Chapter 25
William of Ockham utility should not be excepted. And in that way similar judgment can be held concerning similar commandments.
To the argument following it is answered that it does not follow from the foregoing that it is permissible to change al! the sacraments. To change a commandment is one thing, to amit a commandment is another, and similarly to change sacraments is one thing and to omit sacraments is another. Therefore, although it is sometimes permissible to omit some sacraments, it is not permissible to change them. Consequently it is not permissible for anyone to baptize in wine or in a liquid other than water, or to make the body of Christ except in wheaten bread and in wine; on occasion, however, it is permissible because of necessity or utility to omit some sacraments.
Chapter 25 Student Now explain how it is maintained that it is permissible for Christians, on account of utility or necessity, to appoint several highest pontiffs, even though it is not permissible for them to divide the oneness of the Church, which is based on this, that one head under Christ males all. On this was based the second argument brought forward above in chapter 21.
Master It is answered that it is not permissible for any Christians to divide the oneness of the Church, but the oneness of the Church can continue without the oneness of a highest pontiff; for while the Apostolic See is vacant the oneness of the Church remains, and thus while a highest pontiff does not exist the oneness of the Church can persist. Neither is the Church divided because it has no highest pontiff; otherwise the Church would often be divided, since there is often no highest pontiff. And thus the Church is free from all division without one highest pontiff, and consequently from the fact that several highest pontiffs ruled the Church at the same time it could not be inferred that the Church had been divided.
To the text of blessed Cyprian it is answered that he speaks with reference to a case in which several presented themselves in discord as highest pontiff in such a way that each of them said that the pontificate and the Church was with him alone, as happened in the time of blessed Cyprian with Cornelius and Novatian; because
A Dialogue, Part mi, Tract 1 of their discord Cyprian spoke the words quoted above, knowing that Cornelius was the true highest pontiff and not Novatian,
If, however, for necessity or utility, without discord, and with the consent of the faithful, several at the same time occupied the Apostolic See and ruled God's Church in concord, from such a plurality of highest pontiffs no danger of division would result, because there would be no division either among the highest pontiffs themselves or among their subjects: just as, if there were in the same bishopric several bishops mutually helping one another, there would not on this account be any division in that bishopric.
From this an argument is taken to prove that, without any separation and division in the Church, there could, for necessity or utility, be several highest pontifis at the same time. For the same right exists in the part as in the whole and in small matters as in great; but in the same bishopric there can be two bishops at the same time, 7, q. 1, ¢. Non autem, c. Petisti, and c. Quia vero,'™ similarly, therefore, there could be, because of necessity or utility, several highest pontiffs at the same time. Although ic has never happened, it could happen, just as neither before Augustine's time nor afterwards do we read that while there was a bishop existing in good health another was appointed bishop in the same bishopric, and yet we read that this was done in the case of blessed Augustine.
In 7, q. 1, ¢- Non autem we read: "But we have not written only this as a matter for thankfulness, that Augustine obtained a bishopric, but that by God's grace the African Church merited this care, that it should receive heavenly words from Augustine's lips; having been advanced in a new way to the greater grace of an office of the Lord's, he was consecrated in such a way that he did not succeed a bishop in the chair, but, acceding to the church while
Valerius, bishop of the Church of Hippo, was in good health, Augustine was made co-bishop." If, therefore, for the utility of the Church of Hippo there were several bishops at the same time in the Church of Hippo, a fortior® for the utility of the whole Church there can be at the same time several apostolics.'"'
Student Against this is the gloss on the same chapter Non aniem, which says in these words: "Could there be in the same way two
9g, 3, ¢. 42, pata. Our vero.
7 The pope was sometimes called "the Apostolic', presumably because of the tradition that the see of Rome was founded by the apostles Peter and Paul.
William of Ockham apostolics? An argument that there could not: above, the same {question], c. Factus. And the Lord appointed only one: 24, 4.1,
Loguttur, and c. Quicungue. Dispensation from this is not possible, 2%, q.1, Sunt quidam. Moreover, because the Catholic Church is one and has one head. However, we read that there have been several emperors. But here it is not thus, because the rule 'One holy Church' would be violated." From these words we gather that for there to be several apostolics at the same time conflicts with an article of faith, namely the article "One holy Catholic Church."
Master It is answered that the gloss does not speak there assertively bur only argumentatively; thus it says, "An argument that there could not"; and therefore it does not decide for that side but only argues for it. These arguments do imply that there cannot be two opposed and discordant apostolics of whom both or either says and asserts that he alone is the apostolic and not the other, or of whom either was not lawfully appointed as apostolic.
The cited chapter Factus speaks in reference to such a case, because it speaks of Cornelius and Novatian, of whom Cornelius had been elected correctly and lawfully, as the same chapter asserts and testifies. And Novatian usurped the apostolic rank not for the necessity or utility of the Church but out of ambition, with scandal and division of the Church, as the following chapter testifies, In it we read: "Novatian is not a bishop. While Cornelius was bishop in the church, made bishop by twenty-six bishops, he [Novatian], an adulterer and an outsider, tries through ambition te be made a bishop by deserters." Concerning this we read in Evclestastical
History, Book vi, chapter 35, as follows: "Novatus, a priest of the Roman Church, puffed up by a certain pride, quite took from them [the lapsed] the hope of salvation, even if they had repented worthily. From that time also he was the leader of the heresy of the 'Novatians," who, having separated from the Church, called themselves by the proud name of 'Cathars,' i.e., 'the pure,' Because of this affair a very well attended priestly council, of sixty bishops and the same number of priests also together with very many deacons, was assembled in the city of Rome. Further, also, after great deliberation about this matter, what must be done is made known by decrees throughout every single province. I is enacted, therefore, that Novatus is outside the Church, together with those who were following this man puffed up with pride of mind and A Dialogue, Part ui, Tract 1 turned toward that inhuman opinion preserving nothing of fraternal charity." And below: "There is extant also another letter of Cornelius written to Fabian, bishop of Antioch, relating every particular about Novatus — who he was, and what sort of a person in life or character, and how he tumed away from the Church —- in which he [Cornelius] reports that he fell into all these evils from a desire he bore secretly within himself for a bishopric... Sidonius and Celerinus were regarded as very famous among confessors because they overcame all kinds of torments. 'But,' he says, 'when they had seen more carefully that he,'" i.e, Novatus, " 'did everything by frauds and deception, lies and perjuries, and that he only pretended goodness so as to deceive the ignorant, they left, or rather execrated, him and went back with great satisfaction to the Church, and in the presence of the priests and bishops, and also of laymen, they confess first indeed their own error and then also his frauds and deceptions.' He added, moreover, in this letter, that 'whereas he was accustomed to swear to his brethren that he did not at all desire a bishopric, suddenly and unexpectedly, as if he were a new creature, he appeared as a bishop — indeed, the man who championed discipline and church customs presumptuously took to himself a bishopric he had not got from God. When three bishops, very simple men and ignorant of everything, had been invited
(rather, deceived by his subtle snares} from a remote part of Italy, he extorted from them an imaginary, rather than a lawful, imposition of hands'... And he added also that Novatus was in his youth troubled by an unclean spirit, and after he had wasted a considerable time with exorcists he fell into a serious illness, so that he was despaired of: and because of necessity, he was sprinkled while lying on a bed, and the remaining things that customarily follow baptism were in his case not ceremoniously completed, and the signing with chrism was not completed; hence he was never worthy of the Holy Spirit.' From these words we gather that Novatus was unworthy of the supreme bishopric and that he usurped the priesthood unlawfully and practised many frauds and deceptions; he therefore divided the Church. But if, beimg worthy, he had been appointed by the unanimous consent of Catholics, the Church would not on this account have been divided.
Neither does a plurality of apostolics governing the Church in concord conflict with the oneness of the Church, just as a plurality
William of Ockham of bishops does not conflict with the oneness of the episcopate, nor a plurality ruling aristocratically in a city destroy the oneness of the city. Neither on this account would there be a violation of the article of faith, 'one, holy, catholic Church"; a plurality of apostolics appointed for necessity or utility with the unanimous consent of the faithful would not make several Churches, but the Church would remain one, because of the oneness of faith and the concord "in the same mind and in one judgment'!™of the apostolics ruling over the rest of the orthodox.
Therefore, when Cyprian says, as was quoted,'" that "the beginning proceeds from oneness, to show that the Church of Christ is one," it is answered that when necessity or utility does not require a plurality of apostolics — and it is with reference to this case that Cyprian was speaking ~ one man should be the apostolic, so that Christ's Church is shown te be one not only by the oneness of faith, of baptism, and of the other things the Apostle enumerates in Ephesians 4[:3-6], but also by the oneness of the apostolic in whom Catholics unanimously agree. But when necessity or utility demands several apostolics, it is enough that the Church be one by the oneness of the things the Apostle enumerates in Ephesians
4; by the oneness of these things it is one when, while the Apostolic See is vacant, the Church is subject neither to one nor to several apostolics, Among these things he [Paul] does not include "one apostolic" when he speaks of the oneness of the Church. He says,
"Careful to preserve the oneness of the spirit in the bond of peace, one body and one spirit, just as you have been called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptsm, one God and father of all, who is above all and throughout all things and in us all." In these things the faithful must preserve oneness, whether they have some apostolic or none: whether, also, they have one apostolic or several. However, whenever it is beneficial, the Church should have one apostolic, and the oneness of the Church would not be shawn unless, when it was beneficial and possible, the Church was subject to one apostolic.
Cyprian means the above words in that way. This is shown by his words following (also quoted above), when he says: "This *™
08 See above, chapter 21.