Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Gamecock
Are we supposed to be impressed? An ex-priest becomes a Calvinist and parrots the Creed of the Presbyterians? The Popes are the anti-Christ, the Church is the whore of Babylon. So what's new? Tell me, which one is the anti-Christ? We've had 265 in history, Pope Benedict being the 265th.

And this Bull, Qui quorundam (1324), is dealing with problems Pope John XXII was trying to settle among the Franciscans, not infallibility! You would think an ex-Catholic priest would know that.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"These troubles among the Franciscans were increased by the quarrel about evangelical poverty which broke out among the Conventuals themselves. The general chapter of Perugia, through their general, Michael of Cesena, and other learned men of the order (including William Occam), defended the opinion of Berenger Talon, that Christ and His Apostles had no possessions either individually or in common. In 1322 Pope John declared this statement null and void, and in 1323 denounced as heretical the assertion that Christ and the Apostles had no possessions either individually or in common, and could not even legitimately dispose of what they had for personal use. Not only the Spirituals, but also the adherents of Michael of Cesena and William Occam, protested against this decree, whereupon in 1324 the pope issued a new Bull, confirming his former decision, setting aside all objections to it, and declaring those who opposed this decision heretics and enemies of the Church. Summoned to appear at Avignon, Michael of Cesena obeyed the summons, but refused to yield and, when threatened with imprisonment, sought safety in flight. Leaving Avignon on 25 May, 1328, and accompanied by William Occam and Bonagratia di Bergamo, he betook himself to Louis of Bavaria for protection."

Well, here's the Bull.

Quia quorundam

Your article states "in the bull Qui quorundam (1324) condemned the Franciscan doctrine of papal infallibility as the work of the devil.”

Please show me where in that Bull it specifically says that papal infallibility is the "work of the devil." I read the Bull twice. I never saw the word devil or Satan. I did a word search also. It's not there.

When an author uses subterfuge in one instance, it calls into question everything he says. His credibility is shot.

3 posted on 08/25/2006 3:06:22 AM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: FJ290

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus


4 posted on 08/25/2006 3:30:12 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: FJ290

It sounds like the Bull is clarifying that, although previous popes established the Franciscan General with authority as to the rule of St. Francis, that authority was not conferring on the Franciscan General the grace of infallibility, since that grace is not the popes' to infer.


10 posted on 08/25/2006 5:15:23 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: FJ290

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/mass.htm


14 posted on 08/25/2006 5:54:05 AM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson