Luke Wadding on the Controversy over the Poverty of Christ and the Apostles
Summary
Luke Wadding (d. 1657), chronicler and historian of the Order of Friars Minor:
“This affair concluded with a Decretal in which he [Pope John XXII] decided that it was heresy to maintain that Jesus Christ and the Apostles possessed nothing either in common or individually, and that they had no right to use the things they possessed, to give them away, or to employ them in buying and selling. It was published on December 12 and begins Cum inter nonnullos…
[Pope] Nicholas III says in his Decretal that the renunciation of ownership of all things, both in common and individually, undertaken for the love of God, is meritorious and holy; that Jesus Christ, when he wished to show the way of perfection, taught it by word and confirmed it by example; and that the first founders of the Church transmitted it through their lives and doctrine, as through sacred channels, to those who desired to live in the state of perfection, having drawn it from the very source of truth…
[Pope] Nicholas III distinguishes two periods and two states in Christ’s exercise of lordship: the state of perfection, when he forbade possessions to the Apostles, and the state of imperfection, or lesser perfection, when he permitted them the money bag.”
Source: Annals of the Friars Minor (transcription)
By Luke Wadding (d. 1657), chronicler and historian of the Order of Friars Minor
… he [Pope John XXII] caused a Constitution to be published on December 8, beginning with Ad conditorem Canonum, in which, first, he argued in the scholastic manner to show that the use of a thing in fact cannot be separated from true ownership, especially in things that are consumed by use; second, he renounced the particular ownership of all the things that had been given to the Friars Minor and of which they had the use, although several of his predecessors had declared that ownership of all these things belonged to the Roman Church; third, he forbade them to have Apostolic Syndics to take any care of these matters in the name of the Holy See.
This readiness to revoke and destroy the Constitutions of Popes in a matter of such importance, since it tended to undermine the foundations of the Order, greatly offended the judgment of many pious and sincere persons. Indeed, there were immediately Doctors who opposed it in speech and writing, and since then the best theologians have followed the contrary opinion, which distinguishes use in fact from use in law. Thomas Sanchez cites several who defended it, and although at that time the Friars Preachers were its declared opponents, nevertheless Soto, Ledesma, and Bañez, three of their most celebrated Doctors, embraced it. The first two, speaking of this Decretal of John XXII, did not hesitate to say that he had issued it neither lawfully nor justly, but out of hatred for Ockham and certain other Friars Minor who opposed him.
Lessius and Cardinal Bellarmine say that it seems this Pope erred in this matter, which does not belong to the faith. Others believe that he merely proposed and examined the question without defining anything, although he clearly indicated the side toward which he inclined.
And what is far more important, and of irrefutable authority, the Popes his predecessors who explained our Rule clearly stated that the Friars Minor possess neither individually nor collectively any ownership of movable goods or other things which they lawfully use, but only the use of them, while ownership belongs to the Roman Church. This is found in the Decretal of Gregory IX, Quo elongati; in that of Innocent IV, Ordinem vestrum, which was renewed by Alexander IV; in that of Nicholas III, Exiit qui seminat; in that of Martin IV, Exultantes in Domino; in that of Boniface VIII, Inter cæteros ordines, in which he inserted the Constitution of Nicholas III; and in that of Clement V, Exivi de paradiso.
And what is more surprising, John XXII himself, in his Decretal Quorundam, praises all these Constitutions of the Popes, especially those of Nicholas III and Clement V, as highly useful, solid, clear, and composed with great prudence. This is why people were astonished and rightly regarded it as a great novelty in the Church that this Pope wished suddenly and without consultation to overturn so many Bulls of his predecessors and deprive our Order of graces so necessary to its support.
His successors recognized the injury he had inflicted upon it without reason and repaired it with paternal affection and truly Apostolic piety, for they expressly revoked everything contained in the aforesaid Decretal Ad conditorem and renewed and confirmed what their predecessors had maturely established on this subject. Martin V was the first through his Bull Amabilis fructus, and he was followed by Eugene IV, Callixtus III, Nicholas V, Pius II, Paul II, Sixtus IV, Alexander VI, Julius II, and Leo X.
One may see in the Apology of the Poor, composed by Saint Bonaventure, the arguments establishing the distinction between use in law and use in fact; Soto and others after him copied them as very solid.
One should not be surprised that this Decretal of John XXII caused so many disturbances, since it was so opposed to those of his predecessors. The Friars Minor, who were the most harmed by it, complained directly to him. They pointed out that it did nothing to resolve the question of the poverty of Jesus Christ, which was under dispute, and that it tended to destroy their state of life. They clearly foresaw where the blow was aimed and that it was intended to render useless the writings they had produced at the Chapter of Perugia, although these contained nothing that was not already found in the Bulls of the Popes.
With this in view, they believed themselves obliged to defend themselves against the private and so extraordinary opinion of one Pope, since they were supported by so many others who had drawn up their Constitutions with great deliberation, whereas this one allowed himself to be carried away by passion and by the suggestions of certain restless spirits. It is true that some of our Friars opposed the Decretal with too much imprudence and boldness, especially Brother Bonagratia [who was not a Franciscan Spiritual], who acted in the name of the whole Order. We shall see the continuation next year…
On January 14, Brother Bonagratia appeared before the Pope with excessive boldness; for it was not privately and by throwing himself at his feet in humility, but in full consistory, where he presented a petition in which he demonstrated by several arguments that His Holiness was treating the Order with too much rigor and injustice, and that the Constitution he had issued, which destroyed the distinction between use in law and use in fact, renounced ownership of the things the Order could enjoy, and abolished the Apostolic Syndics, could not stand because it was contrary to several Bulls of his predecessors.
This was like throwing oil on the fire. The Pope became greatly enraged and had Brother Bonagratia confined in a dark prison, where he kept him for a full year. Meanwhile, he ordered the aforesaid Bull, which he had posted on the door of the church at Avignon, to be removed. After changing it in several respects and strengthening it with numerous arguments to support his opinion, he had it reposted, bearing the same date as the first version, namely December 8 of the previous year. This procedure was not approved, nor was it consistent with the style and authority of the Holy See, whose Constitutions are ordinarily composed with such maturity that they ought neither to be enlarged nor diminished. Therefore, one should not be surprised that this Constitution did not possess the same firmness as those of his predecessors.
Finally, the Pope wished to settle the principal question of the poverty of Jesus Christ in full consistory. But he did so with such prejudice and passion that he could not tolerate anyone speaking in favor of the opinion of the Friars Minor. Everyone was expected to applaud whatever he said against it, and those most disposed to flatter him cried out tumultuously that it was heretical.
Cardinal Brother Vital du Four, Brother Arnaud de la Tour, Archbishop of Salerno, Brother Henry, Bishop of Lucca, and Brother Jerome, Bishop of Caffa, wished to speak with some firmness in defense of the justice of this cause. But the Pope burst out against them, threatened them by gesture and word, silenced them with humiliation, and bitterly reproached them for advancing and supporting heresies. This severe manner of proceeding forced them to strike their sails. They had to remain silent and allow the Pope to do, without resistance, whatever his passion dictated.
This affair concluded with a Decretal in which he decided that it was heresy to maintain that Jesus Christ and the Apostles possessed nothing either in common or individually, and that they had no right to use the things they possessed, to give them away, or to employ them in buying and selling. It was published on December 12 and begins Cum inter nonnullos.
Many heretics have taken occasion from this Decretal to insult us because we believe that the decisions of the Supreme Pontiffs in matters of faith are infallible. For, they say, Nicholas III defined as a matter of faith that Jesus Christ and the Apostles possessed nothing of their own, either individually or collectively; and John XXII determines the contrary, likewise as a matter of faith. Therefore, one or the other must be mistaken and heretical in his decision.
I wish to resolve this difficulty and clearly point out the special assistance which the Holy Spirit gives to the Church so that she never errs in the faith. For I shall clearly show that the determination of John XXII, which appears so contrary to that of Nicholas III, is not contrary to it at all, and that the former said everything the latter teaches. There is only this difference: John XXII neither explained nor distinguished how the proposition concerning the poverty of Jesus Christ ought to be understood, whereas Nicholas gives a complete and perfect clarification.
Nicholas III says in his Decretal that the renunciation of ownership of all things, both in common and individually, undertaken for the love of God, is meritorious and holy; that Jesus Christ, when he wished to show the way of perfection, taught it by word and confirmed it by example; and that the first founders of the Church transmitted it through their lives and doctrine, as through sacred channels, to those who desired to live in the state of perfection, having drawn it from the very source of truth.
He adds that no one should imagine that what is read in the Gospel, namely that Jesus Christ had money bags, is contrary to this. For since all the works of the Savior were perfect, he practiced perfection in all his actions in such a way that at the same time he sometimes condescended to the imperfections of the weak, in order to exalt the way of perfection without condemning the weaker paths of the less perfect. Thus, through the money bag, he assumed the role of the weak. He did likewise with certain other matters, taking upon himself the infirmities of human flesh, as the Gospel testifies.
He condescended to the weak not only according to the body but also according to the spirit. For he assumed human nature in such a way that, while remaining perfect in his works and humbling himself in what he took from us, he remained exalted and excellent in what was his own. Thus, through a most profound charity, he so lowered himself by condescension to actions corresponding to our imperfection that nevertheless he did not depart in the least from the straightness of perfection. For he both performed and taught works of perfection, and he also performed works of imperfection, as is clear from what follows and from the matter of the money bag. Yet he did both perfectly, without losing anything of his perfection, in order to show that he was the way of perfection both for the imperfect and for the perfect.
It is evident from these words that Nicholas III distinguishes two periods and two states in Christ’s exercise of lordship: the state of perfection, when he forbade possessions to the Apostles, and the state of imperfection, or lesser perfection, when he permitted them the money bag.
Regarding the first, Nicholas III declared that neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles possessed anything either individually or collectively; regarding the second, he admits that they possessed something as their own. He raises for himself the Scriptural passages that say so and answers them with this distinction. It seems to me that nothing could be clearer.
What can be alleged from the Decretal of John XXII that is contrary to this? You will say that this Pope condemns the proposition that neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles possessed anything, either individually or collectively, and that they did not have such ownership of the things they used that they could give or sell them. But Nicholas III did not say that either. John XXII wishes us to admit that Jesus Christ and the Apostles possessed certain things by right of ownership; Nicholas III had already taught the same thing. John XXII says that the decision is found in Sacred Scripture; Nicholas III had found it there before him. John XXII condemns those who say absolutely that Jesus Christ and the Apostles possessed nothing of their own; Nicholas III said only that during a certain period and in a particular state, when he wished to condescend to the weak, he acted in this way, and that during another period, when he wished to show the way of perfection, he possessed nothing.
It is necessary to observe that what Nicholas III calls in Jesus Christ and the Apostles a state of imperfection does not mean sin, nor even a positive defect. For that would be the opinion of many heretics who condemn all Christians because they possess something. Rather, it should be understood as a state less perfect in this respect when compared to a higher degree of perfection that may be practiced in this matter. There are several other questions on the same subject that must be deferred until the time when we examine another Decretal of this Pope.
I cannot sufficiently marvel that, although it is so easy to reconcile the meaning of these two Popes in their Constitutions, nevertheless many learned and pious men found themselves perplexed by the matter, and that for two years people disputed against the Constitution of John XXII without noticing it. It is no wonder that heretics, whether through malice or ignorance, believed these Bulls to be opposed; but that Catholics themselves should have been mistaken about it is very surprising.