POPE FRANCIS - A HERETIC? ON THE PUNISHMENT OF HERETICS AND ESPECIALLY OF THE POPE WHO HAS BECOME A HERETIC WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Dial. 6.1-15 CHP. XIII

Chapter 13

Student: Indicate how one might argue for the contrary position.

Master: There are some who strive to demonstrate that the pope is subject to the judgment of the general council. First in this way. The universal church holds jurisdiction over a pope slandered of heresy. Therefore that congregation which represents the universal church also has jurisdiction over a pope defamed of heresy. But the general council represents the general church, therefore etc. Secondly this is proved as follows. A person slandered of some crime is subject to the judgment of the general council if he is bound to answer to this same council in the matter of the crime he stands accused of. But a pope defamed of heresy is obligated to answer to the general council. Hence we read the following in the Decretum at 2 q. 7 para. Item cum Balaam[col. 497-498]: "Pope Symachus was stripped of his dignity in a Roman synod. It was initially resolved that he be reinstated in his original position, and then deal with his case, and should this be deemed acceptable he would respond to the points of his accusers. This was seen as a worthy procedure to a majority of priests and was carried out. And when it was subsequently being decided how he was to be accused, this pope presented himself to state his case, but was impeded by enemies". From these words we understand that Symachus who was accused of heresy (as noted in the gloss to di. 17 para. Hinc)[s.v.immunis col.72] was obligated to answer before the synod. Therefore in a case of heresy the general council is above a pope defamed of heresy.

Thirdly, this is proved as follows by glosses on the canons. For the gloss on di. 19 c. Anastasius [s.v.concilio col.87] states: "the pope is obligated to request the advice of the bishops, which is true where the issue is one of faith, and in that case the synod is greater than the pope". By these words it is openly asserted that in a case of faith the synod is greater than the pope. Further: the gloss on di. 15 c. Sicut [s.v.presumit col.55] states in the following words: "it appears therefore that the pope cannot destroy the statutes of the council, because the world is greater than the city, whence the pope requests the consent of the council (di. 19 c. Anastasius)[col. 64]. The contrary argument is found in di. 17 para. Hinc etiam[col. 52-53] and in Extra De electione, c. Significasti [col. 49-50], where it is stated that a council cannot impose law on the pope, and in 35 q. 9 c. Veniam [col. 1285], but understand that this is said here of the articles of faith." From these words we gather that the synod is greater than the pope on the issue of articles of faith, and may impose a law upon him, and consequently that the synod has jurisdiction over the pope in a case pertaining to the faith. Next: the gloss of di. 21 c. Nunc autem [s.v.Marcellinus col.98] states: "it is asked why these bishops did not depose the pope who had admitted to heresy (as in di. 40 c. Si papa)[col. 146]. Huggucio says: because he was ready to be corrected. For although the pope or someone else is a heretic, if he is ready to be corrected he is not to be deposed (as in 24 q. 3 c. Dixit Apostolus)[col. 998]. Or at least they should not have deposed him since he had been acting under duress." From these words we understand that bishops have the power of deposing a pope accused of heresy, although they should not always depose him because sometimes he does not deserve to be deposed. But it is their function to hear the case of the pope and accordingly they hold power over him.