La aportación española al debate sobre la obediencia ciega en la Compañía de Jesús durante el Papado de Sixto V (1585-1590)
This article deals with the Spanish contribution to the debate that took place during the pontificate of Sixtus V (1585-90) about the Jesuit doctrine of blind obedience and their dogmatic and theological implications. From the analysis of Spanish and Italian archival sources, threshed critical argum...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2013 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Valladolid |
| Repositorio: | UVaDOC. Repositorio Documental de la Universidad de Valladolid |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:uvadoc.uva.es:10324/17641 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/17641 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Historia moderna y contemporánea Jesuítas-Historia-Siglo XVI |
| Sumario: | This article deals with the Spanish contribution to the debate that took place during the pontificate of Sixtus V (1585-90) about the Jesuit doctrine of blind obedience and their dogmatic and theological implications. From the analysis of Spanish and Italian archival sources, threshed critical arguments against this doctrine and personality of its authors, mostly conversos. It then moves into a broader context by inserting these debates in the difficult situation of those years for the Society of Jesus: the revolt of the Spanish memorialists, Felipe II pressure to make the visit of the Society, the will of Sixtus V to control more the Jesuits, the role of Spanish and Roman Inquisitions in this political game... Finally it analyzes the two-way solution that emerged: known Robert Bellarmine’s treaties about blind obedience, and especially the father Ribadeneira's failed attempt to offer to the General Aquaviva the biography of Diego Lainez as a model of blind obedience and unity in this critical context. The conclusions emphasize the uniqueness of the Spanish contribution and note how the doctrine of blind obedience, beyond the internal boundaries of the Company, became one of the foundations of antijesuitism. |
|---|