Russell Grigg, on CMI, seems to imagine him as a Protestant.
Michael asked Ockham to study three papal bulls4 showing what Pope John XXII had previously written on the use of property. From these, Ockham concluded that Pope John was not just mistakenly wrong, but was stubbornly and heretically wrong, and so had forfeited his mandate. In short, Ockham protested that John was a pseudo-pope. Indeed, Ockham has the distinction of being designated ‘the first Protestant’—by no less an authority on this subject than the Catholic Encyclopedia.5
Actually, when I look up the article, I find:
He has, indeed, been called "the first Protestant". Nevertheless, he recognized in his polemical writings the authority of the Church in spiritual matters, and did not diminish that authority in any respect. Similarly, although he rejected the rational demonstration of several truths which are fundamental in the Christian system of theology, he held firmly to the same truths as matters of faith.
So, no, not a Protestant. Perhaps Russell Grigg had consulted the other one, which I have not been able to access ...
How about the quoted paragraph? The one quoted by Russell Grigg?
From these, Ockham concluded that Pope John was not just mistakenly wrong, but was stubbornly and heretically wrong, and so had forfeited his mandate. In short, Ockham protested that John was a pseudo-pope.
Sounds like a Sedevacantist. You know the guys who go:
- Other Catholic
- (since 2014)
- You really should accept Evolution, Pope Saint John Paul II said "evolution is more than just a hypothesis".
- Yeah, I know it was not "more than just one hypothesis" as some had hoped, I can only conclude Wojtyla was a pseudo-Pope. As Bergoglio for pseudo-canonizing him.
- Other Catholic
- (prior to 2007)
- You can't go to the Masses of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, Pope Paul VI has changed the liturgy.
- Yeah, I avoid their Masses too, now, since they pray "una cum papa nostro benedicto" (prior to 2007, remember) and Montini with successors Wojtyla and Ratzinger are pseudo-Popes.
So, was Ockham a Sede about John XXII? In fact, others seem to have had misgivings too. He momentarily entertained soul sleep, and said even the saints don't see God in Heaven prior to the Last Judgement. One or two saints promptly opposed this and their wording - "withdraw obedience" - can at least be reasonably interpreted as an euphemism for "go Sede". He did repent on this one.
Relationships between the parties deteriorated and in May 1328 Michael, Ockham, and some Franciscan sympathizers fled Avignon to the protection of the Holy Roman Emperor, Louis IV (Ludwig) of Bavaria, who became Ockham’s patron. Pope John promptly excommunicated Ockham and his companions, not for heresy but for defiance of his authority (i.e. leaving Avignon without his permission).
Sounds a bit like the reaction of "John Paul II" in 1988.
"Yeah, I know, you are concerned we are not sufficiently traditional in Rome, you think you have to defend tradition on your own, but hey guys, as long as you accept I am Pope, what you did is disobedience to the Pope on a very grave matter (consecration of bishops without authorisation by the Pope), so, just want you to know, the Church Law automatically excommunicated you ..."
VERY loose rendering of the notification act of Antipope Wojtyla on hearing bishops Lefebvre and Castro-Mayer had pulled through with consecrating four bishops at Écône. One of which, Mgr Williamson, is, by the way fairly strictly Creationist, excplicitly references Adam and Eve and the Flood. And the upcoming Antichrist.
So, as far as the mode of non-obedience is concerned, one can debate on whether William was Protestant (very improbable) or Sedevacantist or Trad (Lefebvrist). The latter two are more probable. Except, he was Caesareo-Papist:
In his controversial writings William of Ockham appears as the advocate of secular absolutism. He denies the right of the popes to exercise temporal power, or to interfere in any way whatever in the affairs of the Empire. He even went so far as to advocate the validity of the adulterous marriage of Louis's son, on the grounds of political expediency, and the absolute power of the State in such matters.
What a horror ...
Hans Georg Lundahl
Post a Comment