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. XXVIII
Student: From this I conclude that this method of appealing is slated for discussion when we extensively inquire about the aiders and abettors of heretics. Therefore abstain from further focus on this issue, and indicate how one responds otherwise to the objection by which I proved that an appeal from a pope who declares the catholic faith to be false must in no way be issued. For you mentioned that two responses are given to this objection. Since we have dealt with one of these responses, proceed to state the other.
Master: The second response is that from such a sentence it is necessary to issue a standard appeal within the time frame specified by law, because otherwise a person would not be granted a hearing against the pope's sentence if he were to subsequently attempt to oppose it. And in support of this assertion one may argue as follows. He who neglects to appeal from an unjust sentence within the legally established time frame is deemed in the eyes of the law to have obeyed the proferred judgement (Extra, De sententia et re iudicata, c. Quod ad consultationem). [col. 400] But he who obeys a judgement may not proceed to oppose it because that which has once been approved cannot subsequently be rejected (dis. 4 In istis [col. 5] and 8 q. 2 Dilectissimi). [col. 598] Therefore he who does not appeal within the time frame established by law is not granted a hearing afterwards, and it is thus necessary to appeal if one will ever want to oppose the pope's heretical judgement. The second argument is this. The remedy of an appeal exists for the protection of innocence (Extra, De appellationibus, Cum speciali). [col. 437] Therefore the greater is the assault on innocence, the more is the remedy of an appeal necessary. But when the pope definitively proclaims against a catholic that the Christian faith is false, innocence is assaulted in the highest degree. Therefore that is when the necessity of having recourse to the remedy of an appeal is most intense, and thus it is necessary to appeal from such a judgement. The third argument is this. Each thing must be used for the purpose for which it is known to have been instituted. But the appeal process has been instituted so that the oppressed may be relieved (2 q. 6 c. Omnis [col.467] and c. Ideo, [col. 471] and the same notion is expressed in many other sacred canons). Therefore one must utilize the appeal process for the purpose of relieving the oppressed. But catholics are maximally oppressed if the pope decrees that the Christian faith is false. Therefore in this case above all must one utilize the remedy of an appeal. Therefore it is necessary to appeal from such a judgement.