Chapter 21
William of Ockham Chapter 21 Student i think you have brought forward rather strong reasons in favor of the above opinion. Try to argue, therefore, in favor of the contrary opinion.
Master That the Church does not have power to change the highest pontificate into an aristocratic regime or into any other whatever seems provable:
[1] For as Christ testifies, Matthew 10{:24], the disciple is not above the master, nor the slave above his lord. But all Christians are disciples and slaves of Christ; therefore all Christians do not have power to take away an ordinance of Christ. Bur Christ ordained and willed that one man should be highest pontiff and head of all Christians. He showed this in his action, when he appointed blessed Peter alone as highest priest.
And thus Pope Anacletus, who was alive in the time of the apostles, testifies to this, as we read in dist. 21, c. /a nove. He says, "In the New Testament the priestly order began, after Christ, from Peter, because to him was first given the pontificate in the Church, when the Lord said to him, 'You are Peter,' etc." Therefore all
Christians do not have power to do away with the highest priesthood and establish any other regime whatever.
[2] Further, no Christians, neither the greater part nor the lesser, have power to do away with the oneness of the Church. Anyone who divides the Church must be regarded as a schismatic, and it is not pennissible for any multitude of Christians, however great, to bring abour a schism in the Church. But the oneness of the Church seems to be based on this, that it has one head under Christ, who mules all, as blessed Cyprian testifies, As we read in 24, q.
1, c. Laguitur, he says: "The Lord says to Peter, 'I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.'
He builds the Church upon one man; and although after the resurrection he gives equal power to all the apostles and says, 'As the Father has sent me I also send you; receive the Holy Spirit,' yet, to manifest oneness, he determined by his own authority the origin of that oneness beginning from one man. Certainly, the other apostles were what Peter was, endowed in equal fellowship with honor and power, but the beginning proceeds from oneness, to show that the Church of Christ is one,,. This oneness we should hold firmly and defend, especially we bishops who preside
A Dialogue, Part ut, Tract i in the Church of God, to show that the episcopate itself also is one and undivided; let no one deceive the brotherhood, Jet no one by faithless duplicity corrupt the auth of the faith. The episcopate is one, and each holds his part of it firmly." From these words we gather that the oneness of the Church, which must be heid firmly, proceeds from one, and requires one episcopate; it is therefore not permissible for any muititude of Christians to change the one episcopate into an aristocratic or other regime.
[3] Again, just as there is not, nor can there be, any true Church except the apostolic, so in the Church there is not, nor can there be, any true and permissible first rulership (namely, an episcopate or pontificate} except the apostolic. [Pope] Pelagius, quoting blessed
Augustine, seems to testify clearly to this. He says, in 24, q.
Pudenda: "Tt is certain that there is no other," ie., na other Church, "except that which is founded on the apostolic root, by whom," i.c., by the apostles, "there can be no doubt the faith itself was spread to the whole world. Although this is very well known to you, let us confirm it by the testimony of blessed Augustine. Hear what this most famous doctor of the Church says in one of his works. He says: 'And if that can in no way rightly be called the Church in which there is schism, it remains that since the Church cannot not exist, it is that which, based through successions of bishops on the root of the Apostolic Sec, no men's wickedness
(even if it is well-known and cannot be excluded, but is judged to be something that must be tolerated by reason of the dimes) can in any way extinguish.' " From these words we gather that there is in the Church no true rulership except the one which through successions of bishops is continued in the Apostolic See, But if an aristocratic regime, or any other whatever, were established, it would not be apostolic, and would not be based on the Apostolic
See through successions of bishops; therefore it would have to be regarded as impermissible.
[4] Moreover, the pope has fullness of power in the Church of God; therefore what the pope cannot do, 4 fortiori neither can any multitude of Christians. But the pope wouid not be able to decide or enact that after his death, or with his consent and will, there should be in the Church of God a regime other than the highest pontificate, since for all Christians to be ruled by one highest pontiff pertains to the general state of the Church, against which Wiiliam of Ockham the pope can make no dispensation, as the gloss seems to testify,
I, on the chapter Quae ad perpetuam.® Therefore, neither can any multitude establish another regime.
[§] Further, no multitude of Christians has power to do anything through which they can fall into the wickedness of heresy. But if any multitude whatever established another regime to which ail
Christians were subjected, by that act itself they would fall into the wickedness of heresy. They would be trying to take away a privilege of the Roman Church; and, as Pope Nicholas testifies in 22, q. 1,°° "Anyone who tries to take away a privilege of the Roman
Church given by the highest Head of all the churches undoubtedly falls into heresy." Therefore no multitude of Christians can establish a first rulership other than the rulership of the Roman Church, which is based on the fact that one highest pontiff rules over all
J6} Moreover, in one bishopric there carmot be two bishops, or in one archdiaconate two archdeacons, 7, q. 1, /# Apiéus, therefore, a jertiori, in the Church of God there cannot be two or more highest pontiffs. But it is certain that the Church of God should not be entirely without a highest pontiff. Therefore the Church does not have power to establish a principal rulership other than the highest pontificate of one man who rules all others.
[7] Further, it is not permissible for any Christians whatever to make the condition of the Church worse in respect of temporal matters, although it is permissible to improve it, Extra, De donationibus, Fraternitatem, Extra, De restitutione tn integrum, c.
Therefore, 2 fortiori, it is not permissible for anyone whatever to make the condition of the Church worse in respect of spiritual matters. But for one highest pontiff to rule all Christians relates to spiritual matters, because such government is spiritual, dist. ro,
Suscipitis. Therefore it is not permissible for any Christians whatever to change this regime in any way into one that is worse or less good. But an aristocratic regime (and any other) is less good than
" See gloss, col. 1498, v. Nedla commutatione: "From this it is clear that the pope cannot dispense against the gesteral state of che Chureh or against the articles of faith: for even if all assented to it, the statute would not be valid, but all would be heretics... But against a state of the Church that is not so general (such as the continence of the priesthood) he can indeed dispense."
™Rather, dist, 22, ¢. 1.