Girolamo Savonarola

[INPEFESS]

Though he never actually denied any specific doctrines of the Church, was the conduct (note: not beliefs) of Girolamo Savonarola justly condemned for the same reasons that the conduct of Jansenists would later be condemned?

EDIT

[Virgil the Roman]

I would reply in the negative; as Savonarola predated Jansenius and his followers by approximately two hundred years.

Two points may therefore also be put forth, namely that:

i. Predating Jansenius and having no knowledge upon the doctrines of his. He could not be said to have been a "Jansenist" heretic.
ii. Savonarola, was [as per Catholic Encyclopedia of "NewAdvent.org"] was not heretic, doctrinally speaking.

Given these two points:

Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that one cannot adhere to a particular heresy, whose formulation postdates one's entire life; particularly by a span of approximately two hundred years.

Furthermore, such a supposition being anachronistic interpolation, wherein  a novel notion is formulated succeeding one's earthly life, it is therefore further necessary to conclude that one cannot possibly adhere to a future heresy in time, wherein, one not only having no knowledge thereof, but  the ideas thereof had no initial formulation until after his death. 

An additional point: one cannot be held guilty for belief formulated after one's death; especially when there is no evidence to evince one's formulation thereof or adherence thereunto; even in a rudimentary form.  An analogy here would be most appropriate.

Analogy: Given George Washington was the First president of the United States, one could conclude that whatever his policies, he [Washington] is directly responsible or an adherent of the tenets or policies of President Obama. Such an argument is a false.  One cannot blame the policies of unknown successors and correlate them to policies of one's predecessor as if they had a direction correlation, when such correlation is not only NOT readily apparent, but unable to be logically maintained given the amount of evidence to support the argument. 

Similarly, a like situation is here with Savonarola, he cannot be labeled a Jansenist or a be follower of Jansenius' beliefs; anymore than Washington can be labeled an "Obamunist" or a following of Obama's agenda or particular beliefs.  Such is mere conjecture; baseless indeed.

Also when one looks specifically upon your initial premise wherein you claim :

"Though he never actually denied any specific doctrines of the Church...," it would seem logically to conclude that if no denial of Church doctrine was asserted by Savonarola, he would not therefore be a heretic.

A heretic being defined as: "One who obstinately persists either in error or the denial of  a particular point of required Catholic belief."

If he never denied any particular doctrines, most especially obstinately, then one cannot label him as a heretic; let alone, a "Jansenist."

[Vetus Ordo]

From the CE:

"In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues  by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience. He was not a heretic in matters of faith. The erection of his statue  at the foot of Luther's  monument at Worms as a reputed "forerunner of the Reformation" is entirely unwarranted."

Read the whole article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13490a.htm

[Caeser]

I don't know much about Savonarola but Bl. Pier Frassati did take his name when he became a member of the 3rd order Dominicans.

It is mentioned at http://www.3op.org/frassati.php]http://www.3op.org/frassati.php

[INPEFESS]

I would reply in the negative; as Savonarola predated Jansenius and his followers by approximately two hundred years.

Two points may therefore also be put forth, namely that:

i. Predating Jansenius and having no knowledge upon the doctrines of his. He could not be said to have been a "Jansenist" heretic.
ii. Savonarola, was [as per Catholic Encyclopedia of "NewAdvent.org"] was not heretic, doctrinally speaking.

Given these two points:

Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that one cannot adhere to a particular heresy, whose formulation postdates one's entire life; particularly by a span of approximately two hundred years.

Furthermore, such a supposition being anachronistic interpolation, wherein  a novel notion is formulated succeeding one's earthly life, it is therefore further necessary to conclude that one cannot possibly adhere to a future heresy in time, wherein, one not only having no knowledge thereof, but  the ideas thereof had no initial formulation until after his death. 

An additional point: one cannot be held guilty for belief formulated after one's death; especially when there is no evidence to evince one's formulation thereof or adherence thereunto; even in a rudimentary form.  An analogy here would be most appropriate.

Analogy: Given George Washington was the First president of the United States, one could conclude that whatever his policies, he [Washington] is directly responsible or an adherent of the tenets or policies of President Obama. Such an argument is a false.  One cannot blame the policies of unknown successors and correlate them to policies of one's predecessor as if they had a direction correlation, when such correlation is not only NOT readily apparent, but unable to be logically maintained given the amount of evidence to support the argument. 

Similarly, a like situation is here with Savonarola, he cannot be labeled a Jansenist or a be follower of Jansenius' beliefs; anymore than Washington can be labeled an "Obamunist" or a following of Obama's agenda or particular beliefs.  Such is mere conjecture; baseless indeed.

Also when one looks specifically upon your initial premise wherein you claim :

"Though he never actually denied any specific doctrines of the Church...," it would seem logically to conclude that if no denial of Church doctrine was asserted by Savonarola, he would not therefore be a heretic.

A heretic being defined as: "One who obstinately persists either in error or the denial of  a particular point of required Catholic belief."

If he never denied any particular doctrines, most especially obstinately, then one cannot label him as a heretic; let alone, a "Jansenist."

Wow. Raven, you completely interpreted your own ideas of my intentions from my post. This is no philosophical debate. I certainly understand the nature of heresy. I apologize that my post was ambiguous. I didn't mean to say that he was condemned specifically for the heresy of Jansenism, but re-reading what I wrote, I see that I gave that impression. What I meant to ask was: was his conduct spiritually dangerous for the same reasons that the conduct of Jansenists was spiritually dangerous (and would later be condemned by the Church - again, despite the fact that he did not teach Jansenist doctrine)?

[QuisUtDeus]

I don't think his behavior was dangerous in the same way.  The spartan lifestyle and such that he described wasn't rooted in an heretical notion - actually it seems to be rooted in the opposite.

I think the danger was his siding with forces that were against the Pope and unfriendly to the Church.  Probably more similar to that nun who stirred up support for healthcare even though Rome and the bishops opposed it.

[INPEFESS]

I don't think his behavior was dangerous in the same way.  The spartan lifestyle and such that he described wasn't rooted in an heretical notion - actually it seems to be rooted in the opposite.

I think the danger was his siding with forces that were against the Pope and unfriendly to the Church.  Probably more similar to that nun who stirred up support for healthcare even though Rome and the bishops opposed it.

I see. I ask this question because historians continuously allege that his conduct was not favored by the Church in the same way that the Church would soon frown upon Jansenism. Essentially, these historians posit that he taught mostly about the wrath of God, about the very few who are saved, and about condemning things that, if used correctly, are spiritually neutral.

[Cyriacus]

From the CE:

"In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues  by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience. He was not a heretic in matters of faith. The erection of his statue  at the foot of Luther's  monument at Worms as a reputed "forerunner of the Reformation" is entirely unwarranted."

Read the whole article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13490a.htm

Ouch, that's harsh. I'm guessing there were some Jesuits involved in writing the CE.

Dominicans tend to have a much more positive view of Savonarola's personal sanctity.

In any case, the Papacy at several points during the Renaissance warranted moralistic chiding and probably even resistance and disobedience to some extent. Reminds me, perhaps, of some other times.

[i.p.i.]

From the CE:

"In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues  by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience. He was not a heretic in matters of faith. The erection of his statue  at the foot of Luther's  monument at Worms as a reputed "forerunner of the Reformation" is entirely unwarranted."

Read the whole article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13490a.htm

Ouch, that's harsh. I'm guessing there were some Jesuits involved in writing the CE.

Dominicans tend to have a much more positive view of Savonarola's personal sanctity.

In any case, the Papacy at several points during the Renaissance warranted moralistic chiding and probably even resistance and disobedience to some extent. Reminds me, perhaps, of some other times.

of course the dominicans have a more positive view of savonarola; savonarola was a dominican and not just any dominican but the prior of san marco in florence, where fra angelico also lived.  if he had been able to convince the hierarchy of the need for reforms within the church, there might have been no protestant reformation.  savonarola was up against a bad pope who had no interest in reform, but his disobedience to direct orders from the pope led to his excommunication.  at the same time, the florentines, who had crowded the duomo to hear him preach and obeyed him regarding putting less emphasis on fine dress and jewelry, tired of his fanaticism and he wound up being burned at the stake in piazza signoria.

i think the CE paragraph below is a fair description of savonarola's character.  pride might be mentioned also.

"In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues  by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience. He was not a heretic in matters of faith. The erection of his statue  at the foot of Luther's  monument at Worms as a reputed "forerunner of the Reformation" is entirely unwarranted."

for those who enjoy reading history, fire in the city by lauro martines is an excellent treatment of savonarola's life and times.

[Vetus Ordo]

Savonarola promoted the "Bonfire of Vanities" in Florence. Such a remarkable episode!

Needless to say, he was an inspiring character.