0% found this document useful (0 votes)
176 views25 pages

Kruse

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 25

Saint Louis University The Graduate School

Dissertation Proposal

NAME:
John V. Kruse

MAJOR FIELD: Historical Theology DEGREE SOUGHT: Ph.D.

STUDENTS ADVISOR: J. A. Wayne Hellmann, O.F.M., Conv., Dr. Theol.

OTHER READERS: James R. Ginther, Ph.D. and James Heft, S.M., Ph.D.

I. Title
Understanding Papal Authority in the Bulls of the Franciscan Poverty Controversy:
Gregory IX to John XXII
Dissertation Proposal, Page 2

II. The Problem

In the 1970s and 1980s, a time in which a number of Catholic theologians were

beginning to question the doctrine of papal infallibility,1 a debate surfaced in regards to

the origins of the doctrine. Brian Tierney initiated the debate in 1972 with his book The

Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350. In this book Tierney argues that papal

infallibility is not a long-standing belief going back to the days of the early Church, but

rather a concept that burst onto the scene during the Franciscan poverty controversy.

Tierney begins his historical investigation of the origins of papal infallibility by

comparing the definition of Vatican I with the attitudes towards papal authority of twelfth

and thirteenth century canonists.2 In contrast with the Vatican I definition, Tierney

asserts that the canonists did not present Tradition as a source of divine revelation

separate from Scripture; did not know of any magisterium conferred on Peter with the

power of the keys; believed that in matters of faith a general council was greater than

the pope; [and] did not maintain that papal pronouncements were irreformable ex

sese.3 Tierney concludes that [a]bove all the canonists did not teach that the pope was

infallible.4

In addition to examining the attitudes of canonists towards infallibility, Tierney

also seeks to demonstrate the attitudes of medieval theologians towards the concept.
1
Of critical importance was Hans Kngs work Unfehlbar? Eine Anfrage (1970).
2
Tierney divides the 1870 definition into five main points: (1) The sphere of revealed truth within which
the popes supreme teaching authority can be exercised is comprised of sacred Scripture and apostolic
Tradition. (2) Ex cathedra definitions of the pope on faith and morals are infallible. (3) The infallible
magisterium of the pope, his teaching authority, was included in the primacy bestowed on Peter with the
power of the keys. (4) To appeal form the pope to a general council as to a higher authority is unlawful.
(5) Ex cathedra decrees are irreformable ex sese (Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-
1350, 2nd ed. (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1988), 14).
Tierney holds that the notion of infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council has had many
negative effects. Among them, according to Tierney, are the gymnastics of reason theologians are forced to
perform in order to reconcile apparently contradictory decisions among popes throughout Church history.
3
Tierney, Origins, 57.
4
Ibid.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 3

Tierney sees Bonaventure as a pivotal figure in the development of papal infallibility,

primarily because Bonaventure was interested in the development of Christian doctrine,

in the possibility of non-Scriptural revelation, [and] in the authentication of new doctrine

by the papacy.5 Nevertheless, Tierney holds that the roots of infallibility lie in the

thought of the Franciscan theologian Peter John Olivi (1247/8-1298), a member of the

Spiritual Franciscans during the poverty controversy.6 According to Tierney, Olivi

desired to protect the Franciscan notion of poverty, as explained in Nicholas IIIs bull

Exiit qui seminat (1279), from corruption by a later pope. This lead Olivi to state that a

popes decree could not be altered by a successor because papal pronouncements on

matters of faith were infallible.7

John XXII was the pope who eventually sought to alter the notion of Franciscan

poverty as explained by Nicholas III in Exiit qui seminat (1279). In Quorundam exigit

(1317), John ordered the Spiritual Franciscans to be obedient to their superiors. In Ad

Conditorem (1322), John returned ownership of all the goods that the Franciscans were

using back to the Order itself.8 Most significantly, in Cum inter nonnullos (1323), John

declared that it was heretical to teach that Christ and the apostles did not own anything

and did not have the right to use anything. The teaching that John condemned was the

doctrine which the Friars believed Nicholas III had earlier taught in Exiit qui seminat

(1279). Johns pronouncement discarded the Franciscan position that their way of life (as

5
Ibid., 92.
6
Duncan Nimmo describes two primary divisions within the Franciscan Order during the poverty
controversy. The Community consisted of all those friars who stood for a development of the Order
involving more or less extensive departures from the principles and practice of their founder and his
followers (Duncan Nimmo, Reform and Division in the Medieval Franciscan Order (Rome: Capuchin
Historical Institute, 1995), 51). The Spirituals were those who more radically sought to recreate the
experience and way of life of St. Francis and his earliest followers (Nimmo, Reform and Division, 78).
7
Tierney, Origins, 122, 125-128.
8
Technically, these goods had been the property of the Holy See since Innocent IVs bull
Ordinem vestrum (1245).
Dissertation Proposal, Page 4

expressed in the Rule) was based on the perfection of apostolic poverty exemplified by

Christ. The decision, contrary to the teaching of Nicholas III, turned not only the

Spirituals but also the whole Franciscan Order against the pope. Their General Chapter

excommunicated him.9

Tierney maintains that John felt free to alter the decisions of his predecessors.

According to Tierney, John was in a position where he had to choose between

sovereignty and infallibility.10 Tierney argues that John chose sovereignty. John did not

want his authority to be limited by infallibility.11 To have chosen infallibility would have

limited Johns sovereignty in that he would have been unable to alter the infallible

decisions of his predecessors. While Tierney asserts that John XXII rejected the idea that

the decisions of his predecessors were irrevocable, and thus rejected the notion of papal

infallibility, Tierney does see Johns attitude towards papal authority as critical to the

development of a later doctrine of infallibility. Tierney holds that a shift in Johns

attitude can be seen in his bull Quia quorundam mentes (1324), in which John addresses

both his earlier rulings on the Franciscan poverty controversy and his own authority as

pope. Up to the time of Quia quorundam mentes, according to Tierney, John had firmly

held that he had the right to revoke the decisions of his predecessors. In 1324, Tierney

argues, John began asserting that he had never revoked the decision of a predecessor and

9
Tierney, Origins, 171, 181-182.
10
Tierney sees sovereignty and infallibility as mutually exclusive concepts. Either a pope has the
sovereignty to rescind the decisions of his predecessors, or he is bound by the decisions of his predecessors
because they are seen as infallible. In Origins of Infallibility: 1150-1350 he states, It would be true to
suggest that the ideas they [sovereignty and infallibility] express are intrinsically incompatible with
one another. It is of the essence of sovereignty (as the concept was understood both in the nineteenth
century and in the Middle Ages) that a sovereign ruler cannot be bound by the acts of his predecessors. It
is of the essence of infallibility (as the doctrine was formulated at Vatican Council I) that the infallible
decrees of one pope are binding on all his successors since they are, by definition, irreformable (2).
Infallibility limits sovereignty.
11
Tierney, Origins, 171.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 5

refused to address the issue as to whether or not he had that right. John seems to have

changed his attitude. Tierney maintains that John was beginning to realize the

advantages that a doctrine of infallibility could have.12 Tierney holds that Johns

wavering on this issue paved the way for the eventual development of the doctrine of

infallibility that originally had started with Olivi in Quaestiones de perfectione

evangelica.13

James Heft disagrees with Tierneys thesis. He responded to Tierney in his 1982

article John XXII and Papal Infallibility: Brian Tierneys Thesis Reconsidered and

eventually with his 1986 book John XXII and Papal Teaching Authority.14 Heft disagrees

with Tierneys thesis that the roots of papal infallibility extend only to Olivi (1247/8-

1298).15 Furthermore, Heft seeks to demonstrate that John XXIIs acceptance of a notion

of papal infallibility was present from the very beginning of his reign and was consistent

throughout.16

12
Ibid., 189-190. Tierney suggests that John may have wished to defend himself from the attacks
of conciliarists, who at that time were increasingly pointing to errors which popes had made in their
pronouncements. In 1324, the same year as John XXIIs Quia quorundam mentes, Marsilius of Padua
published his Defensor pacis, in which he held up the infallibility of the general council in contrast to the
erring nature of the papacy (Origins 190).
13
Tierney devotes two chapters to the discussion of how the doctrine developed in the first half of
the fourteenth century and how later theologians could use the notion of infallibility to limit papal authority
(William of Ockham) or to increase papal authority (Guido Terrini).
14
The debate between Tierney and Heft involved a number of exchanges. After launching the
debate with Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), Tierney responded to Heft
with his article Response to James Heft (Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19 (1982): 787-93) and in the
postscript to the 1988 edition of Origins of Papal Infallibility (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988). In addition to
John XXII and Papal Infallibility: Brian Tierneys Thesis Reconsidered (Journal of Ecumenical Studies
19 (1982): 759-80) and John XXII and Papal Teaching Authority (Lewiston/Queenston, Ontario: Edwin
Mellen Press, 1986), Heft wrote Rejoinder to Professor Tierney (Journal of Ecumenical Studies 20
(1983): 111-17).
15
Heft sees the infallibility as originating in a gradual process of explicating a tradition,
elements of which can be traced back to the early centuries of the life of the Church and, indeed, even to
the New Testament itself (John XXII, 200).
16
This is the major point of dispute between the two scholars. Tierney, in order to bolster his
argument that papal infallibility burst onto the scene in the early-fourteenth century, seeks to demonstrate
that the doctrine was so novel that even the pope at the time (i.e., John XXII) rejected it. Heft, seeking to
Dissertation Proposal, Page 6

According to Heft, Tierney draws false conclusion regarding Johns attitude

towards infallibility because he made a number of errors in interpreting Johns Quia

quorundam mentes.17 First of all, Tierney is wrong in assuming that sovereignty and

infallibility are mutually exclusive.18 Furthermore, Heft asserts that Tierney is wrong in

stating that Johns attitude towards infallibility changed in Quia quorundam mentes.

According to Heft, John consistently held that he was bound to his predecessors

decisions in so far as they touched upon articles of the faith but that he was not bound to

other decisions that did not touch upon articles of the faith.19 Heft asserts that John never

saw the poverty issue as revolving around matters of the faith. Rather, he saw it as a

matter of discipline.20 Thus, because the controversy did not circle around a matter of

faith, John felt free to alter the disciplinary decisions of his predecessors on the issue

while at the same time held that the decisions of his predecessors were infallible to the

degree that they touched upon matters of the faith.21

demonstrate that the doctrine of infallibility does have ancient roots, wishes to disprove Tierney and to
demonstrate that John actually did accept a notion of papal infallibility.
17
While mentioning a number of the bulls related to the Franciscan poverty controversy (John
XXII, 23), Heft focuses almost exclusively on Johns Quia quorundam mentes, which he sees as
summarizing and clarifying Johns earlier bulls related to Franciscan poverty (John XXII, 2). . In
Appendix A, Heft lists what he considers the key documents of the controversy. These include Exiit qui
Seminat, numerous bulls of John XXII, and various Franciscan writings (John XXII, 227-8).
18
According to Heft, a pope can be sovereign in revoking the decrees of his predecessors that are
not related to articles of faith as revealed in Scripture. At the same time, according to Heft, a pope can be
infallible in making pronouncements that pertain to articles of the faith.
19
The problem with Tierneys analysis of Quia quorundam mentes, according to Heft, is that
Tierney wrongly assumes that John believed the poverty controversy pertained to a matter of faith. Heft
suggests that one of the reasons that Tierney comes to this conclusion is that John refers to those who
violate his commands as laid out in Cum inter nonnullos as heretics, which would seem to indicate that
John believed they were violating articles of the faith. According to Heft, this is not necessarily the case
because in the fourteenth century heretic could be applied not only to anyone who rejected a doctrinal
teaching of the Church but also to anyone who pertinaciously violated a disciplinary order of the Church
(John XXII, 120).
20
Heft acknowledges that John saw the poverty controversy partially as a matter of doctrine, but
not the kind of doctrine that could not be changed (i.e., a matter of faith).
21
Heft, John XXII, 192.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 7

Heft also disagrees with Tierneys conclusion that in Quia quorundam mentes

John began asserting that he never had contradicted the decision of a predecessor because

he was beginning to see the advantages that a doctrine of infallibility might have. Rather,

Heft suggests, John made such a statement in 1324 because that was precisely the point

when he was being accused of having contradicted the decisions of his predecessors.

Furthermore, rather than saying that after 1324 John refused to address the issue as to

whether or not he could revoke a predecessors decision, Heft argues that it would be

more accurate to state simply that he did not address this subject.22

Tierney responds to Hefts criticisms in the postscript of the second edition of his

book. Here Tierney states that John naturally thought himself infallible in regards to the

tradition of undisputed, clear matters of faith. According to Tierney, the real question is

whether or not he considered himself infallible when pronouncing on hereto-

undetermined questions of faith. Tierney argues that John did see the poverty issue as a

matter of faith and, therefore, rejected papal infallibility in regards to less-than-clear,

hereto-undetermined matters of faith.23

Response to problem: To support their differing positions on the origin of papal

infallibility, both Tierney and Heft focus extensively on John XXIIs notion of authority,

particularly as it pertains to the origins of infallibility. While Tierney asserts that John

did not accept the notion of papal infallibility, he sees Johns papacy as pivotal to its

development. In countering Tierneys positions, Heft focuses almost exclusively on John

XXII and Quia quorundam mentes (1324). In this question that pertains to understanding

papal authority, in regards to the origins of infallibility, they both limit their attention to

22
Ibid., 190-1.
23
Tierney, Origins, 310.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 8

this one pope. John XXII, however, was not the only pope who appealed to his own

authority in dealing with the same issue of the Franciscan poverty controversy.

While accepting, for the purposes of my research, the conclusions of Tierney and

Heft that John XXIIs response to the Franciscan poverty controversy is important for the

development of papal authority (and, therefore, the possible origins of infallibility), I hold

that both conclusions are premature. Before any judgment on John XXIIs understanding

of papal authority can be made, it must be studied in the context of his immediate

predecessors, who successively appealed to their own authority (and the authority of their

predecessors) in relationship to this same issue.

My thesis, therefore, asserts that an examination of the attitudes of six of

Johns predecessors24 towards their own authority as reflected in the bulls25 that

deal with the same controversy is necessary in order to provide a more complete

historical context so that John XXIIs notion of papal authority can be more

accurately interpreted. Specifically, I believe Tierney and Heft do not adequately

address Johns attitudes towards the revocability of his predecessors decrees. Tierney

holds that John initially asserted that he could revoke the decrees of his predecessors but

that John eventually came to assert that he had never actually done so. Heft holds that

John believed he could revoke the decrees of his predecessors that related to matters of

discipline but not those that related to clear matters of faith. I believe that Johns

attitudes towards the revocability of a predecessors decrees becomes clearer in the more

24
Gregory IX (1227-41) Innocent IV (1243-54), Alexander IV (1254-61), Nicholas III (1277-80),
Martin IV (1281-85), and Clement V (1305-1314).
25
Among these major bulls are Quo elongati (1230), Ordinem vestrum (1245), Exiit qui seminat
(1279), Exultantes in Domino (1283), and Exivi de paradiso (1312). I will also analyze John XXIIs
Quorundam exigit (1317), Ad conditorem (1322), Cum inter nonnullos (1323), and Quia quorundam
mentes (1324).
Dissertation Proposal, Page 9

complete historical context of how his predecessors viewed their own authority. John did

not inherit the papacy in a vacuum, and his own attitudes were most likely influenced by

the prevailing understanding of papal authority at the time. A critical examination of the

bulls of the poverty controversy demonstrates that John and his predecessors greatly

respected the authority of their predecessors decrees while at the same time believing

that they could reform them. I assert that an examination of the bulls of the

Franciscan poverty controversy can shed light on the Tierney-Heft debate as to

what degree John believed he could revoke the decisions of his predecessors and to

whether or not he maintained a consistent position on the issue. I, therefore,

differing from both Tierney and Heft, assert that John, like his predecessors,

consistently believed he could respectfully alter, interpret, expand, and eventually

revoke a decision of a predecessor (whether related to faith or discipline) if to do so

was practically advantageous to the Church in general and the papacy in particular.

III. Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Armstrong, Regis J., J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short, ed. Francis of Assisi:
Early Documents, vols. 1-3. New York: New City Press, 1999-2001.

Bullarium Franciscanum, Romanorum Pontificum, Constitutiones, Epistolas ac


Diplomata continens Trtibus Ordinis S.P.N. Francisci spectantia, Vol. I-IV, ed. H
Sbaralea (Rome, 1759-1768); Vol. V-VII, ed. C. Eubel (Rome, 1898-1904).

Secondary Sources:

Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Medieval Papacy. New York: W. W. Norton, 1979, c. 1968.

Beirich, Gregory S. Franciscan Poverty as a Basis for the Reform of the Church in
Dissertation Proposal, Page 10

Ubertino da Casales Arbor vitae crucifixae Jesu. In Reform and Renewal in the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Studies in Honor of Louis Pascoe, S.J., ed.
Thomas M. Izbicki and Christopher M. Bellitto, 50-74. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Bermejo, Luis M. Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion.


Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1992.

Board, Alain de. Manuel de diplomatique franaise et pontificale. Paris: Auguste


Picard, 1929-1952.

Bresslau, Harry. Handbuch der Urkundenlehre fr Deutschland und Italien, 2nd ed., I.
Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1958-1968.

Brooke, Rosalind B. Early Franciscan Government: Elias to Bonaventure. Cambridge:


Cambridge Univ. Press, 1959.

Burgess, Joseph A. The Historical Background of Vatican I. In Teaching Authority and


Infallibility in the Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, VI, ed. Paul C.
Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, 287-297. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1978, 1980.

Burr, David. Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the Usus Pauper Controversy.
Philadephia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1989.

________. The Spiritual Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century After
Saint Francis. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 2001.

Chirico, Peter. Infallibility: The Crossroads of Doctrine. Wilmington, DE: Michael


Glazier, 1983.

Collins, Paul. Infallibility, Primacy, Magisterium, and Reception. In Papacy and the
People of God, ed. Gary MacEoin, 22-39. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1998.

Condern, Conal. Rhetoric, Historiography and Political Theory: Some Aspects of the
Poverty Controversy Reconsidered. Journal of Religious History 13 (June 1984):
15-34.

Congar, Yves. Bref historique des formes du magistere et de ses relations avec les
docteurs. Revue des Sciences Philosophique et Theologiques 60 (Jan. 1976): 99-
112.

Dijk, S. J. P. van and J. H. Walker, ed. Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to
Boniface VIII. Fribourg: Fribourg Univ. Press, 1975.

Duffy, Eamon. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 2nd ed. New Haven; London:
Yale Univ. Press, 2001.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 11

Dugan, Charles. Medieval Papacy. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 25.1 (Jan. 1974):
83-87.

Dulles, Avery. The Magisterium in History: A Theological Perspective. Theological


Education 19 (Spring 1983): 7-26.

Dumont, Christophe J. Sur la pleine acception biblique du mot verit et ses


implications en matire dinfaillibilit. Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et
Theologiques 67 (January 1983): 87-96.

Duval, Arnould Louis. Elaboration dun document pontifical: les travaux preparatoires
la constitution apostolique Cum inter nonnullos. In Fonctionnement
administrative de la papaut dAvignon: aux origins de letat moderne, ed. Jean
Garcin, Jean Favier, and Anne Marie Hayez, 385-409. Rome: Ecole francaise de
Rome, 1990.

Engels, Odilo. Von den Staufern zu den Anjou. In Das Papsttum, I, ed. Martin
Greschat, 208-228. Stuttgart: Verlag W Kohlhammer, 1985.

Eno, Robert B. Some Elements in the Pre-History of Infallibility. In Teaching


Authority and Infallibility in the Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue,
VI, ed. Paul C. Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, 238-258.
Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1978, 1980.

Evans, John H. Primacy, Conciliarity and Infallibility. Colloquium 20 (Oct. 1987): 31-
43.

Evans, J. L. Knowledge and Infallibility. London; New York: Macmillan, 1978.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Office of Teaching in the Christian Church according to the
New Testament. In Teaching Authority and Infallibility in the Church: Lutherans
and Catholics in Dialogue, VI, ed. Paul C. Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph
A. Burgess, 186-212. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1978, 1980.

Flood, David, ed. Chronica: Documentation of Pope John XXII, Michael of Cesena and
the Poverty of Christ with Summaries in English: A Source Book. St.
Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1996.

Ford, John T. Infallibility: A Review of Recent Studies. Theological Studies 40.2 (June
1979): 273-305.

Frenz, T. Papsturkunden des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag
Wiesbaden, 1986.

Gaillardetz, Richard R. Witness to the Faith: Community, Infallibility, and the Ordinary
Dissertation Proposal, Page 12

Magisterium of Bishops. New York: Paulist Press, 1992,

Giry, Arthur. Manuel de diplomatique, new ed., Paris: F. Alcoan, 1965.

Giusti, Martino. Studi sui registri di bolle papali. Citt del Vaticano: Archivio vaticano,
1968.

Grisez, Germain. The Ordinary Magisteriums Infallibility. Theological Studies 55


(Dec. 1994): 720-738.

Harvey, Margaret. Unity and Diversity: Perceptions of the Papacy in the Later Middle
Ages. In Unity and Diversity in the Church: Papers Read at the 1994 Summer
Meeting and the 1995 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed.
Robert Norman Swanson, 145-169. Studies in Church History, 32. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996.

Hausberger, Karl. Die Papste in Avignon. In Das Papstum, I, ed. Martin Greschat, 258-
274. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1985.

Heft, James. John XXII and Papal Infallibility: Brian Tierneys Thesis Reconsidered.
Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19.4 (Fall 1982): 759-780.

________. John XXII and Papal Teaching Authority. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press,
1986.

________. Papal Infallibility and the Marian Dogmas: An Introduction. One in Christ
18.4 (1982): 309-340.

Herde, Peter. Beitrge zum papstlichen Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen im dreizehnten


Jahrhundert, 2nd ed. Kallmnz/Opf.: Lassleben, 1967.

________ and Hermann Jakobs, eds. Papsturkunde und europisches Urkundenwesen:


Studien zu ihrer formalen und rechtlichen Kohrenz von 11. bis 15. Jahrhundert.
Kln: Bhlau, 1999.

Horst, Ulrich. Autoritt und Immunitt des Papstes: Raphael de Pornassio OP und
Julianus Tallad OP in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Basler Konziliarismus.
Paderborn, F. Schningh, 1991.

________. Evangelische Armut und Kirche: Thomas von Aquin und die
Armutskontroversen des 13. und beginnenden 14. Jahrhunderts. Berlin,
Akademie, c. 1992.

________. Evangelische Armut und ppstliches Lehramt: Minoritentheologen im Konflikt


mit Papst Johannes XXII (1316-34). Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, c. 1996.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 13

________. Papst, Konzil, Unfehlbarkeit: d. Ekklesiologie d. Summenkommentare von


Cajetan bis Billuart. Mainz: Matthias Grnewald Verlag, 1978.

________. Unfehlbarkeit und Geschichte: Studien zur Unfehlbarkeitsdiskussion von


Melchior Cano bis zum I. Vatikanischen Konzil. Mainz: Matthias Grnewald
Verlag, c. 1982.

Knowles, David. The Religious Orders in England, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1948-1959.

Kortm, Hans Hennig. Zur ppstlichen Urkundensprache in frhen Mittelalter:


ppstlichen Privilegien 896-1046. Simaringen: J Thornbecke, 1995.

Kng, Hans. Unfehlbar?: eine Anfrage, 2nd ed. Zrich: Benziger, c. 1970.

Lambert, Malcolm D. Franciscan Poverty: The Doctrine of Absolute Poverty of Christ


and the Apostles in the Franciscan Order, 1210-1323, revised and expanded ed.
St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1998.

________. The Franciscan Crisis under John XXII. Franciscan Studies 32 (1972): 123-
143.

Lawrence, Clifford Hugh. English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London:
Burns and Oates, 1965.

Leclercq, Jean. Boniface VIII et la clture des moniales. In Papaut, monachisme et


theories politiques: etudes dhistoire-medieval offertes a Marcel Pacaut, 1: Le
pouvoir et linstitution ecclesiale, ed. Marie Therese, Lorcin, Jean Michel
Poisson, Pierre Guichard, and Michel Rubellin, 273-277. Lyons Presses
Universitaires de Lyons and Centre Interuniversitaire dHistoire et dArcheologie
Mdivales, 1994.

Leff, Gordon. Heresy in the Later Middle Ages. 2 vols. Manchester: Manchester Univ.
Press; New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967.

Luscombe, David E. Lex divinitatis in the Bull Unam sanctam Boniface VIII. In
Church and Government in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to C. R. Cheney
on His 70th Birthday, ed. Christopher N. L. Brooke, 205-221. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976.

Lynch, Cyprian J. A Poor Mans Legacy: An Anthology of Franciscan Poverty. St.


Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1988.

Lytle, Guy F. Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church.
Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 1981.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 14

May, Georg. Ego N. N. Catholicae Ecclesiae episcopus: Entstehung, Entwicklung und


Bedeutung einer Unterschriftformel im Hinblick auf den Universalepiskopat des
Papstes. Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt, 1995.

McDonald, Peter. The Papacy and Monastic Observance in the Later Middle Ages: The
Benedictina in England. Journal of Religious History 14 (1986): 117-132.

McGinn, Bernard J. Angel Pope and Papal Antichrist. Church History 47 (June 1978):
155-173.

Menache, Sophia. Clement V. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1998.

Mollat, Guillaume. Contribution lhistoire du Sacre-College de Clement V Eugene


IV. Revue dHistoire Ecclesiastique 46 (1951): 22-112, 566-594.

Moorman, John R. H. A History of the Franciscan Order from its Origins to the Year
1517. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Newman, John Henry. The Theological Papers of John Henry Newman on Biblical
Inspiration and Infallibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.

Nimmo, Duncan. Reform and Division in the Medieval Franciscan Order. Rome:
Capuchin Historical Institute, 1995.

Phan, Peter C., ed. Church and Theology: Essays in Memory of Carl J. Peter.
Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 1995.

Poole, Richard L. Lectures on the History of the Papal Chancery down to the Time of
Innocent III. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1915.

Powell, James M. The Papacy and the Early Franciscans. Franciscan Studies 14
(1977): 248-262.

Powicke, F. M. The Tragic Flaw in Boniface VIII. In Church and State in the Middle
Ages, ed. Bennett Hill, 184-191. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970.

Rahner, Karl. Notes on the Concept of Infallibility in Catholic Ecclesiology. IDOC-


International 5 (June 13, 1970): 70-73. .

Richards, Jeffrey. The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752. London;
Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.

Ryan, Christopher, ed. The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-
1300. Toronto: Pontifical Inst. of Medieval Studies, 1989.

Santi, Francesco. Gli studi francescani dal dopoguerra ad oggi: atti del Convegno de
Dissertation Proposal, Page 15

studio, Firenze, 5-7 novembre, 1990. Spoleto: Centro Italiano de Studi sullAlto
Medioevo, 1993.

Santifaller, Leo. Beitrge zur Geschichte der Beschreibstoffe im Mittelalter: Mit


besonder Bercksichtigung der ppstlichen Kanzlei. Graz: H. Bhlaus Nachf.,
1953.

Sayers, Jane E. Law and Records in Medieval England: Studies on the Medieval Papacy,
Monasteries and Records. London: Variorum Reprints, 1988.

________. Papal Government and England During the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216-
1227). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984.

Schillebeeckx, Edward, ed. Truth and Certainty. New York: Herder and Herder, 1973.

Schimmelpfennig, Bernard. Die Degradation von Klerikern im spaten Mittelalter.


Zeitschrift fr Religions und Geistesgeschichte 34.4 (1982): 305-323.

Schimmelpfennig, Bernard. The Papacy and the Reform of the Cistercian Order in the
Late Middle Ages. In Studiosorum Speculum: Studies in Honor of Louis J.
Kekai, O.Cist., ed. Francis R. Swietek and John R. Sommerfeldt, 337-354.
Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1993.

Stevens, Clifford. Infallibility and History. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 10.2 (Spring
1973): 384-387.

Sullivan, Francis A. The Secondary Object of Infallibility. Theological Studies (Sept.


1993): 536-550.

Sweeney, James R. and Stanley Chodorow, eds. Popes, Teachers, and Canon Law in the
Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY; Cornell Univ. Press, 1989.

Tavard, George H. Infallibility: A Structural Analysis. In Teaching Authority and


Infallibility in the Church: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, VI, ed. Paul C.
Empie, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, 169-185. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1978, 1980.

Tavard, George H. The Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII. In Papal Primacy and
the Universal Church, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy, 105-119.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1974.

________. The Papacy in the Middle Ages. In Papal Primacy and the Universal
Church, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy, 98-105. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1974.

Tekippe, Terry J. History: The Medieval Period. In Papal Infallibility, ed. Terry J.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 16

Tekippe, 142-148. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1983.

________. Interpretation: The Medieval Period. In Papal Infallibility, ed. Terry J.


Tekippe, 142-148. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1983.

Tierney, Brian. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Medieval
Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism, new enl. ed. Leiden; New York:
Brill, 1998.

________. John Peter Olivi and Papal Inerrancy: On a Recent Interpretation of Olivis
Ecclesiology. Theological Studies 46 (June 1985): 315-328.

________. Origins of Papal Infallibility: 1150-1350, 2nd ed. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J.


Brill, 1988.

________. Rights, Laws and Infallibility in Medieval Thought. Brookfield, VT:


Variorum, 1997.

________. Sovereignty and Infallibility: A Response to James Heft. Journal of


Ecumenical Studies 19.4 (Fall 1982): 787-793.

Turley, Thomas. John Baconthorpe on Papal Infallibility. Journal of Ecumenical


Studies 19.4 (Fall 1982): 744-758.

________. John XXII and the Franciscans: A Reappraisal. In Popes, Teachers and
Canon Law in the Middle Ages, ed. James Ross Sweeney and Stanley Chodorow,
74-88. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1989.

Ullmann, Walter. Boniface VIII and His Contemporary Scholarship. Journal of


Theological Studies 27 (1976): 58-87.

________. Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. London, Methuen,
1970.

________. Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages. London: Variorum Reprints,
1976.

________. Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. New York: Barnes and
Noble; London: Methuen, 1974.

Vahanian, Gabriel. Scripture and Infallibility. IDOC-International 5 (June 13, 1970):


70-73.

Wei, Ian P. The Masters of Theology at the University of Paris in the Late Thirteenth
and Early Fourteenth Centuries: An Authority Beyond the Schools. Bulletin of
the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 75 (Spring 1993): 37-63.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 17

Zutshi, P. N. R., ed. Original Papal Letters in England, 1305-1415. Citt del Vaticano:
Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1990.

IV. Review of Related Literature

The major primary sources for this study are the bulls of the popes from Gregory

IX to John XXII that relate to the Franciscan poverty controversy. My source for the

Latin texts of these bulls is the Bullarium Franciscanum.26 I will also work with the

English translation of these bulls as found in Francis of Assisi: Early Documents.27 I will

critically analyze nine bulls in order to determine the operative notion of papal authority

contained in them. These bulls are: Gregory IXs Quo elongati (1230),28 Innocent IVs

Ordinem vestrum (1245),29 Nicholas IIIs Exiit qui seminat (1279),30 Martin IVs

Exultantes in Domino (1283),31 Clement Vs Exivi de paradiso (1312),32 and John XXIIs

26
Bullarium Franciscanum, Romanorum Pontificum, Constitutiones, Epistolas ac Diplomata
continens Trtibus Ordinis S.P.N. Francisci spectantia, vol. I-IV, ed. H Sbaralea (Rome, 1759-1768), vol.
V-VII, ed. C. Eubel (Rome, 1898-1904).
27
Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short, ed., Francis of Assisi:
Early Documents, vols. 1-3 (New York: New City Press, 1999-2001).
28
Quo elongati, written by Gregory IX, who had been a close friend of Francis, is significant in
that it wast he first papal interpretation of the Rule. In the bull, Gregory abrogates the friars obligation to
follow the precepts of Francis Testament and effectively establishes that the Rule is not equivalent to the
Gospel. Gregory also establishes the office of nuntius, or alms-collecting agent, to handle donations
made to the friars and to conduct necessary business for them. Gregory states firmly that the friars are to
own nothing, either communally or individually.
29
In Ordinem vestrum, Innocent IV expands the role of the nuntius to the point where the later is
permitted to acquire items that are useful for the brothers. Furthermore, Innocent assumes ownership for
the Holy See of all of the buildings and properties that the friars use.
30
Nicholas IIIs Exiit qui seminat offered the interpretation of the Rule that the Friars (initially the
Spirituals and eventually the Community) most wished to protect from corruption by later popes. In this
bull, Nicholas distinguishes between right of use and simple use of fact. Nicholas states that only the
necessary use of things is allowed to the friars. It is up to the discretion of the Orders superiors to
determine what was necessary and what was not. Most importantly, Nicholas declares that Christ taught
that absolute poverty, as exemplified by the Franciscans, was the way of evangelical perfection. Nicholas
also forbids any more debate on the poverty issue. He has settled the matter once and for all.
31
In Exultantes in Domino, Martin IV places the procurator, who handled business affairs for the
friars, under the control of the friars themselves. The distinction between dominion and ownership was
effectively lost.
32
In Exivi de paradiso, Clement V attempted to close loopholes that some friars had found in
Nicholas IIIs Exiit qui seminat. Clement states that the friars are bound not only to the three vows of
Dissertation Proposal, Page 18

Quorundam exigit (1317),33 Ad conditorem (1322),34 Cum inter nonnullos (1323),35 and

Quia quorundam mentes (1324).36

In each of these bulls, the popes interpret the Franciscan Rule. Normally the

popes address the issue of how the vision of Franciscan poverty found in the Rule is to be

lived out practically by the rapidly-expanding Order in the exigencies of the real world.

In these bulls, the popes explain their operative notions of their own authority. They

explain why they are making an authoritative statement and with what authority they

make that statement. Normally, they have been asked to interpret the Rule because of

cantankerous debate within the Order regarding the interpretation of the Rule as made by

previous popes.37 They also intervened because the same debate on poverty existed

within the broader Church. The Franciscan problem was also an ecclesiastical problem.38

In these bulls, the popes indicate whom they have consulted in arriving at their

decisions.39 Most importantly for this study, as the poverty debate continues the popes

poverty, chastity, and obedience, but also to related directives stated in the Rule with varying degrees of
force. Most importantly, Clement states that the Friars are bound to usus pauper (poor use of goods and
property), with discretion as to what constitutes usus pauper being left to the Orders superiors. Clement
also forbids either party in the usus pauper debate to label the opposing party as heretical.
33
In Quorundam exigit, John XXII orders the Spirituals to return to obedience to the Orders
superiors. He states that poverty is good, unity is better, but that obedience is the greatest good of all.
34
In Ad conditorem, John XXII returns all legal ownership of the goods and property that the
friars use back to the Order itself.
35
In Cum inter nonnullos, John XXII states that it is heretical to teach the absolute poverty of
Christ.
36
In Quia quorundam, John XXII summarizes what he stated in Ad conditorem and Cum inter
nonnullos and explains why he had the authority to make such decisions.
37
For example, in Quo elongati Gregory IX states that he is interpreting the Rule because a
deputation from a Franciscan general council has been sent to him in order to clarify certain provisions of
the Rule (Regis J. Armstrong, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short, ed., Francis of Assisi: Early
Documents, vols. 1-3 (New York: New City Press, 1999-2001), I, 2, 570-1). Citations will follow the
pattern of volume number, article or chapter number (when applicable), paragraph or sentence number, and
then page number.
38
For example, in Exiit qui seminat Nicholas III states that one of the reasons he is issuing a
pronouncement on the Rule is because of the escalating conflict between the friars and the secular clergy
(FA:ED III, 737-8).
39
For example, in Cum inter nonnullos, John XXII states that he is ruling having obtained the
counsel of his brothers (FA:ED III, 2, 790).
Dissertation Proposal, Page 19

seek to clarify or modify rulings of their predecessors. The manner in which they go

about doing this exemplifies their operative notion of their own authority, especially in

relationship to their predecessors. Questions arise as to whether the popes could reverse

the decisions of their predecessors or, affirming their predecessors declarations, could

alter the interpretation thereof.40

I will, therefore, critically analyze these nine bulls in view of finding what the

popes say about their own authority. Of course, these bulls too will need to be

contextualized. For this purpose, sufficient work has already been done. My secondary

research will be concentrated in four areas: critical analysis of papal bulls, general status

of the medieval papacy, the Franciscan poverty controversy, and the teaching office of

the papacy throughout this period.

An important scope of my dissertation is to undertake a critical investigation of

these nine bulls. Form criticism of these bulls is essential to this process. A number of

sources will be helpful in critically examining these bulls. These are: Harry Bresslaus

Handbuch der Urkundenlehre fr Deutschland und Italien, Arnould Loius Duvals

Elaboration dun document pontifical: les travaux preparatoires la constituion

apostolique Cum inter nonnullos, Arthur Girys Manuel de diplomatique, Richard L.

Pooles Lectures on the History of the Papal Chancery down to the Time of Innocent III,

and P. N. R. Zutshis Original Papal Letters in England, 1305-1415.

A source that is most helpful for a general understanding papal bulls in the middle

ages is T. Frenzs Papsturkunden des Mitttelalters und der Neuzeit. Frenz discusses the

40
For example, in Ordinem vestrum Innocent IV states that he is clarifying Gregory IXs Quo
elongati (FA:ED II, 1, 775). In doing so, Innocent revises what Gregory had said in regards to the items
which the brothers were permitted to use. Whereas Gregory had ruled that the brothers could only use
necessary items, Innocent states that they may use items that are useful l(FA:ED II, 4, 776; italics mine).
This subtle distinction was important one in the contentious poverty debate.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 20

various types of papal documents in the Medieval period as well as the formulas that

were used in their composition. Furthermore, Frenz describes the workings of the

medieval papal chancery and the various steps that a papal document made on its journey

through the pontifical bureaucracy of the period.41

In addition to an understanding of why papal bulls were written and how they

were meant to be read, my dissertation requires that I am aware of the general status of

the papacy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. There are a number of works that

will be helpful, including Odilio Engels article Von den Staufern zu den Anjou and

Karl Hausbergers article Die Papste in Avignon, both of which appear in Das

Papsttum. Other works that provide a basic history of the papacy in the middle ages from

the perspective of papal bulls are: Margaret Harveys Unity and Diversity: Perceptions

of the Papacy in the Later Middle Ages, Guy F. Lytles Reform and Authority in the

Medieval and Reformation Church, Christopher Ryans The Religious Roles of the

Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, Jane E. Sayers Law and Records in Medieval

England; Studies on the Medieval Papacy, Monasteries and Records, James R. Sweeney

and Stanley Chodorows Popes Teachers and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, and Brian

Tierneys Rights, Laws and Infallibility in Medieval Thought.

Two important sources will be valuable in establishing a firm historical

background in regards to the medieval papacy. In Saints and Sinners: A History of the

Popes, Eamon Duffy traces how the papacy slipped from its pinnacle of power and

influence with Innocent III (1198-1216) to one of its weakest moments with the Great

Schism (1378), an event which nearly destroyed the papacy. The period of the

41
T. Frenz, Papsturkunden des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag
Wiesbaden, 1986). A second edition of this work was published in Italian in 1998.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 21

Franciscan poverty controversy lies between Innocent III and the Great Schism. Duffy

provides valuable biographical information regarding the popes of the poverty

controversy and vividly describes the political and ecclesiastical pressures that weighed

upon them as they made decisions regarding the controversy.42 Walter Ullmanns

foundational Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages provides a more detailed

analysis of this period, especially in regards to the papal curia and papal relationships

with political rulers.43

Also of seminal importance for my dissertation is an understanding of the

Franciscan poverty controversy. This provides the historical setting of my study. There

are a number of sources which many scholars consider essential in examining this period

of Franciscan history. These are: Rosalind B. Brookes Early Franciscan Government:

Elias to Bonaventure, David Burrs Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the

Usus Pauper Controversy, Ulrich Horsts Evangelische Armut and ppstliches Lehramt:

Minoritentheologen im Konflikt mit Papst Johannes XXII (1316-1334), Duncan Nimmos

Reform and Division in the Medieval Franciscan Order, and John R. H. Moormans A

History of the Franciscan Order from its Origins to the Year 1517. Significantly, in 1998

Malcolm D. Lambert revised and expanded his foundational work Franciscan Poverty:

The Doctrine of Absolute Poverty of Christ and the Apostles in the Franciscan Order,

1210-1323. Other recent works in this area include Ulrich Horsts Evangelische Armut

42
Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 2nd ed. (New Haven; London: Yale
Univ. Press, 2001).
43
Walter Ullmann, Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (New York: Barnes and Noble;
London: Methuen, 1974). A number of works will be useful in examining specific papacies most involved
in the Franciscan poverty controversy, including Malcolm D. Lamberts, The Franciscan Controversy
under John XXII, Sophia Menaches Clement V, and Thomas Turleys John XXII and the Franciscans: A
Reappraisal.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 22

and ppstliches Lehramt: Minoritentheologen im Konflikt mit Papst Johannes XXII

(1316-1334).

One work published within the past two years is David Burrs The Spiritual

Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century after Saint Francis. In this

book, Burr examines the relationships between the Franciscans and the popes primarily

from the perspective of the friars themselves, especially the Spirituals. Burr describes

how Peter John Olivi, Angelo of Clareno, and Ubertino of Casale, three great figures

associated with the Spiritual movement, appealed to and sometimes rejected papal

authority in an attempt to safeguard their particular vision of Franciscan poverty. Most

importantly, Burr traces how the popes became embroiled in the Franciscan poverty

controversy and why the issue of infallibility began to surface in the context of this

particular dispute.44

In addition to an understanding of papal involvement in the Franciscan poverty

controversy, an examination of how the teaching office of the papacy has been viewed

from the earliest days of the Church is essential in establishing how the popes involved in

the controversy viewed their own authority. Important sources related to the teaching

office of the papacy include Yves Congars Bref historique des formes du magistere et

de ses relations avec les docteurs, Joseph A. Fitzmeyers The Office of Teaching in the

Christian Church according to the New Testament, Richard R. Gaillardetzs Witness to

the Faith: Community, Infallibility, and the Ordinary Magisterium of Bishops, Germain

Grisezs The Ordinary Magisteriums Infallibility, and Ian P. Weis The Masters of

44
David Burr, The Spiritual Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century After Saint
Francis (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 2001).
Dissertation Proposal, Page 23

Theology at the University of Paris in the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth

Centuries.

Another important work for examining how the Church has viewed papal

authority and its teaching office is Avery Dulles The Magisterium in History: A

Theological Perspective. Dulles provides a helpful survey of how the Church viewed

the magisterial office in the New Testament (emphasis on local church), the patristic

period (emphasis on councils), and the Middle Ages (emphasis on universities and

theologians). Dulles also summarizes and offers references to other important studies

related to the magisterium.45 Another helpful work is Paul Collins more recent

Infallibility, Primacy, Magesterium and Reception, in which the author examines the

history of papal primacy in the first and second millennia and explains the relationship

between papal infallibility and the popes ordinary magisterium.46

V. Procedure

Five of Johns predecessors understanding of their own authority will be

determined by examining papal bulls related to the Franciscan poverty controversy. I

will begin by examining the role of papal bulls in the Medieval Church. In the bulls

themselves, I will look for indications as to why the popes felt obliged to issue decisions

and to what authorities they appealed in making these decisions. Most importantly, I will

45
Avery Dulles, The Magisterium in History: A Theological Perspective. Theological
Education 19 (Spring 1983): 7-26.
46
Paul Collins, Infallibility, Primacy, Magisterium, and Reception, in Papacy and the People
of God, ed. Gary MacEoin (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1998): 22-39. Sources relating specifically to the
history of the doctrine of infallibility also shed light on how papal authority was viewed during the
Franciscan poverty controversy. Such sources include Robert B. Enos Some Elements in the Pre-History
of Infallibility, James Hefts Papal Infallibility and the Marian Dogmas: An Introduction, Karl Rahners
Notes on the Concept of Infallibility in Catholic Ecclesiology, and Brian Tierneys Foundations of the
Conciliar Theory.
Dissertation Proposal, Page 24

examine papal attitudes towards decisions of their predecessors and any attempts to limit

alterations of their own decisions by their successors. I will use my conclusions

regarding Johns predecessors attitudes towards their own authority to provide a fuller

historical context for better understanding Johns own understanding of papal authority.

Why it is beneficial to examine the concept of infallibility in the context of the

Franciscan poverty controversy: In this case, a series of closely connected popes

pronounced rulings on the same specific issue within a clearly defined time period. Thus,

their attitudes towards their own authority in relation to the authority of their

predecessors and successors becomes increasingly evident in the manner in which they

interpret the Franciscan Rule. This approach has advantages over that of Tierney, who

looks at Olivis understanding of papal infallibility, examines the significance of

Nicholas IIIs bull Exiit, and then moves on to John XXIIs views regarding papal

infallibility. This approach also has advantages over Heft, who looks almost exclusively

at John XXIIs bull Quia quorundam mentes. In my study, Johns own understanding of

his authority will be placed in the context of the attitudes and understanding of five of his

predecessors in regards to the operative notion of papal authority.

Significance: The current debate is not adequately grounded in sources beyond John

XXII. My research will fill that gap. Furthermore, because the issues considered in

regard to papal authority during the Franciscan poverty controversy continued to shape

the debate surrounding the development of papal infallibility during the early modern

period, my research also provides a historical context for understanding how the doctrine

eventually came to be defined at the First Vatican Council. In addition, a more


Dissertation Proposal, Page 25

historically-rooted understanding of how papal authority was viewed during the poverty

controversy may very well offer new insights into how papal authority in general and the

doctrine of papal infallibility more specifically might be interpreted today.

VI. Probable Contents

I. Introduction
A. Review of debate regarding John XXIIs understanding of his own authority
B. Explain necessity of providing a historical context for understanding John
XXIIs attitude towards papal authority by examining the attitudes of his
predecessors as expressed in the bulls of the Franciscan poverty controversy
II. Chapter I: Historical Background
A. Papal bulls in the Middle Ages
1. The role of papal bulls in the Middle Ages
2. Critical reading of papal bulls
B. Brief history of the Franciscan poverty controversy
C. Significance of bulls in that controversy
III. Chapter II: Examination of Gregory IXs Quo elongati and Innocent IVs Ordinem
vestrum
IV. Chapter III: Examination of Nicholas IIIs Exiit qui seminat
V. Chapter IV: Examination of Martin IVs Exultantes in domino and Clement Vs
Exivi de paradiso
VI. Chapter V: Examination of John XXIIs bulls related to the Franciscan poverty
controversy
A. Quorundam exigit
B. Ad conditorem
C. Cum inter nonnullos
D. Quia quorundam mentes
VII. Chapter VI: Reappraising Johns understanding of his own authority in light of
his predecessors understanding of their own authority
VIII. Conclusion: Summary of argumentation, application to the Tierney-Heft debate,
and suggestions for further research

You might also like