POPE FRANCIS - A HERETIC? ON THE PUNISHMENT OF HERETICS AND ESPECIALLY OF THE POPE WHO HAS BECOME A HERETIC WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Dial. 6 CHP. XIX
Please pray for me.
— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) March 13, 2014
Chapter 19
Student: The position of these theorists is starting to become somewhat clearer to me. Nevertheless, so that I may understand it even better, do try to prove initially that it is permitted in some case to appeal from a heretic pope. Afterwards I will ask more questions about this topic.
Master: Since those matters which are more obvious (were some to profess doubt about them) must be demonstrated at the outset so that through them one may achieve elucidation of matters yet unknown, let me first show that it is permitted to appeal from a heretic pope by supposing a completely straightforward case.
Student: Lay out the case but do not exceed the bounds of the possible.
Master: Let us assume that someone accuses another before the pope of being a heretic because the accused supposedly holds and asserts that the Christian faith is false, that the law of the Saracens should be embraced, and that Christ was a prophet both false and discredited. After the accusation and the ensuing judicial process, the pope renders a definitive judgement to the effect that the person accused is not a heretic because all of the aforementioned theses stated and asserted by him are true.
Student: Although this is a case that never happened and perhaps never will, I find it difficult to assert that it smacks of impossibility. For it seems that one cannot clearly demonstrate either by Holy Writ or by the doctrine of the church that no future pope will be the Antichrist. It is indeed probable that many Christians through their ancestors who were converted to the faith have long established roots to the tribe of Dan, from which some believe that the Antichrist will be born [For a discussion of this tradition see David Burr, Olivi's Peaceable Kingdom, Philadelphia 1993, p. 150]. And even in our time it is quite possible for someone from that tribe to accept the Christian faith, to have a son born to him, that son being subsequently elected pope, and afterwards clearly showing himself to be the Antichrist. And thus it cannot be known whether some Christian and future pope, with roots in the tribe of Dan, will be the Antichrist. It is, however, established that the Antichrist will unambiguously teach that the law of the Christians is false and that Christ was a false prophet. And the described case does not appear impossible because it is not known that no future pope will submit to the sect of the Saracens. For it may come to pass that even a pope who was at first catholic would begin to consider that the sect of the Saracens was better than the law of the Christians. This pope could initially develop such a strong secret friendship with the Saracens, that having summoned their military might to his side he would dare to openly assert that the Christian law was false and unjust, and force Christians to accept the law of the Saracens. Since it is indeed an established fact that many Christians (including clerks and religious) have been converted to the sect of the Saracens, it does not seem implausible that even a pope might arrive at such a huge insanity. For since a pope is not confirmed in faith (just as no others are), the same point must be contended in his case as is in that of others as to the possibility of being converted to the Saracens. Having therefore presented the suggested exemplary case, proceed to argue in favour of the aforementioned assertion.
Master: It is shown in many ways that one may appeal from a pope who is a heretic as just described. First of all in this manner. It is legitimate to appeal for the cause of faith from a pope who has been deposed by law itself. But law itself deposes a pope who definitively pronounces that the Christian faith is false and that the law of the Saracens must be embraced. Therefore one is allowed to appeal from such a pope.
Student: I shall inquire in a later context [see 1 Dial. 6. 68-75] about this manner of proving the point, namely whether a heretic pope is deposed by law itself. Therefore move on to another reason.
Master: The second reason is this. It is permitted to appeal against the unjust sentence of any judge (or of someone functioning in that capacity) who has a judge superior to him. But a pope who definitively pronounces that the Christian law is false has a superior judge, therefore it is permitted to appeal from such a pope. The major premiss is demonstrated by the authority of pope Julius (recorded in 2 q. 6 c. Placuit) [col. 468] who states: "it has been approved that a hearing will not be denied when an appeal has been made from any ecclesiastical judge whatsoever to other ecclesiastical judges who are endowed with a greater authority". From these words one gathers that it is permitted to appeal from a lesser to a greater authority. The minor premiss is proved by the fact that every heretic has a superior judge, since a heretic is of lesser status than any catholic (24 q. 1 #Si autem) [cols. 967-968], and by the fact that the universal church is greater than the pope, just as the world is greater than Rome (dis. 93 Legimus) [col. 328], and by the fact that a general council is above the pope, as notes the gloss to dis. 19 c. Anastasius [col. 87]. Here is the third reason. It is permitted to appeal for the cause of faith from someone who can be neither a judge, nor a witness, nor an accuser in a cause of faith or in any other cause. This is evident, because it is permitted to appeal from one who functions as a judge and yet cannot be a judge. But a pope who pronounces the Christian law to be false can be neither judge nor witness nor accuser, since he is a heretic, and heretics cannot be judges since they possess neither authority nor right (24 q. 1 c. Didicimus) [col. 977], nor can they be witnesses (Extra, De hereticis, c. 1) [col. 778], nor can they be accusers (2 q. 7 c. Alieni [col. 488], and c. Pagani [col. 489], and c. Non potest) [col. 467]. Therefore it is permitted to appeal from a pope who pronounces the Christian faith to be false. Here is the fourth reason. It is permitted to appeal from every apostate who functions as a judge in a case of faith, at least if there is no other possibility of remedying a harm done in such a case. But a pope who definitively pronounces the Christian faith to be false is an obvious apostate from the Christian faith. Therefore it is permitted to appeal from him if he functions as a judge in a case of faith.
Here is the fifth reason. Every impaired case must be assisted through the remedy of an appeal, witness Pope Fabian who states (we have this in 2 q. 6 c. 1): "let it be permitted for an appellant to assist an impaired case through the remedy of an appeal", and in c. Liceat [col. 472] he states: "let it be permitted to appeal even in criminal cases; nor may one deny the utterance of an appeal to someone whom a sentence would have destined for punishment". But when a pope pronounces definitively in favour of a defendant that the Christian law is false, the cause of faith is most evidently harmed. Therefore the plaintiff is allowed to appeal from such an unjust sentence rendered against the catholic faith.
Student: On the basis of this reason, if every impaired case could be assisted by the remedy of an appeal, it would be permitted to appeal from the pope with respect to any unjust sentence whatever, in cases other than a case of faith.
Master: The answer is that the remedy of an appeal may assist every impaired case when the one rendering an unjust sentence has a superior judge. A heretic pope surely has a superior judge, therefore etc.
Student: I notice that this reason derives from other arguments. Proceed with the presentation of further reasons.
Master: Here is the sixth reason. One is allowed to appeal for cause of heresy from someone who can be accused of heresy. But the pope may be accused of heresy, therefore it is permitted to appeal from the pope for cause of heresy.
Student: This reason equally proves that it is permitted to appeal from the pope for every heresy, and not only in the specific case we are reviewing.
Master: All the reasons so far argued, and those that will be argued, conclude in truth that it is permitted to appeal from a heretic pope no matter what heresy besmirches him. Hence the case we are focusing on is only suggested so that the reason proving the general point might appear both more obvious and probable.
Student: Present another reason.
Master: The seventh reason is this. One is allowed to appeal from him from whose obedience and communion it is permitted to withdraw. But it is permitted to withdraw from the communion and obedience of a heretic pope who proclaims the Christian law to be false, following the example of those Romans who laudably removed themselves from the communion and obedience of Anastasius II, and for a lesser misdeed than what we are discussing, namely for his support of condemned heretics (the account is in dis. 19 Anastasius) [col. 64]. Therefore it is permitted to appeal from a pope definitively proclaiming that the Christian law is false. Here is the eighth reason. It is permitted to appeal from a judgement which one may publicly oppose, because the act of appealing appears to be one specific method of opposing an unjust sentence. But it is permitted to the one against whom such a sentence is rendered, as well as to other Christians, to publicly oppose the sentence of a pope who proclaims that the Christian law is false and that Christ was a false prophet. For just as it is permitted to all to publicly acknowledge Christ (he said himself in Matthew 10(:32-33) "whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my father which is in heaven"), so is it permitted to all to oppose the blasphemers of Christ. But the pope who proclaims that the Christian law is false and that Christ was a false prophet is a blasphemer of Christ. Therefore it is permitted to anyone to oppose this pope, and consequently it is permitted to appeal from him. Here is the ninth reason. It is permitted to appeal from someone (if he were to function as a judge in a case of faith) who must not be a judge in such a case. But a pope who definitively proclaims that Christ was a false prophet must exercise no authority over Christians, therefore one may appeal from him. The major premiss seems certain. The minor is proved as follows. No blasphemer of Christ must exercise power over Christians, witness Innocent III who states in a general council (we have this in Extra, De Iudeis, Cum sit) [col. 777]: "since it is exceedingly absurd that a blasphemer of Christ should exercise power of authority over Christians, etc." But a pope definitively proclaiming that Christ was a false prophet is a blasphemer of Christ, therefore he must not exercise the power of authority over Christians.
Student: This reason does not seem conclusive, because in the cited chapter Innocent is referring to Jews. But the pope, even if he were to proclaim that Christ was a false prophet, would not on that account be a Jew. Therefore it cannot be demonstrated by the cited chapter that such a pope would not be entitled to exercise the power of authority over Christians so long as the church tolerated him.
Master: This response of yours is excluded by the following consideration. Although Innocent does speak of Jews in that chapter and decrees that public offices should in no wise be committed to them, he nevertheless assigns a reason to his statute when he clearly asserts that no blasphemer of Christ must exercise the power of authority over Christians, this being therefore the motive for denying the granting of public offices to Jews. But where the reason is the same the law must be the same. Therefore since a pope who definitively proclaims that Christ was a false prophet is an obvious blasphemer of Christ, it follows evidently that, just as Jews must not exercise the power of authority over Christians because they are blasphemers of Christ, for the same reason a pope who definitively proclaims that Christ was a false prophet must not exercise the power of authority over Christians because he is a blasphemer of Christ. Here is the tenth reason. One appeals legitimately for cause of heresy from someone (if he functions as a judge and renders an unjust sentence against the faith) to whom it is not permitted to appeal in a case of faith, because one may legitimately appeal to someone who functions as a judge if this is someone from whom an appeal is not allowed. Thus, one may legitimately appeal to the emperor as to temporal matters because one is not permitted to appeal from him in this regard. But one can in no way legitimately appeal to a pope who definitively proclaims that the Christian law is false and the law of the Saracens is to be embraced, since such a pope would profess a faith different from that of catholics. And catholics are not allowed to appeal to the court of a person professing a different faith, witness the Council of Carthage which states (we have it in 2 q. 7 Catholicus) [col. 478]: "a catholic who appeals his case, be it just or unjust, to the court of a judge who is of another faith shall be excommunicated". Therefore it is not permitted to appeal to a pope who proclaims definitively that the law of the Saracens must be followed, and consequently one is allowed to appeal from him. The eleventh reason is this. It is permitted to appeal from an excommunicated individual functioning as a judge. But a pope who definitively proclaims that the Christian law is false becomes excommunicated, just, as is someone who falls into a heresy already condemned. The gloss [col. 1382] to 24 q.1 c.1 witnesses as much when it states: "here is a case where one pope may bind another, namely where the latter falls under the jurisdiction of an established sentence". Therefore it is permitted to appeal from such a pope. Here is the twelfth reason. It is permitted to appeal against a judgement, which is neither to be maintained nor observed nor feared, because a judgement from which one may not appeal is to be feared. But a definitive sentence whereby the pope proclaims that the Christian law is false is neither to be maintained nor observed nor feared, because a sentence rendered against the divine law is not to be feared, just as no command against the law of God is to be feared. Therefore one is allowed to appeal from such a judgement. The thirteenth reason is this. It is permitted to appeal from someone who may be subject to a lawful demurrer. But a pope who proclaims that the Christian law is false may be lawfully demurred against in every case of faith, because an enemy may be lawfully demurred against, and such a pope would be an obvious enemy of all Christians and of the entire Christian law. Therefore it is permitted to appeal from such a pope in a case of faith.
Comments
Post a Comment