OCKHAM ON THE PAPACY Matthew Levering Shortly before the “Babylonian Captivity” of the popes in Avignon, Pope Boniface VIII issued two papal bulls repudiating the claims of King Philip IV of France: Ausculta Fili in 1301 and Unam Sanctam in 1302. The latter bull, which particularly outraged Dante and numer- ous others, taught that the papacy possessed supreme authority over both the ecclesial and the temporal spheres. Over the next few decades, prominent theologians involved in debate about papal authority included James of Viterbo, Giles of Rome, and Augustinus Triumphus on the “hierocratic” side, and John of Paris, Marsilius of Padua, and William of Ockham on the “anti-hierocratic” side. For Ockham, troubles began in the 1320s. Having traveled to the papal court in Avignon to defend the theological orthodoxy of certain of his philosophical theses, Ockham came to the view that Pope John XXII’s teachings on apostolic poverty were heretical. Most impor- tantly, John XXII had “declared it heretical to deny that Christ and the apostles had had rights of ownership in the things they used”.1 Excom- municated in 1328 by Pope John XXII, Ockham wrote a number of works between 1332 and his death in 1347 addressing the question of papal power and “papal heresy”.2 1 A. S. McGrade, “Introduction”, in: A. S. McGrade / J. Kilcullen (edd.), William of Ockham, A Letter to the Friars Minor and Other Writings, (translated by J. Kilcul- len), Cambridge 1995, pp. xiii–xiv. For sympathetic discussion of John XXII, cf. F. J. Oakley, “John XXII and Franciscan Innocence”, in: Franciscan Studies 46 (1986), pp. 217–226. At stake was whether private property results from the Fall. If so, it would seem that Jesus could not have held property, and that his followers in the apostolic life should also not hold property. For a brief summary of the conflict, cf. U. Horst, O.P., The Dominicans and the Pope: Papal Teaching Authority in the Medieval and Early Modern Thomist Tradition, (translated by J. D. Mixson), Notre Dame 2006, pp. 26–30. For a fuller account, cf. U. Horst, Evangelische Armut and päpstliches Lehramt. Minoritentheologen im Konflikt mit Papst Johannes XII (1316–34), Stuttgart 1996. Cf. also Yves Congar, O.P., “Aspects ecclésiologiques de la querelle entre mendiants et séculiers dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle et le début du XIVe”, in: Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Âge 36 (1961), pp. 35–151. 2 He died unreconciled to the Church: cf. G. Gál, “William of Ockham Died Impen- itent in April 1347”, in: Franciscan Studies 42 (1982), pp. 90–95. 750 matthew levering Ockham’s contributions to the debate about papal authority have received mixed evaluations. Among his advocates, Arthur Stephen McGrade interprets Ockham as speaking for a “balanced dualism” as opposed to Marsilius of Padua’s claim that the lay ruler possessed all jurisdiction.3 By contrast, critics such as Yves Congar argue that Ock- ham’s approach to papal authority, like the approaches of his four- teenth-century interlocutors, distorted Catholic thinking on ecclesial hierarchy for centuries to come. Contrasting Ockham negatively with high-medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure, Congar observes that in Ockham’s ecclesiology, “Theological positions and conclusions were determined not so much by inherent reasons, arrived at after contemplative consideration of the deep inner nature of things, as by purely positive authorities, decretal texts the strength of whose coercive value was carefully assessed”.4 Likewise, theological judgments became based upon the exception rather than the rule: “On the subject of realities, an attitude based on consideration of normality yielded to a damaging approach, by way of exceptional cases, possible dispensations and the most far-fetched hypotheses”.5 Does Ockham’s theology of the papacy reflect a “balanced dualism”, or does it in fact tend toward “purely positive” theology based upon “exceptional cases”? This essay will explore Ockham’s understanding of papal authority as exhibited in his response to the teachings of John XXII. I will focus on two texts: his 1334 “Letter to the Friars Minor,” urging his brethren to take up his cause, and his more formal Dialogus, specifically its tractate “On the Power of the Pope and Clergy”.6 What 3 A. S. McGrade, “Introduction” (cf. n. 1), pp. xii–xiii. Cf. R. Lambertini, “Ockham and Marsilius on an Ecclesiological Fallacy”, in: Franciscan Studies 46 (1986), pp. 301–315. 4 Yves Congar, O.P., Power and Poverty in the Church, (translated by Jennifer Nich- olson), Baltimore 1964, p. 106. Similar views of fourteenth-century ecclesiology are found in the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Louis Bouyer, and others. 5 Ibid., pp. 106 sq. 6 Brian Tierney raises a problem: “In the Dialogus Ockham deliberately adopted a mask, hiding his own opinions in the disquisitions of a Magister who expounded all the possible answers to problems proposed by a Discipulus, without committing himself to any particular solutions [. .]. TheDialogus is particularly hard to use. One can prove anything about Ockham by simply ascribing to him the opinions expressed by the Magister in this treatise. We shall therefore follow the rule of never attributing to Ockham the views expressed in the Dialogus unless there is evidence from his other writings that he actually held an opinion presented there” (Origins of Papal Infallibil- ity 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, Leiden 1972, p. 206). I will treat the arguments of the Dialogus with .