V. John of Paris Opposes Villanova

JOHN OF PARIS, also called “Quidort” (d. 1306), a French Dominican, was professor of theology at the University of Paris, He is renowned chiefly because of the prominent part he played in the controversy between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII. The pope was then doing everything within his power to advance the doctrine of papal absolutism, both in matters spiritual and in matters temporal. Philip, however, not only denied the papal claims but scorned the attempt of Boniface to frighten him by issuing bulls against him and his kingdom. The University of Paris sided with the king, and John of Paris, one of Philip’s most outspoken friends, published De Potestate Regia et Papali (Concerning Royal and Papal Power). ^{57David S. Schaff, op. cit., part 2, p. 40.}PFF1 780.3

In this John contended that “the priest, in spiritual things, was greater than the prince; but in temporal things the prince was greater than the priest, though he definitely considered the priest to be the greater of the two.” ^{58McClintock and Strong, op. cit., vol 4, p 973, art. “John of Paris.”} He also held that the pope had no power over the property of either the church or her subjects. John also stood for the independent power of individual bishops and priests, and denied that it is derived through the mediation of the pope alone, but rather springs directly from God through the choice or concurrence of the various communities.PFF1 780.4

For this he offered Biblical reasons, challenging the principle of the primacy of Peter and his successors. Peter received Paul. It was not Peter who sent forth the great apostles but Christ, and their commission came not from Peter but from Christ Himself. John even declared the pope accountable to a worldly power for his conduct in the papal chair, and advanced the concept of the right of the state to force the abdication of a pope who brought scandal to the church. And if the pope would not yield, he should be compelled to by force of secular rulers through commanding the people to refuse obedience to him as pope.PFF1 781.1

This aroused the hatred of the church, and he was made to feel the strong arm of Boniface. Having questioned, in the pulpit, the dogma of the real presence, he was prohibited from preaching by the bishop of Paris. An appeal to the pope, of course, proved futile. ^{59Ibid., pp. 973, 974; David S Schaff, op. cit., part 2, p. 40.} John was a token of a growing revolt against the extreme claims of the medieval Papacy.PFF1 781.2

John of Paris also wrote a Tractatus de Antichristo against the views of Villanova. In this, he mostly repeats the ideas of pseudo Methodius about Antichrist, which views were wide spread in this period of the Middle Ages. He mentions the use of the year-day principle by the Joachimites in connection with the 1260 days. If they reckon these years, he says, from the ascension of Christ, in the year 34, they would end in 1294, during which time the church is fed by the holy Eucharist, which will be taken away during the terrible time of Antichrist. Or, if they begin with the time when John received the vision in A.D. 96, the period would end in 1356. He mentions similarly a calculation of the 1290 years from A.D. 76 to 1366. But he rejects these calculations. ^{60John of Paris, Tractatus de Antichristo, fols. XLVIII, v, XLIX r. Does this 1366 for the end of the 1290 years refer to the original of Villanova’s much corrected dating? See pages 754, 759.}PFF1 781.3

He also mentions the 2300 days, and says that if the year day principle should be applied to this number, it would bring us to the year 1741, beginning the computation with 559 B.C., when Cyrus ascended the throne in Persia. However, he rejects this idea, probably because he saw no way of harmonizing it with the other, and preferred the explanation of Porphyry, who expounded this prophecy as having found its fulfillment in Antiochus Epiphanes. ^{61Ibid., fol. 49 r, v.} So the battle line sways back and forth over the year-day principle.PFF1 782.1