贝拉明的 "第四命题 "与阿尔伯特-皮吉乌斯的 "极端观点 "相同吗?

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Emmett O’Regan
{"title":"贝拉明的 \"第四命题 \"与阿尔伯特-皮吉乌斯的 \"极端观点 \"相同吗?","authors":"Emmett O’Regan","doi":"10.1177/00405639241257841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Christian Washburn has questioned my claim that the idea of a publicly heretical pope was formally excluded in Pastor Aeternus, by equating Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” with the extreme Ultramontanist school of Albert Pighius. Washburn argues that Gasser had merely indicated that Bellarmine’s “fourth opinion” would be raised to dogmatic status, rather than the “fourth proposition.” I attempt to address this critique by demonstrating how Bellarmine’s own school of thought within the “fourth opinion” was markedly different from that of Pighius.","PeriodicalId":46353,"journal":{"name":"THEOLOGICAL STUDIES","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Bellarmine’s “Fourth Proposition” Identical with the “Extreme View” of Albert Pighius?\",\"authors\":\"Emmett O’Regan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00405639241257841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Christian Washburn has questioned my claim that the idea of a publicly heretical pope was formally excluded in Pastor Aeternus, by equating Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” with the extreme Ultramontanist school of Albert Pighius. Washburn argues that Gasser had merely indicated that Bellarmine’s “fourth opinion” would be raised to dogmatic status, rather than the “fourth proposition.” I attempt to address this critique by demonstrating how Bellarmine’s own school of thought within the “fourth opinion” was markedly different from that of Pighius.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46353,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THEOLOGICAL STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THEOLOGICAL STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639241257841\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEOLOGICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639241257841","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

克里斯蒂安-沃什伯恩(Christian Washburn)质疑我的说法,即在 Pastor Aeternus 中正式排除了公开异端教皇的想法,他将贝拉明的 "第四命题 "与阿尔伯特-皮吉乌斯(Albert Pighius)的极端奥特曼派相提并论。沃什伯恩认为,加瑟只是表示贝拉明的 "第四观点 "将被提升到教条的地位,而不是 "第四命题"。我试图通过证明贝拉明自己在 "第四种观点 "中的思想流派如何与皮吉乌斯的思想流派明显不同来回应这一批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Bellarmine’s “Fourth Proposition” Identical with the “Extreme View” of Albert Pighius?
Christian Washburn has questioned my claim that the idea of a publicly heretical pope was formally excluded in Pastor Aeternus, by equating Bellarmine’s “fourth proposition” with the extreme Ultramontanist school of Albert Pighius. Washburn argues that Gasser had merely indicated that Bellarmine’s “fourth opinion” would be raised to dogmatic status, rather than the “fourth proposition.” I attempt to address this critique by demonstrating how Bellarmine’s own school of thought within the “fourth opinion” was markedly different from that of Pighius.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
103
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信