope Francis and the liberal reforms enacted after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. rchbishop Viganò has emerged as one of the most unbridled conservative critics of Francis, calling him in public statements a “false prophet” and a “servant of Satan,” while embracing right-wing conspiracy theories and lauding former President Donald J. Trump.

There is a strong similarity worth the reading of my work on Ockham.

Where is Ockham When we Really Need Him?

 In the China Digital Times they note:

The Vatican has decided to extend a secret 2018 agreement with Beijing that governs the appointment of bishops in China. The 2018 Sino-Vatican deal, signed in the midst of crackdowns on religious expression, is believed to give Beijing the power to appoint Catholic bishops, pending the Pope’s final approval. This follows news that Chinese hackers gained access to Vatican networks before the start of negotiations on the deal’s extension. For the AP, Nicole Winfield reported on the consensus reached by the Pope and the Pope Emeritus on the perceived necessity of a deal with China...The P.R.C. is seemingly content with the deal. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Zhao Lijian said, “the interim agreement on the appointment of bishops between China and the Vatican has been implemented successfully.” In a speech delivered on the 150th anniversary of Italian Catholic missionaries’ arrival in China, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, argued that the deal was purely pastoral, not political, and that it would prevent the illegal ordination of bishops by Chinese authorities.

Avignon, when the Church had three or more simultaneous "Popes" was the last time we saw countries control the Church. It was Ockham who saw this as a sign of heresy and frankly he had a point. The Bishop of Rome and the PRC seem to walk arm in arm as contrast to John Paul II.

Avignon in the 21st Century

 As the Guardian reports:

Mike Pompeo will visit the Vatican to protest against the imminent renewal of a deal between the Catholic church and China, which the US secretary of state claims endangers its moral authority. Pope Francis has reportedly declined to meet Pompeo during his visit this week, citing the closeness of the US election. However, such a move is likely to be linked to Pompeo’s recent attacks on the Vatican’s perceived soft-pedalling on China’s human rights record as the two sides prepare to extend a historic agreement signed two years ago. The details of the deal have never been made public, but it gave the Vatican a say in the appointment of Catholic bishops in China. Pope Francis also recognised eight bishops that had been appointed by Beijing without his approval. In the past two years, two new bishops have been appointed in China after consultation with the Vatican, and Chinese and Vatican officials met publicly for the first time in seven decades.

Perhaps the next step is to move the Pope to Hunan. It has a nice river and perhaps the Chinese Government can build a nice palace for a Chinese Pope. After all the last time the Church allowed the State to appoint clergy they moved to Avignon for almost a century. It was also during the 1348-1350 plague years as well. Nice set of coincidences.

But then again we may be lucky to get another Ockham who saw through this fallacy and set up the break from such Papal nonsense.

Gallicanism Redux

Gallicanism is the practice of the French selecting their own bishops. Henry VIII had two beefs with Rome. One was a succession issue, related to his first marriage, an issue oftentimes taken care of by Rome in a slight of hand, and the second was the fact that Rome controlled the Church in England but allowed the French to do whatever they liked. Gallicanism if you will, albeit a stretch.

Back when Gregory I became Bishop of Rome he was elected by the people of Rome, despite his protests. There were no cardinals and in fact Gregory was subservient to the Emperor in Constantinople.

Then along came a variety of Popes who created cardinals, often not even priests, but princes of the Church, who got the exclusive right to elect the Bishop of Rome, who in the 14th century lived in Avignon, having been expelled by the people of Rome. Strange tale.

But for the past centuries Papal authority ruled and Rome and the Pope selected and elevated bishops, and cardinals. Gallicanism was obliterated during Vatican I.

Now comes China. The NY Times reports:

The Vatican said Saturday that it had reached a provisional deal with the Chinese government to end a decades-old power struggle over the authority to appoint bishops in China. It was the Communist country’s first formal recognition of the pope as leader of the Roman Catholic Church in the world’s most populous nation, Vatican officials said. Under the breakthrough, Pope Francis recognized the legitimacy of seven bishops appointed by the Chinese government. Because they had not been selected by the Vatican, they had previously been excommunicated. The deal was in keeping with pope’s outreach to parts of the world where he hopes to increase the church’s presence and spread its message. It gives the church greater access to a huge population where the growth of Protestantism is far outpacing Catholicism. But for critics loath to share any of the church’s authority with an authoritarian government, the deal marked a shameful retreat and the setting of a dangerous precedent for future relations with other countries.

Is this truly a bad situation? Frankly from history's perspective, one could say so. People choosing their own bishops was not a bad idea. It was democratic. Popes selecting them was a remnant of divine right of Kings. Nations having a say, one could note, led to revolutions, specifically the French Revolution, not to mention Henry VIII, and even Martin Luther.

 It will be interesting to see how this one is justified. But perhaps for the papacy, consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds, kind of.

More Papal Infallibility

The Pope and the Professor by Howard is an exceptionally well written book. It details the travails of Prof Dollinger and he fight against Papal Infallibility. Dollinger is an impressive character and the authors presents him and his ideas superbly.

The issue is simple. Is the Pope infallible? Now this issue arises after two thousand years and somehow gets addressed in the midst of the diminution of the Papal States as nationalism reaches its peak. The author takes on a journey examining Dollinger and his thought and intermingles it with the ongoing changes in Europe at this time. We go through the revolutions of 1848, the restructuring of Italy as a single nation, and the Franco Prussian war, a prelude to the 20th century.

In the midst of this is the long venue of Pius IX and the fact that besides being Pope he is also a Prince in charge of the Papal States. A bit of a messy situation as Italy is going through its own revolution with Garibaldi and others.

As a means to establish his primacy Pius proposes a Council, and this gives him the chance to promulgate the infallibility of the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra. Of course this means that when a Pope says something in this manner it must be true.

Overall the author does a splendid job and in today's environment of Catholicism this is an essential read. My main concern is the lack of historical precedence.

For example, Gregory I was a famous Pope, but at the time he was the Bishop of Rome, elected by the people in Rome and subservient to the Emperor in Constantinople and the Bishop in Ravenna. Thus with one of the most famous Popes we see a person not only subject to others but deferential to them in any thing he may postulate or promote. Thus in 600 AD there was no concept of Pope and definitely no idea of infallibility.

Skip to 1328 and Avignon. We have the battle between John XXII and William of Ockham. After Ockham's escape in the night he writes his Work of Ninety Days which demonstrates that John was not only wrong but a heretic! So much for infallibility.

It would have been useful, albeit expanding a bit too much, but place this tale in historical context. However the author presents all of it as it happens at the moment.

In summary, this is a wonderful work, erudite, well written, and telling a tale that must be evaluated in the context of an ever changing papacy.

Papal Infallibility?

Vatican I by O'Malley is a short but superbly written summary of the issue of Papal Infallibility and Vatican I in 1870. The author is a well known Jesuit, and one will see the influence and pervasiveness of the Jesuits throughout. This book does not seem to be a polemic for one side or the other on first reading. It does show how some limitations on the proposed position of Pius IX was attained, namely that he wanted unlimited infallibility and the best the Council could delimit is infallibility on matters stated ex cathedra, namely limited to things the Pope would pronounce as coming from the successor of Peter.

The book is divided into five sections and a conclusion. The author goes back and forth between the issues at the time and those proximate to the Council and integrates them into the decision process. The issues driving Pius IX were the development of nationalism, liberalism, freedom of religion, Protestantism, freedom of the press, and the development of citizens as compared to subjects. Pius IX was one of the last hold outs of the days of divine rights of rulers. As forms of democracy were developing, challenges from socialism and communism were being addressed, Pius IX saw a need to strengthen the papacy.

The author does a reasonably good task at showing the counter efforts such as Gallicanism which was the French approach of running the Church the way the French wanted to. Strangely Gallicanism was present before the Avignon papacy and was intensified during the 14^th century when the Pope was in Avignon. Although not officially part of France at the time the popes then followed the French crown in many ways. Pius IX saw this as an anathema. Thus any extension to the 19^th century would have to be wiped out and Pius did this via his call for infallibility.

Even more compelling was the fact that when all of the issues started with Pius he was also a head of state with his dominion over the Papal States, the central lands of what was becoming Italy. The Pope owned and controlled most of central Italy and as nationalism was evolving his control was under attack. Eventually just months after the Council declared his infallibility Rome was invaded and taken over by the Italian nationalists, thus Italy was effectively formed as a nation.

The author blends these facts in a well presented narrative. He also brings to the fore the opposition of many of the theologians, often non-clerical and German, who opposed this infallibility dicta. Key amongst them would be Dollinger, a Bavarian theologian strongly opposed to this new idea. In fact many of the best theologians were opposed since there was no basis and furthermore the Conciliar theories dominated, namely such decisions were made by Church Councils, bishops in concert, and not singularly by a Pope.

Overall the books is superb. However one can raise a few issues:

1. The Jesuits played a key role in supporting Pius. The author's document is replete with references and the author himself is a Jesuit. The rule of the Jesuits frankly should have been more detailed, for their role was to support the Pope and as such infallibility would logically strengthen their positions, somewhat.

2. Infallibility took almost two millennia to be stated. As such one would wonder why no one ever thought of this before? The Councils were always a way to reach doctrinal decisions. But now one ascribes such a singular power to a singular man. This is certainly questionable give the cast of characters who have occupied the seat of Peter over the ages.

3. As with many such efforts one should be drawn back to the 14^th century and the battles between John XXII and Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham. Ockham went as far in his Work of Ninety Days to claim John a heretic. His contention has merit. Marsilius predated Montesquieu in the ideas of representative governments and the fact that divine rights had no basis. The 14^th century players frankly should be mentioned in many of these discussions.

Overall O'Malley provides a timely, well written, and balanced presentation of Vatican I, a Council whose closure never occurred due to the capture of Rome by the Italian forces. O'Malley in the conclusion makes reference to the impact of this dictum, such as the problems Kennedy had running for President, for the dictum was interpreted as making Catholics citizens of a foreign lord and master and demanded fealty to their assertions.

Sur Le Pont d'Avignon, tout le monde y danse, danse!

It is most likely the case that any child who learned French also learned this little ditty. All the world danced across the bridge in Avignon. And at the heart of the dance was John XXII, the Bishop of Rome, And at the heart of the juristic proceedings coming from Avignon, the New Babylon, were those that inspired William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua. It was the arrogance of the then Bishop of Rome which led to the development of Individualism and the ideas that lent substance to Montesquieu.

For some reason the current Bishop of Rome is celebrating the 700th anniversary of this event. As the Vatican notes:

Pope Francis has appointed Cardinal Paul Poupard as his special envoy to the celebrations of the 700th anniversary of the enclave of the Popes in Avignon, France. Cardinal Poupard is the president-emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Culture. He will be accompanied at the 23-25 June event by Msgr. Jean-Marie Gérard, vicar general of Avignon, and Rev. Canon Daniel Bréhier, rector of the Cathedral of Avignon.

 Celebrating this event is rather strange since it precipitated the revolt of Luther and all that followed.

What is even more ironic is that it was John XXII who attacked the Franciscans and the Spirituals who felt a need for poverty. After all how could John live in such a lavish castle while the Franciscans alleged the Apostles owned nothing.

This is a celebration of the Papacy leaving Rome and commencing its accumulation of massive wealth and its persecution of the Franciscans and other intellectuals. I would have thought that this would be a time for reflection and not one of celebration. Especially for one named Francis.