Ockham’s Dialogue between Master and Student is a discussion of the disagreements between Pope John XXII and the small group of dissident Franciscans led by Michael of Cesena, of which Ockham was a member.  In his constitution Quia quorundam the pope had condemned as heresy a doctrine the Franciscans believed had been endorsed by previous popes and accepted by the whole Church.  This, in their view, made John a heretic, and the majority of Franciscans who had accepted John’s constitution were in their view either heretics or supporters of a heresy. Part I of the Dialogue is a discussion of heresy and heretics and supporters of heresy. The Master makes no assertions of his own, but reports and discusses the views of the learned. A heresy is an assertion that contradicts Catholic truth; Catholic truth is to be found in the Bible and the teaching of the whole Church. A heretic is not simply someone who believes a heresy. A heretic is someone who has been baptised a Christian (or who presents himself as such) who believes some heresy pertinaciously.  Pertinacity is unwillingness to accept the rule of faith, namely the Bible and the teaching of the Church.  Book 4 discusses how it is proved that someone holds a heresy pertinaciously.  The Master describes various evidences..  For example, someone brought up as a Christian who says that Christianity is false and converts to some other sect is clearly not willing to accept the rule of faith.  Altogether the Master discusses twenty ways of proving pertinacity. 

The discussion of the seventh way occupies ten chapters, some of which are translated here.  Some say that refusal to retract an opinion at the mere command of a superior (even the pope) unsupported by reasons is not evidence that a person is a heretic. According to this opinion, even those whose beliefs are actually heretical need not cease defending them, even against the pope, until they have been shown clearly that their belief conflicts with the Bible or the teaching of the Church. The Master goes on to discuss a number of other possible ways of proving that someone is a heretic. According to some (and they are not contradicted except at minor points) a pope or other prelate who attempts to impose an heretical opinion on others is pertinacious and a heretic even if he has not been shown to him that his opinions conflicts with the Bible or the teaching of the Church. The mere fact that he is trying to oppose his opinions authoritatively is conclusive evidence of pertinacity, i.e. of unwillingness to be corrected. This is bad news for John \scXXII\es, because it means that if, as the dissident Francicans offer arguments to prove, the opinions he is trying to impose are indeed heretical, then he is a heretic even if he has not listened to or understood their arguments, whereas the dissidents (as long as they are ready to listen and to be corrected) are not heretics even if their opinions are in fact heretical because this has not yet been shown and they are not trying to impose their opinions but merely arguing for them. Thus the account of the evidence of pertinacity that the Master presents amounts to a defence of freedom of theological discussion within the Church.

For more reading, see CHLMP, \scX\es.39, “Rights, natural rights and the philosophy of law”. See also A.S. McGrade, The Political Thought of William of Ockham (Cambridge University Press, 1974), chapter 2.

For text and translation see Dialogus edition.

Return to Books, Articles, Essays