In 1322, the General Chapter of the Franciscans affirmed that Christ and the apostles did not, in fact, own any property, either individually or collectively. This position came into conflict with Pope John XXII, who believed it was impossible to separate the use of property from its ownership. In the bull Cum inter nonnullos, He declared the doctrine of "use without ownership" and Christ's poverty to be erroneous. In the Opus Nonaginta Dierum, Ockham defended the Franciscan Order by arguing that it was logically possible for the Order to have the use of goods without owning them, thereby contradicting what John XXII had stated in his bulls: «Quia transire per agrum alienum non est ius, et tamen est licitum; […] et eadem ratione potest actus utendi esse licitus sine ius utendi». John XXII justified the Church's possessions by denying the Order's poverty. Therefore, according to Ockham, even the pope can fall into heresy, and this happened because John XXII denied evangelical poverty: «Sed papa pronuntians legem christianam esse falsam non potest esse iudex nec testis nec accusator quia est hereticus. Heretici autem iudices esse non possunt cum nil habeant potestatis aut iuris [...]. Ergo a papa pronuntiante legem christianam esse falsam appellare licet.» Ockham's nominalism proves decisive in this debate: universal concepts have no reality of their own; they are merely names, and cannot legally serve as the basis for absolute power. Consequently, neither the Order of Friars Minor nor the Church, as concrete institutions, can be reduced to mere abstractions: «Si Ordo Fratrum Minorum persona repraesentata et ficta esset, tunc Ecclesia ipsa [...] persona repraesentata et ficta esset: quod est absurdum». The Order and the Church exist as concrete entities, not as abstract universals: the pope cannot claim universal authority over them, and papal assertions claiming absolute power over evangelical poverty are unfounded. (The notes can be found in the PDF sent by email)