Chapter 5
A Dialogue, Part ui, Tract u be preferred to other excellences but should be put after wisdom, justice and other virtues, as the wise man testifies. In Wisdom 7° he says: "Wisdom is better than strength, and a wise man is better than a strong man." And in Ecclesiastes g{:16] Solomon says: "And I said that wisdom is better than strength
... Better is wisdom than weapons of war." And in Proverbs 16[:32], "Better is the patient man than the strong man, and he who rules his soul than the destroyer of cities."
Book 3 Chapter 5 Student If the right to elect the highest pontiff can belong to the emperor, say, in accordance with that opinion, whence he has it.
Master Your question can be understood in two ways: in one way so that the meaning is, Whence does the emperor have it that he is capable af this power or right?, in the other way so that the meaning is, Whence does he Aave this right, namety the right of electing the highest pontiff? Lf it is understood in the first way, — namely, Whence does the emperor have it that he is capable of this power or right? — it is answered that he has such a capacity from the very fact that he is Christian, Catholic, of sound mind, and a Roman. For if he were emperor and were not a Christian, he would not be capable of this right, because no one but a Christian can have the right to elect the highest pontiff; for things pertaining to the Christian religion should not be handied by outsiders (except that in a case of necessity even a non-Christian could baptize). If, also, he were emperor and a Christian but not a Catholic, but a heretic, as long as he was such he would not have the power or right to elect the highest pontiff, because no heretic, remaining a heretic, is capable of this right. If, also, he were emperor, a Christian, and a Catholic, but were not of sound mind — that is, did not have the use of reason but had gone mad — as long as he remained such he would not be capable of such right or power, at least so that is could issue in action. For although
William of Ockham if previously he had such power or right and afterwards went mad he would not by that very fact lose such power or right, nevertheless, if he were from the beginning out of his senses, such power or right should not be conferred on him, and it could not be conferred on him in such a way that he could, while his insanity iasts, perform the act of such power.
But if your question is understood in the second way — namely Whence does the emperor have (or can he have} such a power or right? — it is answered in two ways: in one way, that the emperor can have such a power or right from the highest pontiff, because the highest pontiff could grant the right to elect the pope to a cleric, or to clerics, to a layman, or to laymen, as it pleased him.
This is proved in three ways, first as follows. He who is head of all Christians in spiritual matters has power to control and determine who is to elect the head of all, especially since Christ did not specifically and expiicitly decide who should elect that head.
But the pope is the head of all Christians in spiritual matters; therefore it pertains to him to decide who should elect the highest pontiff, and consequently the emperor can have the right to elect the highest pontiff from the pope alone.
Second, as follows. He who can appoint the highest pontiff can commit to whom he wishes the power to elect the highest pontiff, and his successor can grant to whom he wishes the right to elect a successor. But blessed Peter appointed the highest pontiff to succeed himself, namely blessed Clement; therefore his successor also could grant to whom he wished the power to elect the highest pontiff, Third, as follows. Through the sacred canons, many of which were quoted above in chapter 3 of this third book, the pope granted the right to elect sometimes to kings and sometimes to others, and not illicitly; therefore no one can have the right to elect the highest pontiff except from the pope.
In the other way it is said that, by the very fact that he is Christian, Catholic, of sound mind, and a Roman, the emperor has the right and power to elect the highest pontiff, unless he himself tacitly or explicity renounces that right, or unless the election of the highest pontiff or the power of granting the right to elect has been granted with the consent of the Romans to 2 determinate person or determinate persons; sca that the Romans
A Dialogue, Part tu, Tract u de not have from the pope the power or right to elect the highest pontiff, This is proved by the following argument. Christ ordered the Church in such a way that it would never fail in anything necessary and so that no man could deprive it by his negligence or malice of anything whatever that is necessary. But not least among the other things necessary to the Church is that there should be some who, when the highest pontiff dies, have the right to elect the highest pontiff to succeed. In this matter, therefore,
Christ did not fail the Church, and he did not put it into anyone's power that he could by his negligence or malice deprive the whole of God's Church of this necessary thing. But if no one had the right to elect the highest pontiff except from the pope, then the pope could by his negligence or malice deprive the whole of God's
Church of the power or right to elect the highest pontiff: for he could first, for seme cause, reasonable or unreasonable, deprive those who now have the right to elect the highest pontiff of thar right, and before giving the right to others he could be forestalled by death, or he could by negligence or malice defer the granting of that right to the end of his life; and thus the right to elect the highest pontiff would not remain with anyone. Of this necessity to the Church the Church could therefore (by being forestalled dy the pope's death or by his negligence or malice) be left deprived, so that without a special miracle neither the universal Church nor the particular church could have a pope. From this it is inferred that the right to elect the highest pontiff is not from the pope, and therefore the Romans have the right to elect, not from the pope, but by the very fact that they are Christians and Catholics.
Student By that argument it is proved that the Romans do not have the right to elect the highest pontiff. For if they had ix, then by negtigence or malice the Remans could deprive the whole
Church of the right to elect the highest pontiff, for they could renounce that right without granting the right to elect the highest pontiff to any others whatever; therefore the Church would then be left without a right to elect the highest pontiff.
Also, all the Romans who had the right to elect the highest pontiff could become heretics or convert to another sect, and whet that happened they would tose the right to elect the pope; therefore
% 'That is, the church in the city of Rome.
William of Ockham the whole Church of Ged would be left without 2 right and power to elect the highest pontiff.
Further, if it is not from the pope that the Romans have the right to elect, I ask by what law do they have the right co elect the highest pontiff? Either by divine law or by human. Not by divine law, because we do not read in the divine Scriptures that God gave them such a right. And not by human law. For human law is either civil or canon law; civil laws are the laws of emperors and kings, canon laws are the laws of the highest pontiffs; therefore the Romans would have the right to elect either from emperors or kings or else from highest pontiffs. But they do not have the right to elect from the emperors; therefore they have such a right to elect from the highest pontiffs alone. And thus the mght to elect is from the pope alone.
These are the reasons why it seems that that opinion and the argument advanced for it do not seem to have probability. But, nevertheless, relate how they are answered.
Master To the first of them it is answered that that opinion does not say that in every case only the Romans have the right to elect the highest pontiff. To explain this it is said that it must be known that the highest poatiff is not only the prelate and bishop of the Romans, but is aiso prelate and bishop of all Christians; and therefore, on occasion, the election of the highest pontiff could belong to any Catholics whatever, whose prelate and bishop he is.
When, therefore, it is said that if the Romans had the right to elect the highest pontiff they could by negligence or malice deprive the whole Church of God of the right to elect the highest pontiff, it is answered that this argument would establish its conclusion if ne one else but the Romans had in any case a right to elect the highest pontiff: as it is, however, although when the Romans are
Christians and Catholics they have the right to elect the highest pontiff, yet if they renounced that right or became heretics, by that very fact other Catholics, whose bishop and prelate the pope also is, could elect the highest pontiff.
Student If other Catholics have the right to elect the highest pontiff because the highest pontiff is bishop and prelate of all
Catholics, [1] why do they not always clect the highest ponaff together with the Romans, since those who have the right to elect should all elect the prelate? And [2] why do the Romans elect
A Dialogue, Part wt, Tract n more than the others, if the others have the right to elect just as the Romans do?
Master The answer in accordance with that opinion to the second question that you ask opens the way to answering your first question.
I will therefore first relate, in accordance with that opinion, how the second is answered. To this it is said that the highest pontiff is in a way the Remans' own bishop ~ that is, inasmuch as the Romans do not have another bishop and all others except them have bishops of their own; therefore the election of the highest pontiff reasonably belongs to the Romans alone, when they are
Catholics, However, by the very fact that someone is bishop of the Romans he is bishop of all Catholics; therefore, although on occasion others have the right to elect, they do not have the right to elect together with the Romans, because, although they always have a right to elect the highest pontiff, they do not have the right to elect except for a case when the election does not belong to the Romans.
Student My question still does not seem to have been answered.
For the question is why others besides the Romans do not have the right to elect except for a case when the election does not belong to the Romans, since the highest pontiff is the immediate prelate of all just as he is of the Romans.
Master To this it is answered that according to right reason the election of someone to be made ruler should always, if possible, be granted to a few who can easily meet, lest, if it were granted to many who could not casily mect, the election would be deferred because of the difficulty of meeting, to the notable detriment of the common good and of those whom the person to be made ruler has to rule. Because, therefore, the Romans are few in comparison with the other Catholics, and because (as has been said) the highest pontiff is likewise in some way the Romans' own bishop (because they do not have another bishop as other Catholics do}, other
Catholics, therefore, not unreasonably, do not have the right to elect the highest pontiff except when the election does not belong to the Romans — that is, because the Romans, either by renunciation of their right or by apostasy or heretical wickedness, lack the right to elect.
From this the answer is clear to your first question, For other Catholics do not always elect together with the Romans because,