OLIVI (OLIEU), PIETRO di GIOVANNI. - Friar Minor, schoolmaster and leader of the Spiritual group, b. at Sérignan (Languedoc) ca. 1248, d. at Narbonne on 14 March 1298.
I. LIFE
A Friar Minor of Béziers at the age of twelve, he was sent to the general study house of the Order in Paris, where he had as teachers William de la Mare, John Peckham and Matthew of Aquasparta. In 1277 he taught in Provence, where he soon became involved in the spiritual movement that sought the reform of the Order and of the Church according to the tendencies of the rigorists and the speculations of Joachim of Fiore (v.). From that time on, superiors and teachers of the conventual group opposed to the zealous friars sought to confound in a single condemnation both his Apocalyptic Postils and his scholastic questions and his theses on the strict observance of the Franciscan Rule. The General Chapter of Strasbourg (1282) had his writings examined by seven doctors and bachelors of Paris, who, without granting O. the chance to clarify his thought, listed in the Letter, known as that of the seven seals, 22 propositions, to which the accused was to subscribe without reservation. Moreover, in a Rotulus they censured 34 theses extracted from his scholastic Quaestiones and demanded that the reading of his writings be severely prohibited. In the autumn of 1283, O. subscribed « secundum sanum intellectum » to the 22 propositions of the Letter. Furthermore, he justified himself, in a Nota sent from Nîmes and in a Letter from Montpellier to Raymond Gaufredi and to other zealots (1285), concerning 19 erroneous propositions attributed to him by his adversaries. Shortly before his death O. made, in eight points, an important declaration on the Franciscan observance of poverty, followed by a magnificent profession of Catholic faith and of unconditional obedience to the reigning pope, Boniface VIII, expressly named.
II. WRITINGS AND DOCTRINE
The writings of O. are divided into:
1. Scholastic writings
First place belongs to the 118 Quaestiones in secundum Librum Sententiarum (ed. B. Jansen, 3 vols., Quaracchi 1922-26), which embrace almost the whole of speculative and moral philosophy. Vehement accusations were raised by q. 51, where O. sets out his theory on the manner of union of the soul with the body, according to which only the principles of vegetative and sensitive life, distinct substantial forms, directly inform the human body and are formally united with it, while the principle of intellectual life does not inform, directly and per se, the human body, but is united to it by substantial coherence through the principle of sensitive life. If the union of the intellectual form with the body were direct and formal, the human body, according to O., would thereby become spiritual and immortal, because the form not only communicates itself to matter, but absorbs its whole being. O.'s theory must be related to the thesis of the plurality of substantial forms of the soul and of the existence of a spiritual matter in which their union is accomplished, professed at that time by the Dominican Robert Kilwardby (v.) and by the Franciscan Richard of Mediavilla, and considered also in the light of the five Quodlibeta (Venice 1509) in which O. treats extensively of the « colligantia potentiarum » intimately united to the « radicatio animae in substantia corporis » (B. Jansen, s. v. in LThK, VII, coll. 709-11).
O.'s doctrine on the manner of union of the soul with the body, already censured in the Letter of the Seven Seals (1283), was denounced to the Council of Vienne. The Council took account of the mitigating circumstances, especially of the atmosphere saturated with passion in which the accusations against O. were presented, and preserved his memory from a nominal condemnation. Without any personal allusion, in the decr. Fidei catholicae fundamento (6 May 1312) it declared that for the future it is to be held heretical whoever obstinately asserts « quod anima rationalis seu intellectiva non sit forma corporis humani per se et essentialiter » (Denz-U, n. 481), against two other so-called errors unduly attributed to O.: a) that St. John preserved the order of the facts « narrando, quod Christo iam mortuo, unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit » (ibid., n. 480; O. never taught the contrary, but only considered also the hypothesis of the lance thrust given to Christ while still alive, as other spiritual authors before him had done, without formally contradicting the Gospel); b) that the Council holds more probable the opinion according to which Baptism not only remits original sin to newborns but also confers Grace and the habitual virtues « tesi non pro illo tempore quoad usum » (ibid., n. 483; O. had set out the two opinions without pronouncing for one to the exclusion of the other). Qq. 52 and 57 on the immortality of the soul and on free will are true models of exposition. In the qq. on knowledge (60-74) O. follows closely St. Augustine and St. Anselm. Augustinian too is his doctrine on the transmission of original sin, the implicit culpability of the involuntary motions of concupiscence, the gravity of venial sin (qq. 110, 118). The 118 Qq. in II Sent. alone would suffice to secure for O. a place of honor among the scholastics of the 13th century. Also worthy of mention are the brief treatises De quantitate and De perlegendis philosophorum libris (cf. F. Ehrle, art. cit. in bibl., pp. 479-81).
2. Exegetical writings
O.'s exegetical work comprises postils on almost all the sacred books, from Genesis to the Apocalypse. Also to be noted are the Principia generalia in S. Scripturam, Expositio super Dionyssi de angelica hierarchia, and probably also De hierarchia ecclesiastica. The Postilla in Apocalypsim is the most notable, because it exercised a profound influence in spiritual Franciscan circles. In it O. sets out the decadence of the Church and the advent of the kingdom of the spirit according to the speculations of Joachim of Fiore. The Spirituals abused it against the superiors of the Order and against the pope himself; and because of the extravagances to which it gave rise, John XXII reproved it in public consistory, for heresy against the unity of the Church and against the authority of the Pope (8 Feb. 1326).
3. Ecclesiastico-Franciscan writings
In the first place the Qq. de perfectione evangelica (begun as early as 1270-74); furthermore, the Expositio in Regulam s. Francisci, the Tractatus de paupere rerum usu and the Q. (mutilated) de indulgentia Portiunculae (Acta O.F.M., 14 [1895], p. 139 ff.). Of general ecclesiastical interest, with special regard to the history of fundamental theology, are the Qq. de perfectione evangelica; De infallibilitate romani pontificis; De renuntiatione papae; An papa possit in omni voto dispensare, to which may be added qq. 18-19 of the first Quodlibet: An papa habeat universalissimam potestatem; An aliquis ex mandato papae teneatur pro defensione rei temporalis proeliari. O. answers affirmatively without any reservation to the question whether all Catholics owe obedience to the Roman pontiff « tamquam regulae inerrabili in fide et moribus » and sets out clearly the « modus inerrabilitatis » both of the Church in general and of the see of Rome and of the Pope. Then, in q. 13 he treats of the resignation of St. Celestine V and of the obedience that the faithful owe to his successor Boniface VIII.
The fragmentary and largely unpublished state of O.'s writings does not permit an overall judgment. They are of unequal value. The declaration of the Council of Vienne does not affect the rectitude of his teaching in matters of faith, and therefore his doctrine does not merit the accusation of heterodoxy with which his adversaries obstinately qualified it. In the Franciscan tradition O. took his place worthily among the masters who flourished after St. Bonaventure and before G. Duns Scotus. As regards the doctrine on the Church and on the pope, O., among the theologians of the 13th century, is the one who treated most profoundly and most correctly the question of supreme authority and of pontifical infallibility.
Bibliography18 works
Fredegando Callacy