POPE FRANCIS - A HERETIC? ON THE PUNISHMENT OF HERETICS AND ESPECIALLY OF THE POPE WHO HAS BECOME A HERETIC WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Dial. 6.1-15 CHP. V

No Roman Emperor In Sight To Kick The Pope's Ass 

Heretic Pope & Democratically Elected Italian Head Of State Giorgio Napolitano

(Democracy - How's It Working For You?)

Chapter 5

Student: What you have advanced in support of this argument suffices for the moment, therefore present another one.

Master: Here is the third argument which proves that the emperor is the normal judge of the pope. The pope's normal judge is one from whom the pope has rulership over the other churches. But the pope has this from the emperor, a fact they prove by the privilege conceded to the Roman pontiff by Emperor Constantine (this was argued in a prior context)[1 Dial. 5.18] Therefore the emperor is the normal judge of the pope. The fourth argument is this. The emperor was the normal judge of blessed Peter, therefore he is the normal judge of the pope. The consequence is obvious, because the pope does not enjoy a greater exemption than did blessed Peter. The proof of the antecedent is that all the apostles were equal on the issue of their subjection or lack of subjection to the emperor's jurisdiction. Since blessed Paul was subject to the jurisdiction of the emperor (he did appeal to Caesar as to a superior)[Acts 25:11], it follows that blessed Peter was [also] subject to it.

Student: One can say to them that Paul appealed not because he was subject to the jurisdiction of the emperor but because he wished to circumspectly evade the snares of the Jews.

Master: Here is how one attacks this last point. According to blessed Ambrose (we have it in 22 q. 5 c. Cavete)[col. 888] "the lie resides not only in false words but also in pretended actions", where the gloss notes that "one lies by deeds as well as by words"[s.v.operibus col.1282]. Therefore if blessed Paul was not in truth subject to the emperor, he was lying in deed when he pretended to be a subject appealing to the judgment of Caesar. But such a crime is hardly to be ascribed to blessed Paul. Therefore blessed Paul was truly subject to the emperor. They also demonstrate the same conclusion by an example. For as we read in the Chronicles: "John XII was an utterly lascivious womanizer to the point of public involvements with them. Because of that some cardinals and Romans secretly wrote to Otto prince of the Saxons that he should hurry to Rome without delay out of commiseration for the scandal of the church. When the pope learned of this, he ordered the amputation of cardinal deacon John's nose (as he had counseled this recourse to Otto) and the amputation of another John's hand (this one was a subdeacon who had written the letter). The pope did not correct himself although he had been frequently warned about his correction by emperor and clergy. He was deprived of the papacy in the presence of the emperor, and by a common vote Pope Leo is (sic) elected".[MGH SS XXII, Martini Chronicon, 431] One gathers from these words that the emperor is the normal judge of the pope. Indeed the emperor would otherwise never have deposed the aforementioned pope.

Student: Some might say that the emperor acted unjustly and that the said pope was not truly deposed, but merely stripped of the papacy as a matter of fact.

Master: This response is challenged, for if Pope John would had remained a true pope, the one who succeeded him in his lifetime would not have been a true pope but a usurper of the papacy, from which it follows that everything which he did would have lacked firmness or significance, and everything would have required annulment. But this was not done. To the contrary: the entire church holds that the person who succeeded John in the latter's lifetime was a true pope. Therefore Pope John XII was truly deposed.