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. XXXIII

Chapter 33

Student: We have discussed sufficiently whether it is permitted to appeal from a pope if he were to issue a definitive judgement against a catholic that the Christian faith is false. Therefore I now turn to another question, namely, whether it would be permitted to appeal from any judgement of the pope containing any heresy whatsoever. Proceed to outline one or more opinions on this issue.

Master: Those who hold that it is never permitted to appeal from the pope would say that no one would be permitted to appeal from such a judgement. But others would say that it is permitted to appeal from any judgement of the pope whatever type of heresy it contains, and irrespective of whether the heresy is one condemned explicitly or only implicitly.

Student: Attempt to argue in favour of the second viewpoint.

Master: Here is the proof that one may appeal from such a judgement. It is permitted to appeal from every judgement of a pope that one may legitimately oppose. But it is permitted to oppose the judgement we are discussing because it is permitted to oppose every heresy whether condemned explicitly or implicitly. Therefore it is permitted to appeal from such a judgement. The second argument is this. The same legal principle applies to things both great and small (Extra, De prebendis, c. Maioribus [col. 466] and 14 last q. last c.). [col. 744] Therefore the same legal principle applies to a heresy which appears huge as to a heresy which appears tiny. But one is permitted to appeal from a pope who definitively proclaims and determines that the greatest of heresies is a matter of obligatory belief, namely that the Christian faith is false. Therefore it is permitted to appeal from a pope who definitively proclaims that a heresy that appears tiny is a matter of obligatory belief. And thus it would be permitted to appeal no matter what kind of heresy the pope were to decree as obligatory belief. Here is the third argument. The same legal principle applies both to a part and to the whole. Therefore the same legal principle applies to a heresy that appears to destroy a part of the catholic faith as applies to a heresy which negates the entire catholic faith. But it is permitted to appeal from a pope who proclaims that the entire faith of Christ is false. Therefore it is permitted to appeal from a pope who proclaims as obligatory belief any heresy contrary to any catholic truth. The fourth argument is this. The reason why it is permitted to appeal from a pope who proclaims that the Christian faith is false is because such a pope is a heretic and a destroyer of the catholic faith. But a pope who definitively proclaims any heresy as obligatory belief is a heretic and a destroyer of the catholic faith. And where the reason is the same the law must be the same. Therefore it is permitted to appeal from a pope who definitively proclaims any heresy as obligatory belief. The reasons listed earlier in chapter 18 may be advanced in favour of this assertion, because they prove that it is permissible to appeal from any heretic pope, even though they conclude somewhat more evidently that it is permitted to appeal from a pope who proclaims that the Christian faith is false.