Providential Universitas: Theorizing the Authority of the University in the Midst of the Western Schism.

Jeffrey C. Witt (Loyola University Maryland) | @jeffreycwitt

Kalamazoo, MI, May 9, 2019

Slide Deck:

Quote 1. "It is the contention of this book that the solutions [to the schism] had been produced within the universities, the academics having been accepted as the only remaining universal grouping capable of involving itself in the issues and arriving at the necessary ecclesiological remedy."
Quote 2. "An extraordinary remedy should not be applied as long as an ordinary one is available, and this is the case because Benedict has offered a way of arbitration—trustworthy men to be chosen by both parties to see who is the rightful pope—and this would have the force of a general council." Simon de Cramaud, De substraccione obediencie, ed. Kaminsky, 81; transl. Kaminsky, 333: “Item, videtur quod non liceat sibi substrahere obedienciam alia racione, quia quociens potest haberi remedium ordinarium, non debet haberi recursus ad extraordinarium…Et quod per ordinarium remedium provideri possit, apparet: quia dominus noster offert quod eligantur valentes viri deum timentes ab utraque parte, et illi videant quis habet ius in papatu, vel dominus noster vel Bonifacius. Et vidi in scripturis aliquibus…quod dominus noster intelligit quod huiusmodi compromissum haberet vim concilii generalis.”
## Three conditions to approve papal apostasy 1. The Via Cessionis is the *only* solution left 2. The popes are aware of this fact (condition 1) 3. Despite this (condition 2), the pope refuses to resign
Quote 3. Even though it would be best to recognize a heavenly pope in case of notorious evil, obedience is not to be subtracted in a case that is merely doubtful, like this one". 43 Simon de Cramaud, De substraccione obediencie, ed. Kaminsky, 80; transl. Kaminsky, 332: “Item, licet in malo notorio pocius esset recognoscendus papa celestis, tamen in facto dubio, secundum quod est casus presens ut probabo, nunquam est obediencia substrahenda […].”
Quote 18. "...Those things which do not depend on nature and which are subject to divine providence do not require vehement demonstration, but rather some kind of persuasion suffices." (Petrus Plaoul, In Sent. Principium III) "quae non dependent a natura et quae subiacent divinae providentiae non requiritur vehemens demonstratio, sed sufficit persuasio"
Quote 22. Although subtraction of obedience may seem contrary to the rights written down in laws and canons, nevertheless natural reason dictates that this cause of God not be subject to laws or any other rights contained in writing or otherwise handed down but rather that these be entirely spurned and this distressing case resolved no matter how, the faster the better, with all laws and rights put aside.” (qtd. in Kaminsky, Simon de Cramaud, 164-165)