In making this analysis I have consulted Pierre D'Ailly's Abbreviatio (Ian Murdoch, Critical Edition of Pierre D'Ailly's "Abbreviatio dyalogi okan", Ph D thesis Monash University, 1981).
Contents
About a pope accused of heresy (perhaps falsely)
(a)
Does the pope have any judge on earth?|
(b)
Is it permitted, and necessary, to appeal against a pope
concerning heresy?
(c)
Should other Catholics defend those who accuse a pope of heresy?
(d)
Who can investigate an accusation of heresy against a pope?
About a pope who really is a heretic
(e)
Who can depose a heretic pope?
(f)
What penalties should be inflicted on a heretic pope?
(g)
Who is competent to judge a heretic pope?
-----------------
ABOUT A POPE ACCUSED OF HERESY, PERHAPS FALSELY
DOES A POPE HAVE ANY JUDGE ON
EARTH?
Does anyone on earth (ever) have jurisdiction
over a pope? Some say (A) that the pope has no superior on earth,
others (B) that while no individual person is the pope's superior,
the universal Church and also the general council are the pope's
superior. Of those who say the pope has no superior, some say (A1)
someone canonically elected pope may never be justly deprived of
the papacy, even if he becomes a heretic, others (A2) that a pope
has no superior on earth while pope, but if he becomes a
heretic he is instantly deprived of the papacy by divine law (not
by human law) and becomes inferior to Catholics.
Arguments for what (A1) and (A2) have in
common, that a pope
(while pope) has no superior.
Chapter
2 Arguments for (B), the pope does have a superior on earth,
even while pope. Versions of this position: (B1), the Emperor or
another judge and secular ruler, or the people or some multitude,
is the normal
judge of the pope. (B2) No person or body has power to judge or
coerce the pope except in two cases, (B2i) if the pope were
seriously (even if falsely) slandered of heresy, (B2ii) if he is
notoriously involved in some crime that would scandalize the
church and shows himself to be incorrigible.
First argument for (B1) (Marsilius): Since a
pope has no coercive jurisdiction, he must be subject to the
coercive jurisdiction of the Emperor.
Chapter
3 Arguments that the pope has no coercive jurisdiction.
Chapter
5 Third argument for (B1).
Chapter
6 Argument against (B1): the pope is the Emperor’s superior.
Chapter
8 How supporters of (B1) answer arguments against it.
Preliminary: different versions of (B1), different definitions of
temporal and spiritual. Answer to arguments of Chapter 6 to show
that the pope is the Emperor’s superior. Chapter
9 Answer to arguments of Chapter 6 continued.
Chapter
10 Discussion of (B2i), as it relates to the Church.
Arguments that the Church
is not the judge of a pope defamed of heresy.
Chapter
12 Discussion of (B2i), as it relates to the Council.
Arguments that a Council is not the judge of a pope
defamed of heresy. Chapter
13 Arguments that a Council is the judge of a pope
defamed of heresy.
Chapter
14 Master presents modified (B2i):
Church, Council, Bishops, must inquire, but if they find that the
pope is not a heretic they have no jurisdiction over him; if he
is, they do have jurisdiction. Chapter
15 Arguments supporting modified (B2i).
-----------------
IS IT PERMITTED, AND
NECESSARY, TO APPEAL AGAINST A POPE CONCERNING HERESY?
Chapter 16 If an
appeal is made, the pope is thereby “defamed”. Some say that an
appeal against a pope concerning heresy must never be entertained
(even if he is in fact a heretic). Arguments for that position.
Chapter
17 Explanation of the opinion that in some cases appeal
against a pope concerning heresy can be made. (1) It is
not allowed to appeal directly for cause of heresy from a Catholic
pope ... (2) It is allowed to appeal from a heretic pope. (3) If appeal is made against a Catholic
pope, it must be legally honoured until it becomes clear that the
appeal is not legitimate. Clarification of (1): if there is no
probable cause to believe that the pope is a heretic, no appeal
should be made, but if there is probable cause it can be; and if
there is a scandal, one can call for it to be resolved without
asserting that the pope is a heretic. Argument supporting (1).
Chapter
18 Meanings of "appellatio"; "provocatio".
Chapter
19 Argument supporting (2). Suppose a pope asserts that the
Catholic faith is false and that the sect of the Saracens should
be adopted.
Chapter
20 Objection: a heretic pope is an unbeliever, and
Christians should not appeal from an unbeliever. Answer: it is not
necessary to appeal (so the martyrs did not appeal), but it is
permissible (as Paul appealed). Discussion of whether
Christians should not appeal from an unbeliever or to an
unbeliever continued in Chapters 21,
22,
23.
Chapter
24 But it is not
absolutely
necessary to appeal against a pope
concerning heresy.
Chapter
25 Argument that if an appeal is made, the form usually used
in appeals need not be followed. Continued in Chapters 26,
27.
Chapter
28 Second answer to argument of Chapter 20 (that an appeal
is not permitted), viz. that appeal is necessary.
Chapter
29 Answer to arguments of Chapter 24 that appeal is not absolutely
necessary. Chapter
30 Answer to argument of Chapter 28 that appeal is necessary
(and a case when it is necessary).
Chapter
31 (Further) argument for assertion of Chapter 19, that it
is permitted to appeal from a pope's heretical judgment. Chapter
32 Objection against an argument of Chapter 31, and answer.
(Completes discussion of question raised in Chapter 19.)
Chapter
33 Can appeal be made against pope who defines even a
"tiny" heresy? Yes.
Chapter
34 Can appeal be made if the pope does not define, but
preaches? It is permitted to appeal against the doctrine as
heretical, but whether against the pope as a heretic depends
on whether he is bound to know the truth of the matter explicitly,
and (if not) whether he is pertinacious.
Chapter
35 Appeal, or accuse? These theorists not concerned with
technical verbal accuracy.
-----------------
SHOULD
OTHER CATHOLICS DEFEND THOSE WHO ACCUSE A POPE OF HERESY?
Chapter 36 Should
opponents of a heretic pope be defended by other Catholics, even
against a pope? One position: Not unless they make an “appeal”.
Chapter
37 Other Catholics are bound (under appropriate
circumstances) to defend opponents even if they do not appeal. Chapter
38 Arguments against the position of Chapter 37. Chapter
39 Three clarifications, and answers to the objections of
Chapter 38.
Chapter
40 Refinement of the position of Chapter 37.
Chapter
41 More arguments for position of Chapter 37.
Chapter
42 Student’s objections: The cited texts mean that judges
and prelates must defend the heretic pope’s attackers, not that
everyone must.
Chapter
43 Brother M and his followers do blame people who do not
defend them. Arguments that "partners (even if they are not in
positions of authority) must support partners", in support of the
thesis of Chapter 37.
Chapter
44 Answer to objections of Chapter 42.
Chapter
45 Student: Arguments so far apply to those who know or
believe that the pope is a heretic, not to those who do not.
Answer: The previous arguments do apply; all Catholics must defend
the opponents until it becomes clear to them that their opposition
is not legitimate. (Cf. conclusion (3)
of Chapter 17.)
Chapter
46 Arguments against the position of Chapter 45:
those who do not know must continue to obey the pope. Answers to
Chapter 46: Chapter
47 Rule of obedience to the pope has exceptions. Chapter
48 The pope ought not exercise his authority over appellants
so as to prejudice their appeal before they are convicted of
malice. Chapter
49 The pope is bound to honour an appeal.
Chapter 50, 51, more argument for position of Chapter 45.
Chapter 52 Prelates and those having jurisdiction in the Church must defend the pope's opponents. Chapters 53, 54 Kings and rulers and other public authorities must defend them, if necessary by arms.
Chapter
55 (Transition summary). Answer to arguments (chapter 16) to
show that it is not permissible to appeal from the pope.
-----------------
WHO CAN INVESTIGATE AN
ACCUSATION OF HERESY AGAINST A POPE?
Chapter
56 Return to the matter left at the end of Chapter 15: If
the pope has been defamed as a heretic, how should Catholics
investigate? What if the pope tries to prevent investigation? They
may take him captive. Objection: If the pope is falsely defamed,
they do not have jurisdiction over him so cannot take him captive.
Answer: The power to detain may be separated from jurisdiction.
Chapter
57 Who ought to conduct the investigation? Answer: First the
universal Church, then a council, then a bishop, then clergy, then
laity.
Chapter
58 For what infamy must a pope must be investigated? Depends
on its origin. The pope ought to submit to inquiry if the rumour
originates from a credible source. A reasonable procedure
described.
Chapter
59 Pope is bound by necessity of salvation to submit himself
to the judgment of inferiors.
Chapter
60 If the accusation fails, must the pope purge? Sometimes.
Chapter
61 Objections to the thesis of Chapter 60, and answers. Chapter
62 What if pope does not wish to purge himself? He should be
considered convicted, and therefore he should be deprived of the
papacy.
Chapters
63, answer to texts and 64
answers to arguments of Chapter 1 (purporting to prove that the
pope never has a superior) made by those who assert modified
(B2i) (cf. Chapter 14). Chapter
65 Their answer to arguments of Chapter 10. Chapter
66 Their answer to arguments of Chapter 12 (purporting to
prove that a general council does not have jurisdiction over a
pope defamed concerning heresy).
Chapter
67 A summary of the ways in which Catholics and the faithful
have power (simpliciter or secundum quid) over a
pope or a former pope who has become a heretic.
-----------------
WHO CAN DEPOSE A POPE WHO REALLY IS A HERETIC?
Chapter 68 If a pope does become a heretic, is he ipso facto stripped of all authority and ecclesiastical dignity? Some say yes, others say only if not tolerated by the Church. Arguments that ipso facto he ceases to be pope by divine law.
Chapter
69 Arguments for No: a heretic pope is not deprived of the
papacy by divine law. Chapter
70 Answer to the arguments of Chapter 69.
Chapter
71 What power does the Church have over a heretic pope?
Opinion 1: Those who say that a heretic pope is deprived of the
papacy by divine law (cf. Chapter 68) say that the Church, a
general council, any Catholic, has the same power as over any
heretic. Supporting arguments.
Chapter
72 Opinion 2: Those who say that a heretic pope is not
deprived of the papacy by divine law (cf. Chapter 69) say that no
one has power over the pope except the Universal Church or a
General Council, until he has been deposed by the Universal Church
or a General Council.
Chapter
73 Opinion 3: not only the universal Church and the general
council, but the Roman diocese, and the college of cardinals, and
the Emperor, and also a bishop in whose diocese a heretic pope is
sojourning, could depose him.
Chapter
74 Opinion 4: a heretic pope, unless he is willing to resign
of his own accord, cannot be deposed by any congregation or
person. An inferior cannot depose his superior; but a heretic
pope, since has not been deprived of the papacy by divine law
(according to this opinion, Chapter 69), is superior to every
Christian congregation and person.
Chapter
75 Disciple remarks that opinion 4 is to the detriment of
the orthodox faith. The other three make deposition a matter of
law, divine or human. Deposition by divine law has been argued
Chapter 68. Chapter 75 argues that the deposition is by human law.
-----------------
WHAT PENALTIES SHOULD BE
INFLICTED ON A HERETIC POPE?
Chapter
76 A heretic pope is subject to all penalties to be
inflicted on heretics in general by divine law, natural law,
general councils and canons of the supreme pontiffs. Argument that
he is subject to the penalties imposed on heretics by
newly-elected or previous popes.
Chapter
77 Two distinctions: some penalties are assessed in divine
law or natural law, others are assessed and determined in human
law; and heretics incur some penalties ipso facto,
others by sentence. First penalty, by divine or natural law: loss
of office.
Chapter
78. Another penalty by divine or natural law: Infamy. Infamy
of law (ipso facto or by sentence), infamy of fact.
Chapter
79 Another penalty: rejection from giving testimony and
never being believed. Presumption that no criminal is truthful.
Kinds of virtue; the virtues of pagans. Vices dispose to other
vices. Another opinion: By divine or natural law only some
criminals excluded from testimony (those whose crimes relate to
falsehood and lying), others by human law. Another opinion: Only
by human law, which provides that criminals may accuse and testify
in some cases. Whether excluding criminals from testifying
endangers the common good.
Chapter
80 In matters canvassed in Chapter 79 there are many
difficulties. Arguments that a heretic pope (specifically) is not
to be trusted.
Chapter
81 Another penalty: Excommunication. Not by divine law, but
by Church law.
Chapter
82 More penalties, incurred not by divine law but by Church
law: including expulsion from the Holy See, degradation from holy
orders, imprisonment, confiscation of property, etc. (These
penalties can be remitted, Chapter 87).
-----------------
WHO IS COMPETENT TO JUDGE A HERETIC POPE?
Chapter
83 Who is the competent judge? Who should impose the
penalties? A general council, a Catholic pope, the cardinals; if
these are negligent, a bishop, or secular rulers. Student's
objections and answers. How some might campaign for the holding of
a council.
Chapter
84 Who can convene a council? It can be done without a pope,
by prelates and theologians, rulers, all Catholic men and women,
who could attend the council. How it could be organised. Local
parishes or communities could send delegates.
Chapter
85 Kings and rulers and other laymen and laywomen could
convene a council and take part in it, shown by texts, examples
and arguments. "What touches all must be treated and approved by
all" qualified: "if it can be discussed by all, and there is no
apparent reason why anyone should be excluded from such
discussion." Church affairs do concern laypeople, including women.
If laypeople have been excluded from some councils, it must have
been with their consent.
What penalties can be inflicted on a heretic
pope by a council (Chapter
86), a newly-elected pope (Chapter
87), the cardinals (Chapter
88), the Romans (Chapter
89), the bishop of the diocese in which the heretic pope
resides (Chapter
90). Note (Chapter 86) that a council in which a
Catholic pope takes part can remit penalties mentioned in Chapter
82. Note (Chapter 88) that the role and privileges of the
Cardinals are by delegation from the pope.
Chapter 91
Whether secular and lay rulers have power to coerce a heretic
pope. First opinion: the coercion of a heretic pope does not
concern secular rulers at all.
Chapter
92 Opposite opinion: diverse ways of stating it. Coercion of
a heretic pope is the business of: (1) The entire multitude
of Christians, and therefore of secular rulers; (2) Primarily of
the pope and prelates, secondarily, in two cases, to secular
rulers, viz. (2a) if called on by prelates, (2b) if clerics are
heretics, supporters of heretics, or negligent. Arguments in
favour of (1).
Chapter
93 Explanation of (2b). They say (A) that the cause of faith
in some way pertains to the laity. Second, they endeavor to
explain (B) how the question of faith pertains to the
laity. Third, they endeavor to show (C) that the coercion of a
heretic pope in some case pertains to the laity, even if not
called on by the prelates of the Church. Arguments in favour of
(A).
Chapter
94 (B) In what ways does a question of faith concern the
laymen and laywomen? Discussion of (B) continued in Chapters 95,
96
Chapter
97 (C) Lay heretics, even as regards the crime of heresy,
are within the forum of the secular judge.
Chapter
98 (C) Heretic clerics: can they be coerced by the laity,
even if not called on by the prelates of the Church. Opinions: (1)
No, lay people should in no case interfere with heretic clerics
unless they have been called on by the prelates of the Church. (2)
Yes, when ecclesiastical power is deficient, a lay judge can
pronounce a definitive sentence on clerics, even on a heretic
pope, and order the same sentence to be executed. (3) Yes, when
ecclesiastical power is deficient, the laity can and must detain a
heretic pope and other heretical clerics, but cannot pronounce a
definitive sentence or order such a sentence to be executed.
Chapter
99 What (2) and (3) hold in common. Ecclesiastical power may
be deficient through importance, malice, negligence, or ignorance.
Arguments that lay people can coerce heretics when ecclesiastical
power is deficient without waiting to be called on by the clergy.
Quotations from Deuteronomy. What is moral binds still, the
judical (that heretics must be killed) does not.
Chapter
100 Answers to arguments in Chapter 98 for opinion that lay
people should not coerce heretic clerics unless called on by
prelates, and in Chapter 91 for opinion that coercion of a
heretic pope does not concern secular rulers at all. (Incidental
discussions of the interpretation of laws, making exceptions; the
role of experts.)
Return to 1 Dial. 6
and 7
Go to Analysis
of the argument of the Dialogus