CHAPTER 23
SOME PROBLEMATIC CASES?
Student I will carefully inquire later whether those unknowingly excommunicating a catholic assertion should be considered heretics, and so would you return to the argument and tell me in what other way reply is made to the above objection about the University of Paris.
Master There are some people who say that the said university excommunicated many assertions rashly, not because they think that those assertions smack of catholic truth but because it is not clear how they are opposed to orthodox faith. Others say that the said excommunication should have been considered rash because those who pronounced the excommunication usurped without just cause a power that they did not have, and so it was just that the sentence was later revoked. There is yet a fourth response, that the bishop of Paris rightly imposed that sentence with the authority of the apostolic see. To condemn a catholic assertion with the authority of the apostolic see, however, can licitly pertain to someone inferior to the highest pontiff.
Student If both someone condemning solemnly a catholic assertion and someone revoking a right and just condemnation of heretical wickedness should be judged heretical - and I will propose some questions to you about this later - it seems that it should be granted necessarily that either those imposing the said sentence of excommunication against the opinions of Thomas or those revoking it later should be reckoned among the heretics.
Master It seems to some people that only the sentencers, to others [only] the revokers are be regarded as heretics, but it can not be known who is speaking more truly unless it is first known whether the assertions condemned and later revoked should be considered heretical or catholic.
William of Ockham, Dialogus,
part 1, book 2, chapters 17-34
Text and translation by John Scott.
Copyright © 1999, The British Academy
Comments
Post a Comment