Problems with the text of 2 Dialogus

2.1 Dial. chapter 2, s 16 

Version 1: Cum vero minor probatur auctoritate Iob, "In novissimo die" et cetera, dicendum est quod per illa verba probatur quod anime sanctorum sperant corporum resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime sanctorum habent spem que est virtus theologica vel actum sperandi qui non stat cum visione clara. (Translation: "When the minor is proved by the text of Job, 'On the last day' etc., it must be said that these words prove that the souls of the saints hope for the resurrection of bodies, but it is not proved by that [proposition] that the souls of the saints have the hope that is a theological virtue or an act of hoping that is inconsistent with clear vision.")

This agrees with Ar Ha Ko Pz Ly

Version 2: Cum vero minor probatur auctoritate Iob, "In novissimo die" et cetera, dicendum est quod per illa verba probatur quod anime sanctorum sperant corporum resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime sanctorum habent spem que est virtus theologica vel actum sperandi quod stat cum visione clara et aliquando non stat cum ipsa (Translation: "When the minor is proved by the text of Job, 'On the last day' etc., it must be said that these words prove that the souls of the saints hope for the resurrection of bodies, but it is not proved by that [proposition] that the souls of the saints have the hope that is a theological virtue or an act of hoping that is consistent with clear vision and sometimes is not consistent with it.")

Sa has a variant of this: … sed non probatur per ea quod anime sanctorum habent spem que est virtus theologica, sed probatur quod habent actum sperandi qui stat cum visione clara et aliud scilicet spes que est virtus theologica non stat cum ipsa

Version 2 is found (with variants) in Ca Fr Lb Sa Pa Pb Pc Vb Vd

Version 3: Cum vero minor probatur auctoritate Iob, "In novissimo die" et cetera, dicendum est quod per illa verba probatur quod anime sanctorum sperant corporum resurreccionem, sed non probatur per eam quod anime sanctorum habeant spem que est virtus theologica vel dicitur quod actus sperandi stat cum visione clara et alius non stat cum ispa (Translation: "When the minor is proved by the text of Job, 'On the last day' etc., it must be said that these words prove that the souls of the saints hope for the resurrection of bodies, but it is not proved by that [proposition] that the souls of the saints have the hope that is a theological virtue; or it is said that an act of hoping is consistent with clear vision and another is not consistent with clear vision.")

Version 3 is found (with variants) in Ax Ba Es To Di Kg La Lc Un Va  

Fi omits some text by homoioteleuton, and ends: … sed non probatur per eam quoniam anime sanctorum habent spem que est virtus theologica vel actum sperandi stare cum visione dei clara ("…it is not proved…that the souls of the saints have the hope that is a theological virtue or that an act of hoping is consistent with clear vision of God.")

We have adopted version 1 because it makes good sense and is an apt answer to the argument from Job. Versions 2 and 3 look like unsuccessful attempts to amend a text deriving from version 1 with  the "non" before "stat" omitted. Without the "non", version 1 would say: "but it is not proved … that the souls … have … an act of hoping that is consistent with clear vision", which makes bad sense. The best the would-be amenders could do was to insert the general comment that hope in some sense is, and in another sense is not, consistent with clear vision--a comment that does not advance the answer to the argument based on Job.


2.1 Dial., chapter 2, s 18

Version 1: et ideo habent actum sperandi et eciam visionem claram et perfectam (Ca Ha Pz Ly)

Version 2: et ideo habent actum sperandi et eciam visionem claram sed perfectam (Pa Pb Vd)

Version 3: et ideo habent actum sperandi non visionem claram sed vindictam (Fi Vb

Version 4: et ideo habent actum sperandi non ad visionem claram sed ad vindictam (Es La Ax Kg )

Version 1 is not quite satisfactory because the perfection of the vision is not to the point (and anyway the author does not think that all the saints have perfect vision). The sed in version 2 makes no sense. Version 3 makes sense, visionem claram and vindictam being accusative as objects of the gerund sperandi. Version 4 is equivalent to version 3. So we reject versions 1 and 2 and adopt version 3.


2.1 Dial. chapter 3, s 21

 Group A witnesses show one version, Group B another -- except  that Di goes here with Group B, whereas normally it belongs to Group A:.
Version 1 PaCaPcPzLyFrArSaVd: supplicamus et petimus ut nos exaltet in salutem paratam etc.
Version 2 DiVbEsBaToUnLaLbLcVa: legitur quod beatus Petrus dicit ut nos exaltet in salutem paratam etc. (Fi: ut ait beatus Petrus ut nos...)

Ly adds to Pz something derived from later in the chapter, and repeats the text from Peter: quoniam anime sanctorum ut habetur in Apocalypsi usque ad diem iudicii erunt sub altari et post diem iudicii super altare videbunt deum facie ad faciem ut exponit beatus Bernardus probatur eciam auctoritate beati petri dicentis 1 Petri 5 ut nos exaltet in salutem et cetera 

Version 1 makes good sense without the reference version 2 clumsily supplies to the source of "ut nos" etc.  The addition in Ly seems conjectural. 

2.1 Dial. chapter 3, s 24

A group

Between two sub-groups there is a variation of word order in one phrase, which in the second version is preceded by "et": 

Version 1, Ca Pa Pb Pc Vd Fr: primo si anima beati pauli adepta est beatitudinem et secundum veritatem adipiscetur secundum istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine quam in raptu habuit

Version 2, Ha Ko Pz Ly: primo si anima beati pauli adepta est beatitudinem et secundum veritatem et secundum istum adipiscetur maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine quam in raptu habuit

The sentence following is: “Igitur videns divinam essenciam ad maiorem gradum perfeccionis, scilicet visionis divine, poterit exaltari.”

Next paragraph:
“Minor est manifesta secundum omnes. Maior probatur primo auctoritate Augustini ad Orosium, qui ait taliter: “Raptus fuerat Paulus in tercium celum, id est ad intellectualem visionem, ut deum, non per corpus, non per similitudinem corporis, sed sicut est ipsa veritas cerneret”. Ex hiis verbis patenter habetur quod anima Pauli in raptu vidit deum.”  (Translation: The minor is manifest, according to everyone. The major is proved, first, by a text of Augustine (To Orosius), who speaks thus: "Paul was taken up into the third heaven, i.e. to intellectual vision, so that he perceived God not through a body, nor through the likeness of a body, but as he is truth itself". By these words it is clearly established that in the rapture Paul's soul saw God.) This shows that in our text "adepta est beatitudinem" refers to the rapture (2 Corinthians 12:2). The paragraph after this ends: "and yet Paul's soul after his death was exalted to a clearer vision". This suggests that in our text "adipiscetur" means after Paul's death.

Neither of the versions above explicitly sets out a major and minor from which the conclusion would follow. However, "si... igitur" could be taken as an argument in the form of a conditional, with the tacit premise "
what actually happened in one case is possible". "Secundum istum" means, I take it, that John XXII agrees with the true proposition that  Paul will obtain more perfect vision. Perhaps this phrase was omitted in some MS, re-inserted as a marginal comment, then taken into the text at the wrong point; or perhaps it was originally a reader's marginal comment taken into the text at two different points. 

Translation of version 2: "Is proved first: If the soul of blessed Paul obtained beatitude [in the rapture], and [in the future life] will attain (in truth, and according to John XXII) a greater and more perfect grade of divine vision than it had in the rapture, therefore one who sees the divine essence can be exalted to a greater degree of perfection, i.e. of divine vision". 

B group

The following witnesses have "sic" where the above have "si", they do not have the "et" before "secundum veritatem",  and  (except La) there is no object (such as the "beatitudinem” of Group A)  for “adepta est”:

Vb: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum veritatem adipiscetur secundum istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine quam in raptu habuit  

La: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est beatitudinem secundum veritatem et secundum veritatem adipiscetur secundum istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum [the rest is omitted by homoioteleuton]

Lb: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum veritatem et adipiscetur secundum ista maiorem gradum visionis divine quam in raptu habuit

Ax: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum veritatem adipiscetur secundum istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essencie quam in raptu habuit

Lc: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum veritatem et adipiscetur maiorem et perfectiorem gradum visionis divine essencie quam in raptu habuit

Fi: primo sic anima beati pauli in raptu adepta est secundum veritatem maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essencie quam in raptu habuit

Vb, from which LaLbLcAx seem to derive, is close to Group A version 1, with the omission of "beatitudinem et".

B Group with possibly conjectural variants

Instead of “adipiscetur” there is “post hoc habuit” or “post mortem exaltata est”; and “secundum istum” does not occur. “Adepta est” is modified by “in raptu” (otherwise found in the B group only in Fi), and its object is “visionem essencie divine” (not “beatitudinem” as in Group A). 

These differences could be due to conjectural efforts to repair a version as in Vb, under the guidance of hints provided in the next two paragraphs.

Di Kg: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est visionem essencie divine in raptu secundum veritatem sed istum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essencie post hoc habuit quam habuit in raptu

Es: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum veritatem [ins] in raptu [/ins] [m] visionem essencie divine sed post mortem exaltata est ad claram divine essencie [/m] [ins] visionem secundum [/ins] maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essentie quam habuit in raptu

Ba: primo sic anima beati pauli adepta est secundum veritatem in raptu visionem divine essencie sed post mortem exaltata est ad claram divine essencie visionem secundum maiorem et perfecciorem gradum visionis divine essencie quam habuit in raptu  [Ba seems throughout to be a fair copy of Es.]

Each of these versions does support the conclusion “Igitur videns divinam essenciam ad maiorem gradum perfeccionis, scilicet visionis divine, poterit exaltari.”

Conclusion

Version 2, found in Ha Ko Pz Ly, seems best.

 


2.1 Dial. chapter 3, s 62

Version 1: Cum vero conatur probare minorem (EsBaLaAx)
Version 2: Cum sic conatur probare minorem (VbPzLy)
Version 3: Tamen sic conatur probare minorem (CaPb)
Version 4: Tamen si conatur probare minorem (PaVd)
Other MSS have  idiosyncratic readings.

Scott has drawn attention to the possible value of version 4, "However, if he tries to prove the minor..." -- perhaps John did not actually offer this proof, but if he had it could have been answered as follows... This would make superfluous Ly's conjectural addition to the argument quoted at the beginning of the chapter, s 21 (where he added: "Quoniam anime sanctorum, ut habetur in Apocalypsi, usque ad diem iudicii erunt sub altari, et post diem iudicii super altare videbunt deum facie ad faciem, ut exponit beatus Bernardus"). If the original had read "si", it would be easier to understand the origin of the "sic" found in versions 2 and 3, which include the witnesses that are generally the most reliable.

But the context seems to be against this. The previous paragraphs (from s 52 ) have gone through the text of the argument at the beginning of the chapter (s 21) up to "alias tunc non exaltarentur", and the last paragraph of the chapter (s 66) answers the last part of the argument. This (s 62) is not the point at which to introduce a hypothetical discussion of an argument John did not use--that would come more suitably after s 66. The conjectural addition in Ly seems appropriate, though what has dropped out must have included something Ly does not supply, namely John's  interpretation of Apoc. 6:9 ("I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God"), corresponding to our author's remark (s 62): "For the reason the souls of the martyrs are said to be under the altar until the day of judgment is not that they do not see the deity of Christ but only the humanity, as the text is falsely expounded".  


2.1 Dial. chapter 3, s 69

Version 1 Ca Pb Ko Fr Ar Pz Ly (most of group A): sed secundum beatum augustinum de cura pro mortuis... (Likewise  Fi: et [q] tamen [/q] secundum augustinum de cura pro mortuis. Ha Ko: sed secundum augustinum libro de cura pro mortuis.)

Version 2 Vb Lb Es Ba Ax  La Lc Un To Va Di Kg (most of group B): et per consequens secundum beatum gregorium de cura pro mortuis...

Intermediate versions Sa: et per consequens per beatum augustinum de cura pro mortuis. Vd: sed secundum beatum gregorium et augustinum de cura pro mortuis. Pa: sed secundum beatum gregorium augustinum de cura pro mortuis.

In s 82 there is a back reference that suggests that at this point the following passage should have appeared: “Et per consequens secundum beatum Gregorium, qui videt facialiter deum non ignorat aliqua que apud viventes fiunt, nec docentur de aliquo, nec revelatur eis aliquid quod prius non viderint. Sed secundum beatum Augustinum De cura pro mortuis agenda...”.

[** Take account of these remarks of Jan Ballweg: s.o. (I.3.1); der Bezug auf die in I.3.1 zitierte tertia ratio ist durch die Zählung im I.3.6., die wörtlich übereinstimmende Einleitung (et per consequens secundum beatum) und die in I.3.7 nachfolgende wieder wörtlich übereinstimende Passage (cum ultimo dicit...) weitgehend sicher: gleichwohl ist die Wiedergabe hier nur inhaltlich nachvollziehbar. Sähe man in der Passage eine Umschreibung des Gregoriuszitats, wie es die Textüberlieferung nahelegt, würde das Augustinuszitat erst in 3.7. paraphrasierend wieder aufgegriffen; dies ist unwahrscheinlich. Wahrscheinlich wurde an dieser Stelle der ursprüngliche Text nach beatum sehr früh zerstört und von einem nur bedingt kundigen Schreiber rekonstruiert.]
 

2.1 Dial. chapter 11

In this chapter there are a number of passages that seem to disrupt, or at least not advance, the argument, which therefore ought to be deleted. They may be some reader's marginal comments or summaries that have been taken into the text.

s 174

The first of these is in bold in the following:

Tercio, ex auctoritate prescripta evidenter ostenditur quod errans pertinaciter contra veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur explicite credere est hereticorum numero aggregandus. Nam errans pertinaciter contra veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur explicite credere, defendens eciam pertinaci animositate falsam et iniquam sentenciam comprobatur (quia defendens {La Lb Ly: describens W} pertinaciter sentenciam falsam contrariam veritati quam non {om. Ax Es Ba La Fr} tenetur explicite credere propter solam pertinaciam {contumaciam Fi} et non {Bz: non solum W} propter defensionem inter hereticos numeratur). Sed defendens pertinaci animositate falsam et iniquam sentenciam secundum Augustinum inter hereticos computatur. Igitur errans pertinaciter contra veritatem catholicam quam non explicite tenetur credere hereticus est censendus.

(Variants are given only for the bold passage.)

Third, it is evidently shown from the above text that one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic truth that he is not bound to believe explicitly is to be counted among the number of heretics. For one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic truth he is not bound to believe explicitly is shown to be defending also with pertinacious animosity a false and wicked opinion (because one who pertinaciously defends a false opinion contrary to a truth that he is not bound to believe explicitly is counted among heretics because of his pertinacity alone and not because of his defence). But one who defends with pertinacious animosity a false and wicked opinion is counted among heretics, according to Augustine. Therefore one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic faith that he is not bound to believe explicitly must be regarded as a heretic. 

Here is the argument in schematic form: “P is H. For
(1) P is proved also to be M (because...).
(2) But M is H, according to Augustine.
(3) Therefore P must be H.”
P= one who errs pertinaciously against a Catholic truth that he is not bound to believe explicitly; M = one who defends with pertinacious animosity a false and wicked opinion; H=a heretic. The argument is clear and valid: Barbara, fig. 1, with the conventional order of premises reversed.

The bold passage seems to be intended to reaffirm the first premise against a tacit objection. The objection is that a pertinacious errant need not be a pertinacious defender (some who are in error do not defend their error but keep quiet about it); the first premise is therefore false, and Augustine's statement (the second premise) cannot be applied to the pertinacious errant as such. The bold passage rejects this objection, asserting that what makes the heresy is not the defence but precisely the pertinacity.
(The qualification "that he is not bound to believe explicitly" is irrelevant and inappropriate.)

Is the bold passage authentic, or is it some reader's marginal comment that has been taken into the text? The objection against authenticity is that if the author had envisaged this objection, he would probably have dealt with it more explicitly. But we have given the passage the benefit of the doubt.

s 175

Quarto, ex auctoritate supra infertur quod errans non pertinaciter contra veritatem catholicam quam non tenetur credere explicite non est inter hereticos computandus. Quia talem dicit Augustinus inter hereticos minime computandum: talis enim paratus est corrigi per regulam fidei Christiane, et ideo non errat scienter contra fidem; querit eciam cauta sollicitudine veritatem, et ideo non contra aliquid quod tenetur credere explicite errat; quia eciam paratus est corrigi, non errat pertinaciter, sed ex sola simplicitate vel ignorancia errat, et ideo non est inter hereticos computandus.

Fourth, it is inferred from the above text that one who errs, but not pertinaciously, against a Catholic truth he is not bound to believe explicitly is not to be counted among the heretics. For Augustine says that such a person is by no means to be counted among heretics, since such a person is ready to be corrected by the rule of Christian faith and therefore does not err knowingly against faith; also he seeks the truth with careful solicitude and therefore does not err against something he is bound to believe explicitly; also, because he is ready to be corrected, he does not err pertinaciously, but errs from simplicity alone, or ignorance; and therefore he is not to be counted among the heretics.

[From the outset, the argument is about those who err against a truth they are not bound to believe explicitly (see underlined words): the deleted clause is not a conclusion, final or intermediate.]

s 180

Talis enim non fatetur se errasse (errasse] Aw Vb Es Lb Fi Fr: errare Ba La Lc Ax , errare added Es) sed fatetur quod non dixit vel (vel] Aw Fr: nec Vb Es Ba La Lc Ax Fi , aut Lb) dicet (dicet] Pa Pb Pz Ly Vb Es La Lb Ax Fi Fr: dicit Ca Ba , [b]aliquid[/b] added Lb) scienter (aliquid added Es Ba La Lc Ax) contra fidem (fidem] Pa Pb Ca Bw: veritatem Pz Ly) et quod si sciverit se dixisse aliquid contra fidem (si... fidem] omitted Fi) paratus est (est] Pa Ca Ed Bw: omitted Pb) revocare. Magna autem est differencia inter revocacionem et protestacionem (protestacionem] probacionem Ca , probatum Vb) si sciret (sciret: sciveret Lc) aliquid dicere (dicere] se dixisse Es Ba , dixisse Fi) contra fidem (revocare added Pa Pb Ca Vb Fr , paratus est revocare added Es Ba , revocaret added Fi; ?revocacio added Lc; paratus esse revocare talis enim non revocat quod nescit se erasse added Lcm). Talis enim non revocat sed protestatur se paratum (paratum] probatum Pa Ca Pz Vb) (talis... paratum ] omitted La Ax) revocare si se (se] omitted Fi) cognoverit (cognoverit] cognovit Vb) contra fidem errasse vel errare (si ... errare ] omitted Es Ba) (magna... errare ] omitted Lb )

The most obvious point of difficulty with this passage is the "revocare" marked in red: neither revocare nor paratus est revocare makes good grammar. One possibility is that the words underlined were originally a marginal comment later inserted into the text, with the word at the insertion point, "revocare", being repeated at the end of the insertion. (The hypothesis of insertion is supported by the fact that the underlined words do not seem to contribute to the argument.) In Es the inserted phrase ends "paratus est revocare", which are the three words before the putative insertion point. In fact, for Es and Lc it is possible that the repetition is more extensive, namely all the words marked in blue; on this view, the marginal comment brought into the text would be the summary "magna autem est differencia inter revocacionem et protestacionem". 

On the hypothesis that the underlined words are a marginal comment that has got into the text, the authentic text omits those words and also the  "revocare" or the "paratus est revocare" that follows them. It would read:

Septimo, notandum est quod revocacio quam facit errans contra fidem non debet esse condicionalis, sed debet esse pura et absque omni condicione. Sicut enim penitencia de peccato commisso non debet esse condicionalis sed sine condicione, ita non debet quis errans revocare errorem suum sub condicione sed absolute. Videtur quod aliqui errantes contra fidem, et eciam aliqui non errantes, ex consuetudine revocant aliqua sub condicione, dicentes, “Si aliquid dixi vel dixero contra fidem, revoco totum”. Talis revocacio magis dicenda est protestacio quam revocacio: talis enim non fatetur se errasse, sed fatetur quod non dixit vel dicet scienter contra fidem et quod, si sciverit se dixisse aliquid contra fidem, paratus est revocare. Magna autem differencia est inter revocacionem et protestacionem si sciret aliquid dixisse contra fidem revocare. Talis enim non revocat, sed protestatur se paratum revocare si se cognoverit contra fidem errasse vel errare.

Translation: Seventh, it must be noted that is a revocation made by a person in error against the faith should not be conditional but ought to be pure and unconditional. For just as repentance for a sin committed should not be conditional but unconditional, so one who errs should not revoke his error under a condition but absolutely. It seems that some who err against faith, and also some who do not err, are accustomed to revoke certain things subject to a condition, saying, "If I have said or say anything against the faith, I revoke the whole". Such a revocation should be called a protestation rather than a revocation: for such a person does not say that he has erred, but says that he did not or will not say anything against the truth knowingly, and that if he learns that he said anything against the faith, he is ready to revoke. However, there is a great difference between revocation and protestation, if he knows that he has said something against the faith to revoke  For such a person does not revoke, but protests that he is ready to revoke, if he learns that he has erred or does err against the faith.

An alternative to the hypothesis that the words in question should be deleted would be that some other words should be added. If we add words found only in Lc in the margin, conjecturally insert a "quod"  and conjecturally amend the last "enim" to "ergo", we would have: 

Talis revocacio magis dicenda est protestacio quam revocacio. Talis enim non fatetur se errasse, sed fatetur quod non dixit vel dicet scienter aliquid contra fidem, et quod si sciverit se dixisse aliquid contra fidem paratus est revocare. Magna autem est differencia inter revocacionem et protestacionem [quod] si sciret aliquid se dixisse (se dixisse] Es)  contra fidem paratus est revocare (paratus est revocare] Es) -- talis enim non revocat, quia nescit se erasse [talis... erasse: Lcm). Talis enim  ergo non revocat sed protestatur se paratum revocare si se cognoverit contra fidem errasse vel errare.

Translation: Such a revocation should be called a protestation rather than a revocation. For such a person does not say that he has erred, but says that he did not or will not say anything against the truth knowingly, and that if he learns that he said anything against the faith, he is ready to revoke.  But there is a great difference between revocation and a protestation [that] if he knows he has said something against the faith he is ready to revoke  For such a person does not revoke, since he does not know that he has erred. For Therefore such a person does not revoke but protests that he is ready to revoke if he comes to know that he has erred or does err against the faith.

In other words: If a person says he has not knowingly erred but is ready to revoke if he comes to know that he has, then – since there is a big difference between actually revoking and protesting readiness to revoke if one knows one has erred (since such a person does not revoke, because he does not know he has erred)—he does not revoke but protests readiness to revoke if etc.

This is a valid argument, but the inferential steps are minute and the point it makes hardly needs argument. Moreover, Lcm is not a weighty witness. It therefore seems better to adopt the first hypothesis, that the passage contains material that should be struck out. Without that material its sense is as follows:

Such a revocation should be called a protestation rather than a revocation. For such a person does not say that he has erred, but says that he did not or will not say anything against the truth knowingly, and that he is ready to revoke if he learns that he has said anything against the faithFor such a person does not [actually] revoke, but protests that he is ready to revoke, if he learns that he has erred or does err against the faith.

s 189

Item, errans contra fidem, si debet de pravitate heretica excusari, oportet quod per ignoranciam excusetur. Errans igitur contra fidem qui laborat ignorancia que non excusat nisi probetur, antequam probetur non debet per ignoranciam excusari. Sed qui errat contra veritatem que apud omnes catholicos est tamquam catholica divulgata vel ignorat talem veritatem esse apud omnes tamquam catholicam divulgatam vel laborat ignorancia que ipsum apud ecclesiam non excusat nisi ignoranciam talem probaverit, quia secundum sanctos canones, illa que publice fiunt nemini licet ignorare, et si talem ignoranciam allegaverit, ipsam probabit (9a, q. 1a, Ordinaciones, in textu et in glossa). Igitur qui negat catholicam veritatem communiter apud catholicos divulgatam, si protestando qualitercumque se voluerit per ignoranciam de pravitate heretica excusare, oportet quod ignoranciam huiusmodi probet. Unde si iste posset probare legitime quod numquam audivit aliquem catholicum predicare, tenere, docere vel asserere animas sanctorum in celo videre deum, posset de pravitate heretica excusari, sed aliter non — sicut eciam si quis negans Christum fuisse passum per protestacionem huiusmodi (scilicet quod non intenderet aliquid dicere contra fidem, et si diceret, totum revocaret) de pravitate heretica excusaretur, nisi per alium modum de pertinacia convinceretur.

Again, one who errs against faith, if he should be excused of heretical wickedness, ought to be excused by ignorance. Therefore anyone erring against the faith who labours under an ignorance that does not excuse unless it is proved should not be excused by ignorance before he does prove it. But he who errs against a truth published among all Catholics as Catholic either does not know that this truth has been published among all as Catholic or labours under an ignorance that does not excuse him before the Church unless he proves that ignorance, for according to the holy canons no one is permitted not to know things done publicly, and if he alleges such ignorance, he will prove it (9, q. 1, Ordinationes, in the text and in the gloss [s.v. nisi probare, col. 866]). Therefore he who denies a Catholic truth commonly published among Catholics, if by protesting he wishes in any way to excuse himself of heretical wickedness by ignorance, ought to prove that ignorance. Thus, if this man could prove lawfully that he never heard any Catholic preach, hold, teach, or assert that the souls of the saints in heaven see God, he could be excused of heretical wickedness, but otherwise not --- just as by such a protestation (namely that he did not intend to say anything against the faith, and if he did he revoked the whole) someone denying that Christ suffered would also [if he could prove ignorance] be excused of heretical wickedness, unless in some other way he were convicted of pertinacity.

[The argument is that only ignorance excuses, but ignorance of what is commonly published as Catholic truth must be proved.  The alternative "either does not know... or labours under "  an ignorance that does not excuse unless proved is an irrelevance.]

Tract 2
Chapter 1  [[something wrong here: it is the meaning of the Gloss that prelacy will last until all of us who are, while in this present life, in one faith that does not differ  we expect next a first person verb, not occurrent. And if we are still in the present life when the last judgment comes, will we meet in fide or in clara visione?  I would suppose in fide, not, as in Ballweg's version, in clara visione: if those who are alive at the second coming meet in clear vision, then who are referred to by "aliqui occurrent in fide"? Ly's conjecture seems plausible, though perhaps it does not do justice to the emphasis in the earlier part of the sentence on being in the present life. I suspect that a larger passage has dropped out.]]

[[This is a bit odd; we"ve already had 3 ways of taking peace; are these alternatives just two more ways of taking peace? In fact the next two points are the ones his conclusion depends on; he didn"t really need the first three]]

2.2 Dial. chapter 5, s. 290


Et istam beatitudinem vocat beatus Bernardus beatitudinem consummatam, et a quibusdam integra beatitudo. [Missing text] tam primo modo quam secundo modo dicta, est redempta. Sic beatus Iacobus loquitur...

For redempta, Ly substitutes: nuncupata. Dicitur eciam beatitudo status perfectorum et in gracia existencium, ut sunt iusti in hac vita et anime purgandorum post mortem

After integra beatitudo we need vocatur or something similar.
We don't know what dicta refers to: probably not beatitudo. The noun that redempta agrees with may be anima, but that is not necessarily the noun for dicta.
The sense of the missing text is best gathered from text below.

2.2 Dial. chapter 9, s. 333

The consensus among the witnesses reads as follows: Ubi sancti loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum, non utantur preterito pro presenti tantum ad monstrandum suum affectum ad sanctos, sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem de visione earum pro presenti; igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro. Sancti autem frequenter cum loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum non solum loquuntur ad monstrandum veritatem de visione earum pro presenti. Igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed pro presenti.

With this there are difficulties. (1) As it stands, it says that the saints use past for present to show the truth of their vision for the present (non utantur preterito pro presenti
tantum ad monstrandum suum affectum ad sanctos, sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem de visione earum pro presenti), which is inconsistent with the conclusion of the argument (Igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed pro presenti). (2) The passage contains igitur twice. Is the clause introduced by the first igitur (igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro) an intermediate conclusion that becomes a premise of the next stage of argument? But it is difficult to see how this clause is either a conclusion of what precedes it or a premise of what follows. (3) "Autem" often marks the minor premise.  But the apparent minor (Sancti autem frequenter cum loquuntur...) says that the saints do not only speak to show the truth etc., which does not help the conclusion.

The text of Ly differs from the consensus in several respects. (a) Ubi becomes ubicumque (but ubi can also mean "whenever"). (b) Tantum is moved and eciam removed, so that the text reads:
non utuntur preterito pro presenti ad monstrandum tantum suum affectum ad sanctos, sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem). But  if the editor's purpose was to eliminate difficulty (1) he did not succeed--his text still implies that sometimes the saints used past for present to show present  truth. (c). The apparent intermediate conclusion (igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro) is deleted, which eliminates difficulty (2).

Some other witness also differ from the consensus in ways relevant to our difficulties.  (d) A number of
Group B witnesses (Vb Lb Es To La Fi Lc Un Va) do not have the first igitur, though they still have "non utuntur presenti pro futuro". (e) Several of the same witnesses (Es To La Fi Lc Un) omit non solum, so that the sentence means: "But often when the saints speak of the vision of the holy souls they speak to show the truth of their vision for the present". But it is still difficult to see how this functions as the minor premise of the argument.

Suggested reconstruction: Ubi sancti loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum non utantur preterito pro presenti tantum ad monstrandum suum affectum ad sanctos sed eciam ad monstrandum veritatem de visione earum pro presenti, igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro. Sancti autem frequenter, cum loquuntur de visione animarum sanctarum, non solum loquuntur ad monstrandum [suum affectum ad sanctos sed eciam ad monstrandum] veritatem de visione earum pro presenti. Igitur non utuntur presenti pro futuro sed pro presenti.

(Deletion of igitur is supported by some Group B witnesses, but the other deletion and the insertion are without MS support.)

Translation: "When the saints speak of the vision of the holy souls not only to show their feeling toward the saints but also to show the present truth of their vision, they do not use present for future. But often the saints, when they speak of the vision of the holy souls, do not speak only to show [their feeling toward the saints but also to show] the present truth of their vision. Therefore [on those occasions] they do not use the present for future but for present."

This is a valid argument. The text continues in the next section:  "The major [premise] is obvious, because if they were using the present for the future they would in no way be showing a present truth, but rather a future one. The minor [premise] also appears beyond doubt to anyone reading the texts of the saints," and there follows a discussion of a text of Gregory and one of Innocent III. The argument given here for the major premise supports the major in my reconstruction. The support given for the minor (see 334) also shows that our author is not trying to prove that the saints never use present for future, but merely that sometimes (or frequenter) when they speak of  the present vision of the holy souls they use present tense and do not mean future.