Search Results

This chapter examines the longer text attributed to Bertrand de la Tour in MS BAV vat. lat. 3740. It explains that the results of the analysis into the Compendiosa Resumptio will provide the basis for evaluation of Bertrand's Dicta. It adds that this comparison will reveal more about the relation between the two texts. It will again consider the two Franciscans, Vital du Four and Arnaud Royard, for they too have Dicta as well as Compendiose Resumptiones in MS BAV vat. lat. 3740. On the basis of more extensive research, this chapter re-examines if Bertrand was an exception amongst Franciscans in 1322. It clarifies that the Dicta adds subsidiary points and more supporting authorities. It adds that the organizational structure of the Dicta is much clearer and easier to follow: points made in the Compendiosa Resumptio are always expressed more fluently in the Dicta.

This chapter begins by discussing that Cardinal Bertrand de la Tour was well represented in MS BAV vat. lat. 3740, and was a major spokesman for his Order at the curial debate on apostolic poverty. It adds that Tocco identified Bertrand as the most important Franciscan of the day. It explains that Bertrand asserted that the condition of Christ and the apostles was the most perfect of all possible states. It also discusses several important issues that occupy the bulk of Bertrand's opinion following his list of favourable biblical parasitic authorities. It focuses on the investigation of the edited Compendiose Resumptiones.

This chapter begins by examining the figure apparently caught in the middle of such conflict: the Franciscan Cardinal, Bertrand de la Tour. It focuses on investigating Pope John XXII's personal background. It assesses John's education and whether he had any theological training. It also presents evidence on the reaction of Pope John XXII to the Chapter General. It talks about how John continued his explanation of how the retention domini arrangement had harmed the Franciscans' state of perfection. It ends where the apostolic poverty controversy begins. It clarifies the idea that the Papacy, in the person of Pope John XXII, originally opposed the notion of papal infallibility cannot be substantiated by a thorough analysis of the evidence of the controversy over apostolic poverty.

This chapter focuses on re-mapping the famous theological controversy over the poverty of Christ and his apostles with a view towards pinpointing the position of Bertrand de la Tour. It investigates the true identity of ‘Nicholas the Minorite’ and the role that he played in the controversy. It explains that the Chronicle's usefulness as an historical source lies precisely in its unoriginality, in reproducing documents in their original form. It discusses that the sources indicate that consistories on apostolic poverty were held in Avignon during the spring of 1322, suggestive that several Franciscans had replied to Pope John on the question of apostolic poverty before the Order made its ‘official response’ at Perugia in June, which is the first Franciscan reaction in the sequence of the Chronicle. It argues that the Chronicle cannot stand alone as an account of the debate on apostolic poverty.