Papal documents relating to Franciscan poverty
See also
translations by Jonathan
Robinson of other papal documents and texts relating
to Franciscan poverty by Bonaventure, Michael de Cesena
and William of St-Amour.
Return
to contents
|
POPE JOHN XXII, QUIA QUORUNDAM
Translated by John Kilcullen and John Scott
Copyright (c) 1996,
1998, R.J. Kilcullen, J.R. Scott.
[1] Since it is said that the Father
of the Lie has so blinded the minds of some that they
have tried, not without much punishable rashness, to
destroy {detrahere} our constitutions Ad
conditorem canonum and Quum inter
nonnullos--composed {digestis} certainly
{utique} with diligent preparatory deliberation with
our Brothers the cardinals of the holy Roman Church,
and with many archbishops and bishops and other
prelates of the Church, and also with many masters of
sacred theology and professors of both laws, and
promulgated with the advice of our Brothers before
mentioned-- and try to obscure the truth they contain
with mad falsehoods: against such pernicious acts of
daring, lest their pestiferous doctrine have power to
cause the souls of the simple to stumble and lead them
into the by-way of their own error, we have decided,
with the advice of the same Brothers, to provide
salutarily upon this matter as follows.
[2] To attack the before mentioned
constitutions, it is reported, they have used publicly
in word and in writing the following argument. They
say that
-
whatever, through the key of
knowledge [see gloss, col. 154, z], the Roman
pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals
persists so immutably that it is not licit for a
successor to call it again into doubt nor affirm
the contrary (though, they say, it is otherwise
with things ordained through the key of power).
- But in the confirmation
of the rule of the Order of Friars Minor by our
predecessors, the supreme pontiffs Honorius III,
Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, and Nicholas
IV [rather, III--the confusion continues below],
they assert that these words are contained: "This is
Christ's gospel rule, and, imitating it, the
Apostles' rule, that they have in {quae... habet...
habent} nothing in this world proper or common [i.e.
no property as individuals or as a group], but they
have in the things they use simple use of fact";
presuming to add to these [words] that the before
mentioned supreme pontiffs and many general councils
have defined through the key of knowledge
that the poverty of Christ and the Apostles
consisted perfectly in lack of ownership of any
temporal civil and worldly lordship, and that their
sustenance consisted also solely in bare use of
fact; from which they try to conclude
- that it was not lawful,
and is not lawful, for their successors to make any
change against the foregoing [i.e. the points
defined].
And therefore,
-
since our constitution, going (in
the above argument) against the definitions of our
predecessors before mentioned (so they say), defined
that Christ and the Apostles had, in the things
they had, not only simple use of fact, but the right
of dealing {faciendi} with them [i.e. of using,
giving away, exchanging, etc.], and that sacred
scripture testifies that they did do those things,
declaring heretical the pertinacious
assertion of those who say that they did not have
such a right (since they imply {concludere} that
their acts were not just, which is wicked to say
of Christ),
- they try to infer,
though falsely, that it was not licit for us to
declare or enact the things before mentioned.
Again, because the constitution Ad
conditorem canonum, against the before
mentioned definitions, asserts that the Brothers Minor
cannot have in any thing simple use of fact, they try,
similarly, to conclude against it.
[3] However, it is evidently clear
from the following that the premiss of the above
argument--namely, that those things which through the
key of knowledge the supreme pontiffs have once
defined in faith and morals it is not lawful for a
successor to call again into doubt, or affirm the
contrary, though it is otherwise (they say) with
things ordained by supreme pontiffs through the key of
power--is entirely contrary to truth.
First, indeed, according to those who
hold that the spiritual key is by no means knowledge,
but the power to bind and loose, it is clear that the
before mentioned assertors, in stating that it is
knowledge, have erred. The definition the learned give
of the key supports them [i.e. those who hold that the
key is power]: "The key is a special power of binding
and loosing, by which the ecclesiastical judge should
admit the worthy, and exclude the unworthy from the
Kingdom".
Again, because the keys of which we
speak are given in the conferring of the priestly
order; but it is certain that knowledge is generally
not conferred on one ordained to the priesthood:
therefore, according to them, it seems that knowledge
is not a key, but only the power to bind and loose
should be called a key.
Besides, according to those [a] who
say that the one spiritual key is knowledge, and
according to those [b] who assert that authority to
distinguish "between leprosy and leprosy" [Deut. 17]
is one key and another [key] is the power to bind and
loose, they are known evidently to have erred.
-
For they suppose that something
can be defined by some constitution through such
keys [of knowledge] concerning matters which are
of faith, and other matters [i.e. of morals]. But
the keys which are conferred in the priestly order
do not extend to such things; otherwise it would
follow that simple priests could make a
constitution about the foregoing, which is
evidently false.
But if they mean that those keys
extend to the general power given in the commission of
the pastoral office to blessed Peter,
and in his person to his successors (a commission
which indeed evidently seems to have granted them
everything without which universal pastoral care
cannot suitably take place or the office be
discharged), again it is clear that they have erred.
For they say that things enacted by the key of
knowledge and those enacted by the key of power
(supposing that some things are enacted, or even
defined, by the key of knowledge and others by the key
of power) have different effects [the former
immutable, the latter not]. This is evidently false.
For
-
through the key of knowledge, or
through the authority to distinguish or examine
between leprosy and leprosy (if we say that that
is a key), nothing else is attributed to him to
whom it is given except authority {cognoscere} to
examine. But
- to someone given
authority to examine concerning some thing,
[authority] to define that thing is not understood
to be given [see gloss. col.159, d].
It remains, therefore, that for
suitably enacting or defining anything, both
keys--namely of knowing and of examining--are
necessarily required; or that to enact, and also to
define, belongs solely to the key of power; but just
as physical light directs the key bearer in using a
physical key, also, as it were, for this purpose
knowledge is the counterpart of light. Our Saviour in
the promise of the keys ["and I will give you the
keys"] made to blessed Peter seems expressly to have
thought this, since he added immediately after it:
"And whatever you will bind upon earth will be bound
also in heaven, and whatever you will loose upon earth
will be loosed also in heaven"--making no mention of
knowledge.
[4] What is afterwards put forward in
the above argument--namely that in the confirmation
and explanation of the rule of the Brothers Minor
given by some of our predecessors, namely Honorius
III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV and
Nicholas IV, the following words are contained, "This
is the gospel rule", etc., quoted above, up to
"clearly consisted also solely in bare use of
fact"--altogether contradicts the truth.
Honorius, indeed, confirmed that rule
without any explanation, and in his confirmation there
is no mention of the above words, as can be apparent
to anyone who looks into his confirmation: except
insofar as the gospel life is mentioned in the
confirmed rule itself, when it says, "This is the rule
of the Brothers Minor, namely to observe the holy
Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, by living in
obedience, without property, and in chastity". It
cannot be inferred from these words that this
predecessor of ours defined the things that they
assert in the above words [namely, that Christ and the
Apostles had nothing]. Indeed, it can be inferred
rather that the Gospel life lived by Christ and the
Apostles did not exclude some
possessions in common, since living "without property"
does not require that those living thus should have
nothing in common.
In the explanations also of the before
mentioned Gregory, Innocent and Alexander, who explain
the same rule without other confirmation, there is
similarly no mention at all of the above [words];
indeed it is shown evidently by means of those
[explanations] that of the things it is licit for
these Brothers to possess, use of right
[not simple use of fact] belongs to the order
itself.
-
Indeed on this matter Gregory
inserted in his explanation the following: "We say
that they should have property neither
individually nor in common; but let the order have
the use of the equipment, books and movable things
which it is licit to have, and let the Brothers
use these things according as the minister general
and provincials think should be ordered".
- Innocent and Alexander
before mentioned said in their explanations: "We
say, moreover, that since it is contained expressly
in the Rule that the Brothers should not appropriate
anything to themselves, neither house, nor place,
nor any thing, that they should not have property
either in common or individually; but let the order
have the use of the places, houses, equipment,
books, and things it is licit to have, and let the
Brothers use them according as the general and
provincial ministers think should be ordered".
For when it is said in the above
explanations that the order should have the use of the
foregoing things, this must refer to use of
right. Facts, indeed, which are of
singulars, need and require a true person: but an
Order is not a true person but must rather be regarded
as a represented and imaginary person. Those things
which are of fact therefore cannot truly befit it,
though things which are of right can suit it. [See
gloss, col.161, q-y] [5] Besides, although the
explanation of the said Nicholas IV
contains the following: "These [the Franciscans] are
thos e professors of the holy Rule [of St Francis] who
are founded on the Gospel words, strengthened by the
example of Christ's life, and confirmed by the words
and deeds of his Apostles, the founders of the Church
militant". Afterwards in the same explanation he added
that "the renunciation for God's sake of ownership,
both individual and common, of all things is
meritorious and holy: Christ also, showing the way of
perfection, taught this by word and confirmed it by
example; and the first founders of the Church
militant, as they had drawn it from the source
himself, directed it through the channels of their
teaching and lives to those who wished to live
perfectly".
But from the above words it can by no
means be inferred that it was the intention of our
predecessor above mentioned, Nicholas, to say that the
said Rule is, in respect of everything
contained in it, founded on the Gospel words and
strengthened by the example of Christ's life, or that
it is confirmed by the life and deeds of the Apostles.
For it is certain that many things are contained in
the said Rule which neither Christ's word taught nor
his example confirmed--for example, what the founder
of the Rule prescribes to all the Brothers, that they
should in no way receive a penny or money, either
directly or by means of a go-between, nor also many
other things contained in the said Rule that indeed
neither Christ nor the Apostles taught in words nor
confirmed by example.
It is no objection that Christ forbad
the Apostles and disciples to carry money when he sent
them to preach (this, however, we read was forbidden
to them before he sent them). Gospel truth and
apostolic sayings testify in many places that they
carried money after they returned. Further, Augustine
says explicitly that [not to carry money] was not a
precept but a power of receiving necessaries from
those to whom they preached the gospel; it was licit
for the Apostles to observe this [i.e. to receive
necessaries], or, also, not to observe it.
But our predecessor the Roman pontiff
Nicholas, in the explanation above mentioned, seems to
have meant to say this [that it is founded on the
Gospel words etc.] in respect of the three main
vows--namely to live in obedience, without property,
and in chastity--and other things in the said Rule
that are found explicitly in the Gospel, if there are
any. This indeed does not conflict in any respect with
our declarations above mentioned.
Besides, it does not seem that he said
that the sustenance of Christ and his apostles
consisted solely in bare simple use of fact, since in
his explanation our predecessor above mentioned,
Nicholas, made no mention of Christ and the Apostles.
Indeed he seems to have thought explicitly enough that
they were able to have a right (different from
ownership), since the above explanation, as far as it
concerns them [Christ and the Apostles], mentions only
renunciation of ownership and not any other right.
Besides, the same Nicholas our
predecessor seems to have thought that Christ and the
Apostles had something in common even in respect of
ownership. For when in his explanation above mentioned
he had said the words above concerning renunciation of
owner ship, answering a tacit objection that could be
made to him about the bag which we read in the Gospel
[Jn 13:29] that Christ had, he immediately added the
following: "Neither let anyone think to object to
these things that it is sometimes said that Christ had
a bag." For Christ himself, whose works are perfect,
practised in his actions the way of perfection in such
a way that sometimes, condescending to the
imperfection of the weak, he both extolled the way of
perfection and did not condemn the weak ways of the
imperfect". And in this way he asserts that Christ, in
[owning] a bag, took on the person of the weak.
Otherwise, if he did not mean that
Christ had the bag even in the sense of ownership, the
objection concerning the bag would have been
irrelevant. Moreover, if it were said that Christ had
in the bag only simple use of fact, it would be
pointless to say that Christ had that bag "in the
person of the weak", since, according to him
[Nicholas], to have simple use of fact befits the
perfect also. And if one asks, for the sake of which
of the weak did he have the bag?, Augustine, whose
statement has been inserted into the Decretum
[12, q.1, Habebat Dominus], answers: "The
Lord had a bag keeping safe the offerings of the
faithful, and distributed them for their [the
disciples'] necessities and to other poor persons".
Whence it is certain that he thought this [that they
were weak] of his disciples.
And this, to have some things in
common in respect of ownership, does not derogate from
the highest poverty, according to the statement of the
before mentioned Gregory IX. In a certain decretal of
his he says expressly that the Preaching Brothers and
the Brothers Minor serve Christ the poor man "in the
highest poverty"; and yet it is certain that the
preachers have some things in common even in respect
of ownership, which does not conflict with their Rule
and state.
Alexander, also, our
predecessor above mentioned, seems to have thought
this in his condemnation of a pamphlet published
against the state of the Preachers and Minors.
Somewhere in this condemnation speaking about the said
Brothers he added the following, when in addition he
answers that these brothers have abandoned everything
for God's sake, "begging the meagre maintenance of
life, let them imitate Christ the poor man by
embracing Gospel perfection. On account of this it
evidently appears that they are not only in the state
of those to be saved, but even of the perfect, and
that by the observance of their way of life, which
indeed follows the model of Gospel perfection itself,
they earn excelling glory as the reward of eternal
recompense". Here indeed he says explicitly that the
Preachers imitate Christ the poor man, and that they
embrace Gospel perfection, and are in the state of the
perfect, and that observance of their Rule follows the
model of Gospel perfection; and yet it is certain that
according to their Rule they [i.e. the Order of
Preachers] can have some things in common even in
respect of ownership.
Neither is it an objection when they
say, that Innocent (otherwise Celestine) V, our
predecessor, said that high poverty is to have few
things of one's own, for God's sake, higher poverty
that which has nothing of one's own, but has in
common; the highest that which has nothing in this
world either individually or in common. We say,
indeed, that he said this not as pope, but as Brother
Peter of Tarantasia in a certain postill of his; the
sayings of the above mentioned supreme pontiffs should
therefore rightly be preferred to it.
They say also that the Apostle is
speaking of such highest poverty, when he says: "And
their highest poverty overflowed in the riches of
their simplicity" [2 Cor. 8:2] This is evidently
false, because there he is speaking of the poverty of
the Macedonians, who held temporal goods even
individually, concerning whom the Apostle asserts that
beyond their means they had sent alms to the saints.
[6] What is said to be contained in
the explanation of our predecessor Nicholas, however,
that the Brothers Minor have only simple use of fact
in the things that come to them, we say that if he
meant simple use of fact devoid of all right, so that
the Brothers themselves or the Order would have no
right of using, this is explicitly against the
declaration of our predecessors, the supreme pontiffs
Gregory, Innocent, and Alexander above mentioned, in
which it is explicitly contained that the Order has
the use of such things: this must necessarily be
understood of use of right, as has been proved above.
Besides, we say that this is
impossible, namely that simple use of fact without any
right (which can properly be called nothing else than
the [act of] using {uti} itself) can be held by anyone
in any thing, even one not consumable by use, as has
been proved in the decretal Ad conditorem
canonum, and as Augustine explicitly holds
concerning an act in [Confessions] book
11.
Further, if anyone could have simple
use, devoid of every right, it is certain that such an
act of using would have to be regarded as not-just,
since a person would have used to whom no right of
using belonged. But a not-just use does not by any
means pertain to a state of perfection and adds
nothing to perfection, but rather is manifestly known
to conflict with it. Now it does not seem probable
that the enacter of the canon meant to reserve such
not-just use to the Brothers themselves.
Indeed, that he was referring to a
just use can appear more evidently from this, that in
the same enactment he adds that he was taking to
himself and also to the Roman Church the lordship
precisely of those things of which it was licit
for the Brothers, or for the Order above mentioned, to
have use of fact, adding that those Brothers should
not have use of all things [e.g. not of money]: but as
far as relates to simple use of fact without any right
of using, no difference of things can be assigned
{censeri} in respect of the Brothers, for de
facto they can use prohibited things just as
they can things permitted. From this it follows that
the use of fact of which this enactment speaks should
be understood of such use as is just and for which
there belongs a right of using. And the enacter of the
canon himself seems also to have thought this, since
in the same enactment he added that a moderate use of
things previously paid out {in expensis prius rebus}
has been granted to the Brothers.
[7] Again, those who attack these
constitutions are said {perhibentur] to assert
publicly that supreme pontiffs have condemned the
pamphlet and statements of the masters who asserted
that the said poverty and life of the said Brothers
was not evangelical and apostolic, strictly
prohibiting by apostolic letter anyone from presuming
to assert contumaciously the foregoing [statements],
or any of them, or to defend them in any way:
providing that anyone presuming to the contrary should
be regarded as contumacious, as a rebel against the
Roman Church, and as a heretic.
To this we say that such an assertion
is false. For it is not contained in the sentence
above mentioned that anyone going against it should be
regarded as a heretic. In this respect it contains
indeed the following: "For we likewise {nihilominus}
by the authority of this document strictly forbid
anyone to presume to assert pertinaciously or to
defend in any way the foregoing [statements], or any
of them. But whoever presumes to do so, let him be
regarded by all the faithful as contumacious and as a
rebel against the Roman Church". It was not added that
he should be regarded as a heretic, as is clear in the
text of the above sentence of condemnation.
[8] Again, such assertors are said to
have asserted publicly that 'renunciation for God's
sake of a right in the ownership of any thing
whatever, and in its use, is holy and meritorious, and
was observed by Christ himself, and imposed on his
Apostles, and undertaken by them under vow. But use of
fact by Christ and the Apostles for the sustenance of
nature is not on this account proved to be not just;
but it is the more just, perfect, acceptable to God,
and exemplary for the world, the more fully every
right has been renounced by which a person using thus
can in any way contend or litigate in court for such a
use'. This assertion indeed contains many falsities,
since Gospel or apostolic history does not teach that
Christ observed in himself the above mentioned
renunciation of every right in the ownership of every
thing whatever and in its use, or that he imposed it
on the Apostles, or that they accepted it under vow;
rather, it evidently manifests the opposite.
What is added in the above assertion,
however, that by the renunciation of the above
mentioned right, namely of property, the use of fact
for the sustenance of nature is not proved in Christ
and the Apostles to be not just, but is the more just,
etc., includes an impossibility, and this statement is
evidently an error. For it is impossible for an
external human act to be just if the one who does it
has no right to do it: indeed, such use is necessarily
proved to be not just, but unjust. Again, it is absurd
and erroneous that the act of someone who does not
have a right to do such an act should be more just and
more acceptable to God than the act of one who has
such a right, since it implies that an unjust act is
more just and more acceptable to God than a just act
would be.
[9] From the foregoing, however, they
try to infer (it is reported) that the definition of
the above mentioned supreme pontiffs which they
defined concerning the poverty of Christ and the
Apostles and the Rule of the above mentioned Brothers
Minor (as quoted above) could not be changed by us.
Without doubt they assert falsehoods when they say
that our predecessors defined such things, as has been
proved above, and again when they speak in this way,
when they try to attack our constitutions by such
means, they show (if their false assertions were true)
that the constitutions by which they support
themselves would be invalid, erroneous and infirm.
For if it was not licit for us to
enact anything common contrary to the constitution of
our predecessor Nicholas IV, on which they chiefly
base themselves, neither was it licit for him to enact
or declare anything contrary to the enactments of the
above mentioned Gregory, Innocent and Alexander; but
that he did so (according to their assertion) is
evidently known. For since they [Gregory, etc.]
declared that the Order of Minors had use of those
things which it is licit for them to have--which must
necessarily refer to use of right, as was proved
above--but he himself (according to them) enacted that
neither the Order nor the Brothers have a right of
using but only simple use of fact, and further
ordered, decreed and enacted that precisely this his
constitution, ordinance and declaration must by the
Brothers themselves be observed exactly and inviolably
for all times, it is certain not only that he made an
ordinance contrary to the declarations of his
predecessors above mentioned, but that he also revoked
them, in respect of the things his own declaration
contains.
In his declaration that predecessor
[Nicholas] of ours also added that the explanation and
ordering of them and of those things he had explained
belonged to the Apostolic See, saying: "If in these
matter any doubt should arise..., let it be brought to
the summit of the Apostolic See, that its meaning in
this matter should be made manifest by its apostolic
authority, to which alone it has been granted to make
laws in these matters, and to explain those that have
been made". But these assertors assert the opposite of
this.
Besides, it is clear that what they
assert is false. For although the above mentioned
Innocent III in general council forbad the
establishment of new religious orders, yet we read
that his successors (notwithstanding this prohibition)
confirmed many Orders, which also (with some
exceptions) were afterwards definitely dissolved by
our predecessor Gregory IX in general council. If,
therefore, it was licit, after the prohibition of a
general council, for supreme pontiffs to confirm
unconfirmed orders and for their successors to
dissolve completely the orders thus confirmed, it is
not surprising if it is licit for his successors to
explain, or otherwise to change, what a supreme
pontiff alone [without a council] declares or orders
concerning the Rules of Orders. But it is clear that
neither the above mentioned Honorius, nor Gregory, nor
Alexander, nor Nicholas made their confirmation in a
general council, since none of them held a general
council. Although Innocent IV held a general council,
yet his above mentioned declaration was not made in it
or by the authority of any [general] council. Nicholas
IV neither held a general council nor made any
declaration concerning the said Rule. Gregory IX above
mentioned neither confirmed nor explained the said
Rule, but in a general council where some mendicant
Orders were annulled, he did not annul the Orders of
the said Brothers Minor and the Preachers, but
asserted that they were approved, saying: "We do not
allow this present constitution to be extended to
those which the evident utility coming from them to
the universal Church asserts {perhibet} that they have
been approved".
[10] Further, let them tell us where
they read such assertions, that it pertains to faith
or morals that Christ and the Apostles had in the
things they had only simple use of fact? Indeed, this
pertains to faith neither directly, since there is no
article about this nor any under which it can be
comprehended--as is clear in the creeds, in which the
articles of faith are contained--nor, also, [does it
pertain to faith] reductively, as if scripture
contains something like this, so that if it be denied
the whole of sacred scripture is made doubtful and as
a consequence the articles of faith, which have to be
proved by sacred scripture, are made doubtful and
uncertain. For this cannot be found in sacred
scripture, but rather its opposite. But concerning the
above mentioned Brothers Minor it is certain that
there is in the above mentioned Creeds, in the Gospel,
in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles, no
mention to be found concerning their poverty and
simple use of fact, or concerning the lordship of the
things offered to them, which the supreme Pontiff
reserved or shall have been able to reserve to himself
and to the Roman Church, and which once reserved it is
not licit for a successor to renounce (if this seems
appropriate), or that the successor can not recall the
procurators established by the authority of a supreme
pontiff for the business {negotiis} of the said Order.
Whence they cannot infer from the above, except
falsely, anything that implies that a successor cannot
order some thing else contrary to orders made
concerning such things by supreme pontiffs. The above
mentioned Nicholas explicitly inserted this in his
declaration, as is more fully contained above [section
9].
[11] Lest the fabricators of such
lies, and also the assertors of such pestiferous,
erroneous and condemned doctrine, worthy indeed of all
confutation and confusion, should be able to glory,
and to draw others into error, since by boldness,
stealth and wicked impudence they have dared to defend
publicly and approve even a heresy condemned by the
above mentioned constitution [Cum inter],
namely that Christ and his apostles had, in the things
we read they had, only simple use of fact without any
right, from which (if it were true) it would follow
that Christ's use was not just, which certainly
contains blasphemy, and something inimical to the
Catholic faith, since there is no doubt this has
proceeded from pertinacious and erroneous animosity:
of each and every one who, in word or in writing,
personally or through another or others, has presumed
[to assert] such things publicly, and also of those
who taught them in such matters and caused them to do
the foregoing, we therefore declare, with the advice
of our brothers [the Cardinals], that they have fallen
into condemned heresy, and that they must be avoided
as heretics. But if anyone henceforth knowingly
presumes to defend or approve, in word or in writing,
the heresies, or either of them condemned by the
constitution Cum inter, with the advice
of the same brothers [the Cardinals] we decree that he
is to be regarded evidently by all as a heretic.
Besides, since, as it is reported, they have tried
with mad acts of boldness to attack our constitution
above mentioned Ad conditorem canonum,
we strictly forbid, with the advice of the same
brothers, that anyone should knowingly, in word or in
writing, approve or defend anything contrary to the
things defined, ordered or done by it. But if anyone
presumes to the contrary, let him be regarded by all
as contumacious and as a rebel against the Roman
Church. To no one, therefore, etc. [as in Execrabilis].
Given at Avignon 10th November in the ninth year of
our pontificate [1324].
|