William of Ockham, Dialogus,
part 1, book 2

Text and translation by John Scott.

Copyright © 1999, The British Academy

 

Capitulum 1

Chapter 1

Discipulus Quae recitasti circa quaesita ad praesens mihi sufficiunt, et ideo ad alia que magis habeo cordi festino. Volo enim de haeresibus multa inquirere, sed quia nonnunquam cognitio unius contrariorum ad cognitionem alterius conferre dignoscitur, quaero primo quae veritates sunt catholicae censendae.

Student What you have recited about the things I asked about is enough for me at the moment, and so I hasten on to other matters that I have more at heart. For I want to ask many things about heresies; but because sometimes knowledge of one of [two] contraries is known to provide knowledge of the other, I want to know first which truths should be considered catholic.

WHICH TRUTHS ARE CATHOLIC TRUTHS?

Magister Quaestio tua unum videtur supponere et aliud quaerere. Videtur enim supponere quod non omnes veritates sunt catholicae iudicandae, quod beatus Augustinus in Encheridion expresse determinat. Quaerit autem quae sunt illae veritates quae catholicae sunt censendae.

Master Your question seems to suppose one thing and to seek to know another. For it seems to suppose that not all truths should be adjudged catholic, which blessed Augustine expressly lays down in his Enchiridion. It seeks to know, however, which are those truths that should be considered catholic.

Discipulus Cum beato Augustino illud quod supponit questio firmiter teneamus, et circa quaesitum sententiam unam vel plures enarra.

Student Let us, with blessed Augustine, firmly hold what the question supposes, and tell me one opinion, or more, about what I seek to know.

First opinion: Catholic truth is found in the Bible alone

Magister Circa quaesitum sunt diversae et adversae sententiae. Quarum una est quod illae solae veritates sunt reputandae catholicae de necessitate salutis credendae quae in canone Bibliae explicite vel implicite asseruntur, ita quod si aliquae veritates in Biblia sub forma propria minime continentur, ex solis contentis tamen in ea consequentia necessaria et formali possunt inferri sunt inter catholicas numerandae. Sicut haec veritas, "Christus est verus Deus et verus homo" in tota Scriptura Divina sub hac serie verborum nullatenus invenitur, quia tamen ex contentis in Scriptura Sacra consequentia necessaria et formali concluditur catholica est censenda et eam credere est necessarium ad salutem. Omnes autem aliae veritates quae nec in Biblia sunt insertae nec ex contentis in ea consequentia necessaria et formali possunt inferri, licet in scriptis sanctorum vel in diffinitionibus summorum pontificum asserantur aut etiam ab omnibus fidelibus teneantur, non sunt catholicae reputandae, nec est necessarium ad salutem eis per fidem firmiter adhaerere vel propter eas rationem et humanum ingenium captivare.

Master There are different and opposing opinions about what you seek to know. One of these is that only those truths should be regarded as catholic and as requiring belief out of necessity for salvation which are asserted explicitly or implicitly in the canon of the bible, so that if some truths are not contained in the bible in that exact form, yet can be inferred by necessary and formal inference from matters contained solely in it, they should be counted as catholic, just as the truth, "Christ is true God and true man", is not found in this sequence of words anywhere in divine scripture, yet because it is a conclusion by necessary and formal inference from things contained in sacred scripture it is to be considered catholic and belief in it is necessary for salvation. All other truths, however, which are neither inserted in the bible nor can be inferred from what is contained in it as a formal and necessary consequence, even if they are asserted in the writings of the saints or in the definitions of the highest pontiffs or even if they are held by all the faithful, should not be regarded as catholic, and it is not necessary for salvation firmly to cling to them through faith or on account of them to take captive reason and human ingenuity.

Hanc suam sententiam auctoritatibus et rationibus confirmare nituntur. Auctoritas prima est Salomonis Proverbiorum 30 c. qui ait, "Omnis sermo Dei ignitus clypeus est sperantibus in se; ne addas quicquam verbis illius et arguaris inveniarisque mendax." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod verbis divinis quae in Scriptura Divina habentur nihil penitus est addendum tanquam necessarium ad credendum. Hoc etiam testari videtur Moyses Deuteronomii 4 c. et beatus Iohannes Apocalypsis ultimo, quorum verba supra c. 2 sunt adducta. Ex quibus datur intelligi quod sicut de Scriptura Sacra nihil est penitus auferendum, ita ei omnino nihil est addendum tanquam necessarium ad salutem.

They try to confirm this opinion of theirs by [citing] texts and by arguments. The first text is from the Proverbs of Solomon 30:[5-6] which says, "Every word of God is fire tried; he is a buckler to them that hope in him. Add not anything to his words, lest thou be reproved and found a liar." We gather from these words that nothing at all should be added, as though it were necessary that it be believed, to the divine words that are found in divine scripture. Moses also seems to attest to this in Deuteronomy 4 and blessed John in the last chapter of Revelation, whose words were adduced above in chapter 2 [of the first book]. We are given to understand from these that, just as nothing at all should be removed from sacred scripture, so nothing at all should be added to it as necessary for salvation.

Hanc etiam sententiam auctoritatibus beati Augustini conantur ostendere. Augustinus enim in quadam epistola ad Hieronymum et recitatur etiam in decretis, dist. 9, c. Ego, ait, "Ego solis eis scriptorum, qui iam canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque referre ut eorum nullum scribendo errasse audeam credere ac si aliquid in eis offendero, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse codicem esse vel non esse assecutum interpretem quod dictum est vel minime me intellexisse non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego ut quantalibet sanctitate quantave doctrina polleant non ideo verum putem quia ita ipsi senserunt sed quia mihi per alios auctores vel canonicas vel probabiles rationes quod a vero non abhorreat persuadere potuerunt." Ex his verbis colligitur quod solis libris canonicis qui in biblia continentur necesse est fidem certissimam adhibere et quod assertionibus aliorum non est necessarium ad salutem firmiter adhaerere.

They also try to make this opinion known by texts of blessed Augustine. For in a certain letter to Jerome, recorded also in the decretals, dist. 9, c. Ego [col.17], Augustine says, "I have learnt to offer this fear and honour only to those works of writers who are now called canonical, so that I dare to believe that none of them has erred in writing; and I do not doubt that if I come upon anything in them which seems contrary to the truth it is nothing but either a faulty codex or that the expounder has not comprehended what has been said or that I have not understood it. I read other [writers], however, in such a way that however greatly enriched they are in sanctity or learning I do not as a result think something true because they have believed it to be so but because they have been able to persuade me by other authors or by canonical or probable arguments that it is not inconsistent with the truth." We gather from these words that it is necessary to offer the most certain trust only to those canonical books which are contained in the bible and that it is not necessary to salvation to cling firmly to the assertions of other [books].

Item hoc idem Augustinus in libro, De unico Baptismo, ut recitatur eadem dist. 9, c. Quis nesciat, aperte sentire videtur. Ait enim, "Quis nesciat Sanctam Scripturam canonicam tam veteris quam novi testamenti certis terminis suis contineri, eamque posterioribus omnibus episcoporum litteris ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit? Episcoporum autem litteras quae post confirmatum canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribentur et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam et per concilia licere reprehendi licere si quid in eis forte a veritate est deviatum?" Ex his verbis colligitur quod de sola scriptura Novi et Veteris Testamenti est illicitum dubitare utrum sit verum vel rectum quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit. Ergo de omnibus scripturis generalium conciliorum et quorumcunque aliorum expositorum Scripturae Divinae ac etiam Romanorum pontificum et quorumlibet historiographorum post canonem editis confirmatum non est illicitum dubitare et disceptare an a veritate exorbitent quaecunque scripta in eis constiterint in eis antequam Scripturae Sacrae novi et veteris testamenti consona demonstrentur.

Again, Augustine seems clearly to believe this in his book, De unico baptismo, as recorded in the same dist. 9, c. Quis nesciat [col. 17]. For he says, "Who does not know that holy canonical scripture, both of the Old and the New Testament, contains its own fixed limits and that it is so preferred to all the later letters of bishops that there can not be any doubt or dispute about it at all, about whether whatever has been written in it is true or right? [Who does not know], however, that if there is anything in the letters of bishops, which have been written or will be written after the canon was confirmed, that has by chance deviated from the truth, it is permissible for them to be reproved by the perhaps wiser discourse of anyone more expert in the matter at hand and by the weightier authority and more learned prudence of other bishops and by councils?" We gather from these words that only about Scripture in the New and Old Testament is it impermissible to doubt whether whatever has been written in it is true or right. About all that has been written and published after the confirmation of the canon, therefore, whether by general councils, by any other expositors of divine scripture, even by Roman pontiffs and by any historians at all it is not impermissible to doubt and discuss, before they are shown to be in accord with the New and Old Testament of sacred scripture, whether anything written in them deviates from the truth.

Item Augustinus in epistola ad Vincentium et allegatur dist. praedicta c. Noli, loquens de scripturis posterioribus novo et veteri testamento, ait, "Hoc genus literarum ab auctoritate canonis distinguendum est; non enim sic leguntur tanquam ex eis ita testimonium proferatur ut contra sentire non liceat, sicubi forte aliter sapuerint quam veritas postulat." Ex his habetur quod contra omne genus literarum post canonem Bibliae licet sentire.

Again, speaking about writings later than the New and Old Testament in a letter to Vincent cited in the same distinction [9], c. Noli [col. 18], Augustine says, "This sort of writing should be distinguished from the authority of the canon; for we do not read them as though the evidence put forward from them is such that it is not permissible to think the contrary, if by chance they suggest something other than what the truth demands." We find from this that it is permissible to think contrary to every sort of writing after the canon of the bible.

His concordare videtur Augustinus in epistola ad Fortunatum et habetur dist. praefata c. Neque qui ait, "Neque quorumlibet disputationes," id est expositiones secundum glossam, "quamvis catholicorum et laudatorum hominum, velut scripturas canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat, salva honorificentia quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare atque respuere, si forte invenerimus, quod aliter senserint quam veritas habet, divino adiutorio vel ab aliis intellecta vel a nobis." Ex his concluditur quod nullus assertionibus quorumcunque quae in Scripturis canonicis non habentur firmiter assentire constringitur.

Augustine seems to agree with this in his letter to Fortunatus which we find in the aforesaid distinction [9], c. Neque [col.18] where he says, "And we should not consider the disputations," that is expositions according to the gloss, "of any men at all, even if they are catholic and praiseworthy, as canonical writings, as if we were not permitted, saving the honour that is owed those men, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if by chance we find that they have thought otherwise than what the truth holds, as understood with divine assistance either by others or by ourselves." We conclude from these [words] that no one is bound to assent firmly to anyone's assertions which are not found in the canonical scriptures.

Item de veritatibus quas docuit Augustinus quod nullus teneatur eas de necessitate salutis recipere nisi in scripturis canonicis habeantur, per eundem Augustinum ostendunt. Nam in libro De trinitate, ut in dist. 9 recitatur c. Noli, ait, "Noli meis litteris quasi canonicis scripturis inservire. Sed in illis et quod non credebas cum inveneris incunctanter crede. In istis autem quod certum non habebas nisi certum intellexeris noli firme tenere." Et in epistola ad Vincentium Victorem libro 2, ut habetur dist. eadem c. Negare, ait, "Negare non possum nec debeo, sicut in ipsis maioribus, ita esse multa in tam multis opusculis meis quae possunt iusto iudicio et nulla temeritate culpari." Ex his concluditur quod scriptis beati Augustini non est necesse incunctanter adhaerere; ergo eadem ratione nec scriptis aliorum quorumcunque qui inter scriptores bibliae non habentur.

Again, they show through Augustine that no one is bound to accept as necessary for salvation the truths which he himself taught unless they are found in the canonical scriptures. For in his book On the trinity, as recorded in dist. 9, c. Noli [col.17], he says, "Do not attend to my writings as to the canonical scriptures. But believe the latter unhesitatingly, even what you did not believe when you came across it; do not hold firmly, however, to what you did not consider as certain in the former unless you judge it to be certain." And in book 2 of his letter to Vincent Victor, as found in the same distinction [9] c. Negare [col.17], he says, "I can not and ought not deny that there are many things in many works of mine, as in those of our forefathers, which can be censured with just judgement and without temerity." We conclude from these that it is not necessary to adhere unhesitatingly to the writings of blessed Augustine. By the same argument therefore [this is not necessary] with regard to the writings of any others at all who are not found among the writers of the bible.

Sententiam etiam memoratam rationibus moliuntur ostendere, quarum prima est haec. Extra illam scripturam nulla catholica veritas invenitur in qua omnis veritas utilis ad salutem habetur et omnis falsitas inimica saluti damnatur; sed secundum Augustinum in Scriptura Divina quicquid utile est invenitur, quicquid noxium est damnatur; ergo extra Sacram Scripturam nulla veritas catholica reperitur.

They try to show the above opinion by arguments too, of which the first is this. No catholic truth is found outside that writing in which every truth useful for salvation is contained and every falsity inimical to salvation is condemned; but according to Augustine [at the end of book 2 of De doctrina christiana] it is in divine scripture that whatever is useful is found and whatever is harmful is condemned; therefore no catholic truth is found outside sacred scripture.

Secunda ratio est haec. Non minus sufficiens pro fidelibus christianis est Novum Testamentum una cum Veteri quam fuit solummodo Vetus Testamentum pro Hebraeis; sed tota fides ad quam astringebantur Hebraei fuit expressa in Veteri Testamento; ergo et tota fides ad quam de necessitate salutis christiani artantur in Novo Testamento et veteri continetur. Ergo christianus de necessitate salutis non tenetur credere aliquid quod nec in biblia continetur nec ex solis contentis in biblia potest consequentia necessaria et manifesta inferri.

A second argument is this. The New Testament together with the Old is not less sufficient for believing christians than was the Old Testament alone for the Hebrews; but the whole faith to which the Hebrews were bound was expressed in the Old Testament; it is also the case therefore that the whole faith to which christians are bound out of necessity for salvation is contained in the New and Old Testament. Therefore a christian is not bound out of necessity for salvation to believe anything which neither is contained in the bible nor can be inferred as a necessary and clear consequence solely from things contained in the bible.

Tertio sic. Illud quod eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur ad fidem catholicam minime spectat, et esto quod sit verum non debet inter veritates catholicas numerari; sed secundum beatum Hieronymum de Scripturis Divinis loquentem, quod de scripturis auctoritatem non habet eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur; ergo nulla veritas quae ex Scripturis Divinis auctoritatem non habet est inter veritates catholicas computanda.

A third [argument] is as follows. That which is condemned with the same readiness with which it is approved does not pertain to catholic faith and, even if it is true, should not be counted among catholic truths; but according to blessed Jerome, speaking about the divine scriptures, what does not have authority from those scriptures is condemned with the same readiness with which it is approved; therefore no truth which does not have authority from the divine scriptures should be counted among catholic truths.

Capitulum 2

Chapter 2

A second opinion: There are Catholic truths not found in the Bible

Magister Sed alii isti sententiae nequaquam consentiunt dicentes quod multae sunt veritates catholicae et fidem sapientes catholicam quae nec in Divinis Scripturis habentur divinis explicite nec ex solis contentis in eis possunt inferri quibus tamen fidem indubiam explicitam vel implicitam adhibere est necessarium ad salutem.

Master But others do not agree with that opinion, saying that there are many catholic truths and some smacking of catholic faith which neither are found explicitly in the divine scriptures nor can be inferred solely from what is contained in them, towards which it is nevertheless necessary for salvation to exercise undoubting faith, either explicit or implicit.

Ad cuius evidentiam dicunt esse sciendum quod praeter veritates circa quas licitum est sic et aliter opinari veritates quas quilibet catholicus certa credulitate explicite vel implicite tenere astringitur possunt in triplici differentia reperiri.

To make this clear they say that it ought to be known that besides the truths about which it is permissible to hold opinions one way or the other, the truths which any catholic at all is bound to hold explicitly or implicitly with sure belief can be found in threefold diversity.

Quaedam enim sunt de Deo et Christo secundum humanitatem ex quibus principaliter salus nostra dependet, sicut quod unus est Deus et tres sunt personae, quod Christus est verus Deus et verus homo, passus mortuus et quod resurrexit et ascendit, etc.

[1] For some, on which our salvation principally depends, concern God and Christ in his humanity, such as that there is one God and three persons, that Christ is true God and true man, [that] he suffered and died, that he rose and ascended, etc.

Aliae sunt veritates ex quibus non ita principaliter dependet salus humana, eas tamen oportet firma fide tenere, quia ex revelatione vel approbatione Dei, cui nullus debet catholicus dissentire, ad orthodoxorum notitiam pervenerunt, quibus mediantibus ipsas fideles posteri susceperunt. Huiusmodi veritates sunt quammplures in canone confirmato contentae in quo etiam multae habentur de creaturis et etiam de infidelibus hominibus, quae non directe sed indirecte quodammodo ad salutem humani generis pertinere noscuntur, sicut quod Pharao, Madianitae, Chananei et alii infideles quamplurimi multas terras occupaverunt et filios Israel multipliciter afflixerunt.

[2] There are other truths on which human salvation does not principally depend in this way, yet which it is necessary to hold with sure faith because by the revelation or approval of God, from whom no catholic ought to dissent, they came to the knowledge of the orthodox, through whose mediation later believers received them. There are very many truths of this kind contained within the established canon, in which there are also many found about creatures, and even about unbelieving people, which are known to pertain to some extent, not directly but indirectly, to the salvation of human kind, such as that Pharaoh, the Medes, the Canaanites and very many other unbelievers occupied many lands and afflicted the children of Israel in many ways.

Nonnullae etiam veritates huiusmodi extra praedictum canonem continentur quae tamen per revelationem vel approbationem divinam mediantibus apostolis ad catholicos pervenerunt, quia Christus, dum viveret in carne mortali cum apostolis, multa docuit eos et fecit coram eis quae tamen in biblia non habentur. Ex revelatione etiam Spiritus Sancti, qui secundum promissionem Christi docturus erat apostolos omnem veritatem, multa quae non habentur in sacris literis didicerunt quae postea catholicos docuerunt. Omnes veritates praedictas et quae ex eis consequentia necessaria omni tempore necessitatem habente possunt inferri dicunt isti catholicas esse tenendas.

[3] Some truths of this kind are also preserved outside the canon and yet have become known to catholics by divine revelation or approval through the mediation of the apostles, because while he was living with the apostles in mortal flesh Christ taught them many things and did many things in their presence which are nevertheless not found in the bible. By the revelation of the Holy Spirit, who according to Christ's promise was going to teach them all truth, the apostles also learnt many things not found in the sacred scriptures and afterwards they taught them to catholics. They say that all the above truths and those that can be inferred from them by an inference having necessity at every time should be held to be catholic.

Praeter veritates vero praedictas dicunt esse quasdam alias veritates quae ex solis contentis in Scriptura Divina et veritatibus quae ad nos per apostolos pervenerunt concludi non possunt, quae tamen ex praedictis veritatibus vel aliqua earum et quibusdam aliis veris quae in facto consistunt quae vere negari non possunt manifeste sequuntur. Et de talibus veritatibus exemplificare nituntur dicentes quod talis veritas est ista: regulae a sanctis patribus, scilicet Basilio, Benedicto, Augustino, et Francisco, institutae sunt licitae, meritoriae, et perfectae, quia licet ista veritas ex solis contentis in Scriptura Sacra et veritatibus quas ab apostolis ecclesia universalis accepit inferri non possit, cum de istis sanctis et gestis ac regulis institutis ab eis nulla in praedictis veritatibus mentio habeatur, ista tamen veritas simul ex Scripturis Divinis ac gestis et actibus praedictorum sanctorum, de quibus gestis et actibus christiano rationali sufficienter potest fieri fides, concluditur evidenter. Tales etiam veritates sunt istae: fides quam tenuit Augustinus est catholica reputanda; symbolum Athanasii est catholicum et fidele; sancta quatuor concilia generalia rite celebrata veritatem catholicam diffinierunt; et huiusmodi multae quae ex solis contentis in scriptura Divina Scriptura et doctrina apostolica inferri non possunt, cum Augustinus et Athanasius tunc non fuerint in rerum natura nec tunc illa concilia fuerint celebrata, ex contentis tamen in illis et aliis veris possunt concludi patenter. Tales veritates dicunt esse quamplurimas, quarum aliquae doctrinis autenticis sunt insertae, nonnullae vero in scriptis non habentur. Istas veritates non dicunt esse catholicas accipiendo vocabulum catholici stricte sed dicunt eas sapere catholicam veritatem, quia videlicet ex veritate catholica, stricte accipiendo catholicam veritatem, et veris aliis inferuntur. Et ideo dicunt quod large accipiendo veritates catholicas possunt veritates catholicae nuncupari. Et istas veritates quas dicunt sapere catholicam veritatem existimant ab omni fideli tenendas saltem implicite.

Now in addition to the above truths they say that there are certain other truths which can not be inferred solely from what is contained in divine scripture and from the truths which have come to us through the apostles, yet which clearly follow from the above truths or from any one of them and certain other truths of fact which can not truly be denied. And they try to cite an example of such truths, saying that the following is such a truth: the rules established by the holy fathers, that is Basil, Benedict, Augustine, and Francis, are licit, meritorious, and perfect, because, although that truth can not be inferred solely from what is contained in holy scripture and from the truths which the universal church received from the apostles, since those saints and their deeds and the rules instituted by them are not mentioned among the aforesaid truths, yet that truth is inferred manifestly from the divine scriptures together with the deeds and acts of the aforesaid saints, deeds and acts in which trust can be established adequately for a reasonable christian. The following are also truths of this kind: the faith which Augustine held should be regarded as catholic; the Athanasian creed is catholic and sure; the four holy general councils properly celebrated defined catholic truth; and many [truths] of this kind which can not be inferred solely from what is contained in divine scripture and from apostolic teaching, since Augustine and Athanasius were not at that time among living creatures and those councils had not been celebrated then, yet they can be clearly inferred from things contained in them and other truths. They say that there are very many such truths, some of which have been inserted into authentic teachings, while some are not found in writing. They do not say that those truths are catholic, taking the word "catholic" strictly, but they say that they smack of catholic truth, because, that is, they are inferred from catholic truth, taking "catholic truth" strictly, and from other truths. And therefore they say that they can be called catholic truths, taking "catholic truths" liberally. And they believe that those truths which they say smack of catholic truth should be held, at least implicitly, by every believer.

Adhuc sunt aliae veritates quas dicunt solummodo in facto consistere. Cuiusmodi sunt veritates de gestis ecclesiae et sanctorum quae in gestis, cronicis, et historiis fide dignis habentur, quas etiam asserunt a fidelibus minime respuendas.

There are still other truths which they say exist only in fact. Truths about the deeds of the church and of the saints, which are found in accounts of deeds, in chronicles, and in histories worthy of trust, are of this kind, and they say that these too should not be rejected by the faithful.

Ex his omnibus isti concludunt quod multae sunt veritates catholicae quae nec in Scriptura Sacra continentur explicite nec ex solis contentis in ea possunt inferri. Multae etiam sunt veritates aliae quas oportet certa credulitate fide tenere.

From all of this they conclude that there are many catholic truths which are not explicitly contained in sacred scripture and can not be inferred solely from what is contained in it. There are also many other truths [besides catholic truths] which it is proper to hold with sure belief.

Capitulum 3

Chapter 3

Discipulus Satis diffuse narrasti istam secundam sententiam, sed vellem scire an pro ipsa aliquae auctoritates vel rationes valeant allegari, ad probandum scilicet quod oporteat ad salutem firma credulitate adhaerere aliquibus veritatibus quae nec in literis sacris habentur nec ex solis contentis in eis necessario argumento possunt inferri. Utrum autem tales veritates stricte loquendo catholicae debeant reputari non curo quod investiges.

Student You have set out that second opinion copiously enough, but I would like to know whether any texts or arguments can be brought forward for it, to prove, that is, that it is necessary for salvation to adhere with sure belief to some truths which are not found in sacred writings and can not be inferred by necessary argument solely from what is contained in them. However, whether such truths should strictly speaking be regarded as catholic I do not look to you to investigate.

Magister Assertio de qua interrogas multis auctoritatibus et rationibus videtur posse probari. Hoc enim Innocentius tertius, ut habetur Extra, De celebratione missarum, c. Cum Marthae, testari videtur. Ait enim, "Multa tam de verbis quam de factis dominicis invenimus ab evangelistis omissa, quae apostoli vel supplevisse verbo vel facto expressisse leguntur." Et infra, "Credimus igitur quod formam verborum, sicut in canone reperitur, et a Christo apostoli et ab ipsis eorum acceperint successores." Ex his verbis colligitur quod quamvis forma conficiendi sacramentum eucharistiae nequaquam reperiatur secundum se totam in Scriptura Divina, tamen quod illam formam Christus tradiderit est credendum. Hoc etiam beatus Augustinus, sicut allegatum est supra, expresse sentire videtur, cum dicit, "Palam est quod in re dubia ad fidem valeat catholicae ecclesiae auctoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet episcoporum serie et tot populorum consensione firmatur." His verbis datur intelligi ut videtur quod ad fidem faciendam fidem sufficit auctoritas ecclesiae absque Scriptura Divina.

Master The assertion about which you are asking seems provable by many texts and arguments. For Innocent III seems to attest to it, as we find in Extra, De celebratione missarum, c. Cum Marthae [col.636]. For he says, "We find many things omitted by the evangelists both about the words and the deeds of the Lord which, as we read, the apostles either supplied in words or expressed in their deeds.... Therefore we believe that the form of words, as it is found in the canon [of the mass], was received by the apostles from Christ and by their successors from them." We gather from these words that although the form of consecrating the sacrament of the eucharist is not found in divine scripture fully as it is, yet it should be believed that Christ handed on that form. As was argued above, Augustine also seems expressly to believe this, since he says [dist. 11, c.9; col.25], "It is clear that in a doubtful matter the authority of the catholic church avails for faith, an authority which is strengthened by the sees founded by the apostles, by the series of bishops who have succeeded them up to today and by the agreement of so many people." We are given to understand by these words that it seems that the authority of the church is sufficient for the establishment of faith without divine scripture.

Item Agato papa, ut legitur dist. 19, c. Sic omnes, ait, "Sic omnes apostolicae sedis sanctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam ipsius divina voce Petri firmatae." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod omnes sanctiones apostolicae sedis sunt eiusdem auctoritatis cum scripturis beati Petri, quae inter Scripturas Divinas censentur. Ergo eis fides aequaliter est praebenda. Sed in sanctionibus apostolicae sedis veritates plures habentur quae in Scripturis Divinis minime sunt insertae. Ergo pluribus aliis veritatibus est firmiter adhaerendum.

Again, as we read in dist. 19, c. Sic omnes [col. 60], Pope Agatho says, "All the sanctions of the apostolic see should be accepted as though affirmed by the divine voice of Peter himself." We are given to understand by these words that all the sanctions of the apostolic see are of the same authority as the writings of blessed Peter, and these are considered to be among the divine scriptures. Therefore faith should be shown to them equally. But many truths are found among the sanctions of the apostolic see which have not been inserted in the divine scriptures. Therefore we should adhere firmly to many other truths.

Item Nicolaus papa, ut habetur dist. 22, c. 1, ait, "Qui autem Romanae ecclesiae privilegium ab ipso summo omnium ecclesiarum capite traditum auferre conatur hic proculdubio in haeresim labitur," et parum post, "Hic est dicendus haereticus." Ex quo datur intelligi quod qui non vult haereticus reputari necessario credere debet quod Romana ecclesia super omnes alias ab ipso Christo primatum accepit, de quo tamen in Scriptura Divina nulla fit mentio. Ergo veritates aliquae sunt credendae licet ex Scripturis Sacris inferri non possint.

Again, as we find in dist. 22, c. 1, [col.73] Pope Nicholas says, "However, he who tries to remove the Roman church's privilege, conferred by that highest head of all churches, slips undoubtedly into heresy.... This person should be called a heretic." We are given to understand by this that he who does not want to be regarded as a heretic should believe necessarily that the Roman church received from Christ primacy over all others. Yet no mention is made of this in divine scripture. Some truths should be believed, therefore, even though they can not be inferred from the sacred scriptures.

In fulcimentum autem assertionis eiusdem isti rationes adducunt, quarum prima ducit ad inconveniens, quia, si solis Scripturis Divinis et his quae ex solis contentis in eis possunt inferri adstringerentur christiani fidem indubiam adhibere, sequeretur quod negare liceret apostolos symbolum condidisse, beatum Petrum Romanum pontificem fuisse, sedem beati Petri de Antiochia Romam fuisse translatam, Romanos pontifices beato Petro successisse, cum de his in Scripturis Divinis nil legatur. Has tamen veritates universalis ecclesia hactenus tenuit, praedicavit, et docuit, et per consequens ecclesia universalis errasset, quod omnis catholicus pro inconvenienti debet habere.

Moreover, to support that assertion they adduce arguments. The first of these leads to an irrationality because, if christians were bound to offer undoubting faith only to the divine scriptures and to those things which can be inferred solely from what is contained in them, it would follow that it would be permissible to deny that the apostles were the authors of the creed, that blessed Peter was Roman pontiff, that blessed Peter's see was transferred from Antioch to Rome, and that the Roman pontiffs succeeded Peter, since we read nothing about these in the divine scriptures. Yet the universal church has held, preached, and taught these truths up to this time, and consequently the universal church would have erred, something which every catholic ought to hold as irrational.

Secunda ratio est haec. Non minus catholici tenentur determinationibus et diffinitionibus Romanorum pontificum, cum nihil contra fidem diffiniunt orthodoxam, credulitate indubia assentire quam astringantur eorum statutis quando nihil contra Dei voluntatem praecipiunt obedire. Sed omnibus statutis Romanorum pontificum quando nihil contra Dei praecipiunt voluntatem oportet cum omni humilitate et reverentia obedire, sicut per sacros canones, ut habetur dist. 12, c. 1 et c. Praeceptis, et alibi in decretis capitulis innumeris, constat aperte. Ergo determinationibus et diffinitionibus Romanorum pontificum, quando constat eos nihil contra fidem diffinire catholicam, oportet certissime adhaerere. Sed Romani pontifices multas veritates quae ex solo canone confirmato probari non possunt diffiniunt firmiter esse tenendas. Ergo de necessitate salutis oportet nonnullis veritatibus quae ex solis Scripturis Divinis probari non possunt fidem indubiam adhibere.

A second argument is this. Catholics are no less bound to assent with undoubting belief to the determinations and definitions of Roman pontiffs when they define nothing against orthodox faith, than they are bound to obey their statutes when they command nothing against God's will. But it is necessary to obey with all humility and reverence all the statutes of Roman pontiffs when they command nothing against God's will, as is clearly established by the sacred canons, as we find in dist. 12, c. 1 [col. 27] and c. Praeceptis [col.27] and in numerous chapters elsewhere in the decretals. Therefore it is necessary to adhere most surely to the determinations and definitions of the Roman pontiffs when it is certain that they are defining nothing against catholic faith. But the Roman pontiffs determine that many truths which can not be proved from the confirmed canon alone should be firmly held. Out of necessity for salvation, therefore, it is proper to offer undoubting faith to some truths which can not be proved solely from the divine scriptures.

Discipulus Affecto scire an isti assertores ponant exemplum de aliqua veritate quae firmiter sit tenenda quae tamen nec in Scripturis Divinis habetur nec ex solis Scripturis illis potest aperte probari.

Student I desire to know whether those who assert this cite an example of some truth which should be firmly held yet which is not found in the divine scriptures and can not be clearly proved from those scriptures alone.

Magister Multa exempla eorum iam tibi monstravi, videlicet quod apostoli symbolum condiderunt, quod beatus Petrus fuit Romanus episcopus pontifex, quod sedes beati Petri de Antiochia translata fuit Romam, quod beato Petro Romani episcopi successerunt. Aliud etiam ponunt exemplum de primatu Romanae ecclesiae, de quo in Divina Scriptura nulla fit mentio quia, licet de primatu beati Petri Scriptura Sacra expresse loquatur, quod tamen beatus Petrus Romanam rexit ecclesiam in eadem Scriptura minime reperitur, et ita de primatu Romanae ecclesiae nihil per solam eandem Scripturam potest ostendi, et tamen firmiter tenere debemus quod Romana ecclesia primatum habet super alias ecclesias universas.

Master I have already shown you many of their examples, namely that the apostles were the authors of the creed, that blessed Peter was bishop of Rome, that blessed Peter's see was transferred from Antioch to Rome, and that the bishops of Rome succeeded blessed Peter. They also cite another example, concerning the primacy of the Roman church, of which no mention is made in divine scripture because, although sacred scripture speaks expressly about the primacy of blessed Peter, it is nevertheless not found in that scripture that blessed Peter ruled the Roman church, and so nothing can be shown about the primacy of the Roman church from that scripture alone, and yet we ought to hold firmly that the Roman church has primacy over all other churches.

Discipulus De isto primatu Romanae ecclesiae supersede, quia de ipso postea aliquas quaestiones tibi movebo. Sed si isti assertores in aliqua alia ratione se fundant enarra.

Student Pass over the primacy of the church of Rome because I will present you with some questions about it later. But tell me if those who make this assertion base themselves on any other argument.

Magister Adhuc aliis rationibus satagunt se munire. Unde tertia ratio eorumdem est ista. Non in minori reverentia et honore debet haberi apostolorum doctrina quam eorum canones et statuta; sed canones et statuta apostolorum, sive ea in scriptis redegerint sive solo verbo ipsa servari mandaverint, firmiter sunt servanda; ergo et omnes veritates quas scripto vel verbo apostoli docuerunt tanquam verissime sunt habendae. Apostoli autem quamplurima docuerunt quae in scriptis minime reliquerunt; ergo aliquae veritates quae in scripturis canonicis non habentur verissimae sunt censendae, quibus per consequens oportet adhaesione certissima consentire.

Master They try to fortify themselves with still other arguments. Their third argument is this. The teaching of the apostles should not be held in less reverence and honour than their canons and statutes; but the canons and statutes of the apostles, either those they collected in their writings or those they only orally ordered to be preserved, should be firmly preserved; therefore all the truths which the apostles taught in writing or orally should be considered as absolutely true. However, the apostles taught very many things which they did not leave in their writings; therefore some truths which are not found in the canonical scriptures should be considered absolutely true. Consequently, it is necessary to agree with these and to adhere most surely to them.

Quarta ratio eorum est haec. Universalis ecclesia non potest errare, ipsa veritate testante quae ait apostolis Matthaei ultimo, "Vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi." Quae etiam pro fide Petri rogavit ne unquam deficeret; imo quicunque diceret ecclesiam universalem errare in articulum fidei sanctam ecclesiam catholicam vehementer impugnaret. Ecclesia autem universalis multas praedicat veritates quae nec in Scripturis Divinis habentur nec ex solis eis possunt inferri, sicut per exempla priora patet. Ergo et huiusmodi veritates firmiter sunt credendae.

A fourth argument of theirs is this. The universal church can not err, as the Truth himself attests when he says to the apostles in the last chapter of Matthew [28:20], "I am with you always, to the end of the age." He also prayed for Peter that his faith would never fail [Luke 22:32]. Indeed anyone who was to say that the universal church was in error with regard to an article of faith would be violently attacking the holy catholic church. However, the universal church preaches many truths which are not found in the divine scriptures and can not be inferred from them alone, as is clear from the earlier examples. Therefore truths of this kind should be firmly believed.

Quinta ratio est haec. Non minoris auctoritatis sunt scripta summorum pontificum et sanctorum doctorum quae pro sanis dogmatibus conscripserunt quam sint quaecunque chronicae et historiae, sive infidelium sive fidelium, quae extra Scripturam Sacram habentur; sed omnino fatuus censeretur qui omnes cronicas et historias extra canonem Bibliae reprobaret vel eas diceret minime approbandas. Tunc enim liceret omnia quae narrantur de summis pontificibus, imperatoribus, regibus, regnis, et aliis quibuscunque quae non inveniuntur in Biblia respuere et negare, quod inconveniens est censendum. Ergo multo magis scriptis summorum pontificum et sanctorum quae pro sanis dogmatibus conscripserunt est firmiter inhaerendum; in scriptis autem eorum plures veritates quae non reperiuntur in Biblia inseruntur; ergo et tales veritates sunt firmiter credende.

A fifth argument is this. The writings composed by the highest pontiffs and holy doctors for the sake of sound doctrine are not of less authority than are any chronicles and histories, whether by unbelievers or believers, which are found outside sacred scripture; but a person who was to reject all the chronicles and histories outside the bible or was to say that they should not be approved would be considered completely foolish. For then it would be permissible to reject and deny everything which is narrated about highest pontiffs, emperors, kings, kingdoms, and anything else which is not found in the bible, and this should be considered irrational. [See Significant Variants, para. 2.] So much the more, therefore, should we adhere firmly to the writings composed by highest pontiffs and saints for sound doctrine; however, many truths that are not found in the bible are introduced into their writings; therefore, such truths should also be firmly believed.

Discipulus Rationes et auctoritates quas pro secunda sententia adduxisti fortes mihi videntur. Et quamvis nolim quod in toto hoc opere manifestes quae est tua assertio quando contraria recitas et adversa, unum tamen in generali cupio scire, an scilicet quando illam assertionem quae tua est rationibus et auctoritatibus munire conaris, existimes omnes rationes et auctoritates quas allegas conclusionem tuam demonstrative probare.

Student The arguments and texts which you have brought forward for the second opinion seem strong to me. And although I do not want you to make clear throughout this work what your own opinion is when you record contrary and opposed matters, yet there is one thing in general that I want to know and that is whether, when you try to support with arguments and texts that assertion which is your own, you think that all the texts and arguments that you bring forward prove your conclusion demonstratively.

Magister Pro sententia quam reputo veram motiva quandoque demonstrativa, interdum probabilia tantum, nonnunquam vero solummodo apparentia, propter alios exercitandos aut probandos seu tentandos allego.

Master For the opinion that I regard as true I bring forward reasons that are sometimes demonstrative, sometimes only probable, sometimes indeed only plausible, in order to exercise, test or try other people.

Capitulum 4

Chapter 4

Discipulus Modus iste valde mihi placet quia per hoc saepe scientiam inflatorum experiar. Porro, cum quaesivi quibus veritatibus oporteat firmiter assentire, super quo diversas sententias retulisti, quarum prima habet convenienter dicere quod solummodo scriptoribus sacrarum literarum fides firmissima est adhibenda, secunda vero quae magis mihi placet concedere debet quod etiam aliis est credendum, ideo nunc interrogo quibus auctoriibus praeter scriptores bibliae est credendum.

Student That way pleases me greatly because through it I may often put the knowledge of the haughty to the test. Next, since I sought to know which truths it is necessary firmly to assent to, about which you have reported different opinions, the first of which implies that the firmest faith should be offered only to the writers of the bible, and the second, which pleases me more, allows that others should also be believed, [See Significant Variants, para. 3.] I therefore now ask what writers in addition to the writers of the bible should be believed.

According to the second opinion, what authorities should be believed besides the Bible?

Magister Ad interrogationem tuam a diversis diversimode respondetur. Quidam enim dicunt quod universis conciliis generalibus et omnibus summis pontificibus in his quae diffiniuntur esse credenda et omnibus sanctis Scripturae Sacrae tractatoribus credere est necesse, licet ea quae dicunt per Sacram Scripturam nequeant demonstrare. Pro hac assertione videtur facere quod legitur dist. 15 c. 1, ubi de conciliis generalibus recipiendis habetur aperte, et etiam c. Sicut et c. Sancta Romana. De assertionibus vero summorum pontificum recipiendis habetur dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum et in pluribus aliis. De traditionibus autem sanctorum habetur dist. 15, c. Sancta.

Master Different people reply to your question in different ways. For some people say that it is necessary to believe all general councils and all highest pontiffs, in respect of those things which are defined as needing to be believed, and all the saints who wrote on sacred scripture, even if they can not demonstrate what they say by sacred scripture. What we read in dist. 15, c. 1 [col.34], where we clearly find that general councils should be accepted, and c. Sicut [col.35] and c. Sancta Romana [col.35], seems to support this assertion. Moreover, we find [material] about accepting the assertions of highest pontiffs in dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum [col.58] and in many other chapters. We find [material] about the teachings of saints in dist. 15, c. Sancta [Romana] [col.35].

Alii vero praedictae assertioni non usquequaque consentiunt, asserentes quod licet assertionibus generalium conciliorum sit universaliter adhaerendum, licet etiam multis decretis seu decretalibus ac diffinitionibus Romanorum pontificum ac pluribus opusculis sanctorum doctorum pro eo quod omnia quae inveniuntur in eis constat esse consona catholicae veritati oporteat catholicos consentire, non tamen eo ipso quod Romani pontifices vel sancti tradunt aliquid esse credendum est hoc tanquam consonum veritati necesse accipere.

But others do not entirely agree with the above point of view, affirming that although there should be universal adherence to the assertions of general councils and although it is necessary for catholics to agree with many decrees or decretals and definitions of Roman pontiffs and many works of learned saints on the grounds that it is certain that everything found in them is [in fact] in accord with catholic truth, yet it is not the case that just because the Roman pontiffs and the saints teach that something is to be believed it must [therefore] be accepted as being in harmony with the truth.

Discipulus De generalibus conciliis et summis pontificibus intendo postea aliqua ad materiam istam spectantia indagare et ideo hic nihil loquaris de ipsis. Sed de sanctis obsecro resera quid praedicti sentiunt assertores.

Student I intend to investigate later some matters pertaining to general councils and highest pontiffs and so would you say nothing about them here. But I do ask you to disclose what those who assert the above think about the saints.

According to the second opinion, it is not always necessary to believe what has been said by the saints

Magister De sanctis duas conclusiones affirmant. Quarum prima est quod non eo ipso quod aliquis sanctus aliquid opinatur esse credendum est a cunctis fidelibus tanquam veritati consonum approbandum. Secunda est quod non omnibus sententiis quae inveniuntur in sanctorum opusculis iam per ecclesiam divulgatis est firmiter adhaerendum.

Master They affirm two conclusions about the saints. The first is that it is not the case that just because some saint opines that something should be believed, it should be approved by all believers as in harmony with the truth. The second is that not all opinions which are found in the works of the saints, even those published throughout the church, should be adhered to firmly.

Prima conclusio probatur auctoritatibus sancti Augustini quae ponuntur dist. 9, c. Noli et c. Negare et c. Ego et c. Quis nesciat et c. Noli et c. Neque. In quibus manifeste asserit Augustinus quod nonnulla in opusculis sanctorum et suis inserta licet fidelibus iusto iudicio absque omni temeritate culpare.

The first conclusion is proved from texts of St. Augustine included in dist. 9, c. Noli [col.17], et c. Negare [col.17] and c. Ego [col. 17] and c. Quis nesciat [col. 17] and c. Noli [col. 18] and c. Neque [col. 18]. Augustine clearly affirms in these that it is permissible for believers without any temerity to condemn by means of a just judgement some things inserted in the works of the saints and in his own works.

Hoc etiam ratione moliuntur ostendere. Nam non est necesse putare aliquid esse verum propter hoc quod illi qui possunt errare hoc sentiunt. Nam propter solam estimationem illorum qui possunt approbare falsum pro vero non est eo ipso aliquid approbandum pro vero quod tales sic sentiunt. Sed sancti stante sanctitate possunt errare etiam contra catholicam veritatem. Ergo propter hoc quod sancti aliquid sentiunt esse verum non est necesse putare illud idem esse verum. Maior est aperta; minor exemplo et ratione probatur. Exemplo, inquam, de beato Augustino qui sanctus existens plurima scripsit et docuit contra catholicam veritatem quae et postmodum revocavit. Hoc etiam ratione probatur. Nam error qui pertinaciam non habet annexam non obviat sanctitati. Sed contingit aliquem errare contra catholicam veritatem absque omni pertinacia. Ergo non est inconveniens affirmare sanctos stante sanctitate posse errare contra catholicam veritatem; et ita non est necesse omnibus quae sancti dicunt firmiter adhaerere.

They also try to show this by argument. For it is not necessary to think that something is true because of the fact that those who can err believe it. For just on the basis of the opinion of those who can approve of the false as true it is not for that reason necessary to approve of something as true which they think to be so. But saints can err even against catholic truth with their sanctity unshaken. Because the saints think that something is true, therefore, it is not necessary to think that it is indeed true. The major [premise] is clear; the minor is proved by example and by argument. By the example, I say, of blessed Augustine who, though a saint, wrote and taught many things against catholic truth which he later retracted. This is also proved by argument. For an error which is not joined to pertinacity does not prevent sanctity. But it is possible for someone to err against catholic truth without any pertinacity. It is not irrational to affirm, therefore, that with their sanctity unshaken saints can err against catholic truth; and so it is not necessary to adhere firmly to everything that the saints say.

Secunda conclusio quam isti tenent est quod nec etiam omnibus sententiis que in sanctorum opusculis iam per ecclesiam divulgatis reperiuntur est firmiter adherendum, quod sic probare nituntur. Nemo debet contrariis assentire; sed sancti in suis operibus iam per ecclesiam divulgatis inter se inveniuntur contrarii etiam in his quae ad fidem et doctrinam apostolicam pertinere noscuntur. Nam ut habetur dist. 26 circa doctrinam beati Pauli dicentis quod oportet episcopum esse unius uxoris virum, id est non plurium, Hieronymus et Augustinus sententias contrarias protulerunt. Hinc est quod glossa dist. praedicta c. 1. dicit, "Male sensit hic Hieronymus; unde Augustinus eum corrigit in proximo capitulo."

[See Significant Variants, para. 4.] The second conclusion they maintain is that not even all the opinions which are found in the works of the saints already published throughout the church should be adhered to firmly, and this they try to prove as follows. No one ought to assent to opposed [views], but in their works already published by the church saints are found to be opposed to each other, even in those matters that are known to pertain to apostolic faith and teaching. For as we find in dist. 26 [c.1 & c.2; col.95] Jerome and Augustine proffered opposing opinions about blessed Paul's teaching that it is proper for a bishop to be the husband of one wife, that is not of many [wives]. Hence the gloss on c. 1 of that distinction [s.v. post baptismum; col.128] says, "Jerome thought wrongly here and so Augustine corrects him in the next chapter."

Isti etiam sancti, sicut patet in eorum epistolis et recitat glossa ad Galatas 2, de reprehensione qua beatus Paulus dicit beatum Petrum fuisse reprehensibilem contraria sentiebant.

As is clear in their letters and is recorded in the gloss on Galatians 2, those saints also had opposing opinions about the reproof in which blessed Paul says that blessed Peter was reprehensible.

Beatus etiam Cyprianus de baptismo haereticorum aliter quam beatus Augustinus sensit. Unde et beatus Augustinus eundem sanctum Cyprianum redarguit. Loquens enim de sancto Cypriano et aliis, ut habetur De consecratione dist. 4. c. Quomodo, ait, "Non ob aliud visum est quibusdam etiam egregiis viris antistibus Christi, inter quos praecipue beatus Cyprianus eminebat, non esse posse apud haereticos vel schismaticos baptismum Christi, nisi ubi quia non distinguebatur sacramentum ab effectu vel usu sacramenti, et quia eius effectu atque eius usus in liberatione a peccatis et cordis rectitudine apud haereticos non inveniebatur, ipsum quoque sacramentum illic non esse putabant." Haec est sententia beati Cypriani de sacramentis haereticorum, cuius contrarium Augustinus ibidem asserit.

In addition, blessed Cyprian thought differently from blessed Augustine about the baptism of heretics, and so blessed Augustine contradicted St. Cyprian. For speaking about St. Cyprian and others he says, as we find in De consecratione, dist. 4, c. Quomodo [col.1377], "For no other reason has it seemed even to some distinguished men, priests of Christ, among whom blessed Cyprian is especially prominent, that Christian baptism can not exist among heretics and schismatics except because a sacrament was not distinguished from its effect or use, and because its effect and use were not found free from sin and with uprightness of heart among heretics they thought that the sacrament itself was also not there." This is the opinion of blessed Cyprian about sacraments [administered by] heretics, the opposite of which Augustine asserts in that place.

Manifeste ergo sancti circa sacramenta ecclesiae contraria dogmatizant. Hinc dist. 32 para. Ad hoc vero legitur, "Sciendum vero est quod canones apostolorum, quorum auctoritate orientalis et ex parte utitur Romana ecclesia, et insignis martyr Cyprianus et 80 episcopi cum eodem baptisma haereticorum lavacrum diaboli appellant. Stephanus vero et Cornelius martyres et pontifices Romani et venerabilis Augustinus in libro De baptismate, eundem Cyprianum et praefatos episcopos ob hanc causam vehementer redarguunt, affirmantes baptisma sive ab haeretico sive a schismatico ecclesiastico more celebratum esse ratum." Ex his colligitur quod Cyprianus et Augustinus de sacramentis ecclesiae contraria tradiderunt, quae etiam reperiuntur in scriptis eorum, sicut ex praedictis et capitulo eiusdem Cypriani quod habetur 1, q. 1, c. Si quis patet aperte. Non igitur omnibus assertionibus in operibus sanctorum inventis debet catholicus adhaerere.

Clearly therefore saints propound opposing dogmas about the sacraments of the church. Hence we read in dist. 32, para. Ad hoc vero [col.118], "It should indeed be known that the canons of the apostles, to whose authority the eastern church and in part the Roman church yield, and the worthy martyr Cyprian and 80 bishops with him call baptism by heretics the bath of the devil. But Stephen and Cornelius, martyrs and bishops of Rome, and the venerable Augustine in his book On baptism vehemently contradicted Cyprian and those bishops on that account, asserting that a baptism celebrated according to ecclesiastical custom, whether by a heretic or a schismatic, is valid." We gather from these [words] that Cyprian and Augustine handed down opposing opinions about the sacraments of the church, and these [opinins] are indeed found in their writings, as is quite clear from the above and from the chapter from Cyprian which is found in 1, q. 1, c. Si quis [col.382]. It is not the case, therefore, that a catholic must adhere to all the assertions found in the works of the saints.

Discipulus De sanctorum libris tam aperte probasti quod non sunt in omnibus approbandi quod nequeo dissentire. Ex quo sequi videtur quod nihil auctoritatis remansit in eis quia, sicut instrumenta ita etiam scripturae, quaecunque quae in parte inveniuntur falsae in totum reprobantur vel saltem suspectae redduntur. Unde et de Scripturis Sacris, ut habetur dist. 9, c. Si ad scripturas, asserit Augustinus quod si ad eas admissa fuerint vel officiosa mendacia nihil auctoritatis remanebit in eis. Dic ergo quomodo isti respondent ad id quod de approbatione opusculorum sanctorum, inter quae etiam opuscula Cypriani et Augustini et Hieronymi numerantur, dist. 15 legitur manifeste.

Student You have proved so clearly of books by saints that they do not have to be approved in their entirety that I can not disagree. It seems to follow from this that no authority remains in them because, just as with instruments so also with writings, whichever of them is found to be partly false is wholly rejected, or at least rendered suspect. Hence Augustine even asserts about the sacred scriptures, as we find in dist. 9, c. Si ad scripturas [col.17], that if even dutiful falsehoods be admitted to be in them nothing authoritative will remain in them. Tell me, therefore, how they reply to what we clearly read in dist. 15 about the approval of the works of saints, among which are certainly numbered the works of Cyprian, Augustine and Jerome.

Magister Dicunt isti quod non omnia opuscula sanctorum quantum ad omnia contenta in eis sunt per ecclesiam approbata. Constat enim quod in libris beati Augustini multa inveniuntur contraria veritati, quae etiam ipse postmodum retractavit, et ita illa minime approbantur. Et sicut est de libris beati Augustini ita est de libris multorum aliorum sanctorum quod nequaquam quo ad omnia approbantur. Omnes tamen libri sanctorum, de quibus in distinctione praedicta fit mentio, approbantur quo ad omnia quae nec per auctorem nec per alios sunt correcta.

Master They say that not all the works of saints, in respect of everything contained in them, have been approved by the church. For it is certain that many things opposed to the truth are found in the books of blessed Augustine and that he himself in fact later retracted these, and so they should not be approved. And just as it is with blessed Augustine's books, so it is also with the books of many other saints, that they are not approved in their totality. Nevertheless, all the books of the saints of whom mention is made in the aforesaid distinction are approved with respect to everything which is corrected neither by the author nor by others.

Discipulus Isto modo liceret approbare libros quorumlibet haereticorum, quia liceret approbare libros eorum quo ad omnia quae per catholicos minime sunt correcta. Omnem enim veritatem est licitum approbare.

Student In that way it would be permissible to approve the books of any heretics at all, because it would be permissible to approve everything in their books in so far as it had not been corrected by catholics. For it is permissible to approve every truth.

Magister Dicunt isti quod non est simile de libris haereticorum et libris sanctorum, quia in libris haereticorum falsa principaliter pertractantur et asseruntur; pauca autem vera inveniuntur inserta. In libris vero sanctorum vera principaliter intenduntur et pauca reperiuntur contraria veritati; et ideo propter pauca inutilia non sunt tanta utilia respuenda.

Master They say that there is no analogy between the books of heretics and the books of saints, because in the books of heretics it is chiefly falsehoods that are investigated and asserted, while there are few truths incorporated in them. But in the books of saints it is chiefly truths to which attention is paid and there are few things found that are opposed to the truth; and therefore such greatly beneficial things should not be rejected because of a few that are not beneficial.

Discipulus Adhuc explica mihi an isti putent omnes veritates in libris sanctorum inventas catholicas esse censendas.

Student Explain to me further whether they think that all truths found in the books of saints should be considered catholic.

Magister Nullatenus arbitrantur omnes veritates tractatas in libris sanctorum esse catholicas. Unde dicunt quod sancti aliqua tanquam catholica, quaedam autem tanquam necessaria non ad fidem spectantia, nonnulla vero tanquam probabilia tradiderunt, et hoc ultimum ex auctoritatibus Augustini quae dist. 9 ponuntur, scilicet c. Noli et c. Negare et c. Neque probatur aperte. Cui etiam concordat Anselmus lib. 1 Cur Deus homo dicens, "Eo pacto quo de peccato quod omnia quae dico sic volo accipi, videlicet ut, si quid dixero quod maior non confirmet auctoritas, quamvis illud ratione probare videar, non alia certitudine accipiatur, nisi quod interim ita mihi videtur donec Deus mihi melius aliquo modo revelet." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Anselmus nonnulla tanquam probabilia solummodo dicere intendebat.

Master They do not think that all the truths treated in the books of saints are catholic. Hence they say that the saints handed down some things as catholic, some things, however, as necessary but not pertaining to faith, and some things indeed as probable; and this last is clearly proved from the texts of Augustine which are included in dist. 9, that is c. Noli [col.17], c. Negare [col.17] and c. Neque [col.18]. Anselm is in accord with this in book 1 of Cur deus homo [ch.2] when he says, "It is on this condition that I want everything I say to be received, that is, let anything I say which a greater authority does not confirm not be received as a certainty, even if I seem to prove it by reason, but only that it seems this way to me for the time, until God in some way gives me a better revelation." We gather from these words that Anselm was intending to say some things as probable only.

Capitulum 5

Chapter 5

Discipulus Ex his quae narrasti magnam occasionem cogitandi mihi dedisti de ipsis, tamen plura quaerere nunc nequaquam nunc intendo. Sed quot generibus veritatum oporteat christianos catholicos assentire secundum sententiam praedictorum absque omni probatione tibi placeat indicare.

Student You have given me a fine opportunity to think about these things by what you have said, yet I do not intend to seek to know more now. But would you please indicate without any proof how many kinds of truth, according to the opinion of the aforesaid, it is necessary for catholic christians to assent to.

According to the second opinion, there are five kinds of truth Catholics must accept

Magister Tenent isti quod quinque sunt genera veritatum quibus non licet christianis aliqualiter dissentire. Primum est earum quae in Scriptura Sacra traduntur vel ex eis argumento necessario possunt inferri. Secundum est earum quae ab apostolis ad nos per succedentium relationem vel scripturas fidelium pervenerunt, licet in Scripturis Sacris non inveniantur insertae nec ex solis eis possint necessario argumento concludi. Tertium est earum quas in fide dignis cronicis et historiis vel relationibus fidelium invenimus. Quartum est earum quae ex veritatibus primi generis et secundi tantummodo vel ex eis vel alterius earum una cum veritatibus tertii generis possunt manifeste concludi. Quintum est earum quas Deus praeter veritates revelatas apostolis aliis revelavit vel etiam inspiravit aut noviter revelaret vel etiam inspiraret, quae revelatio vel inspiratio ad universalem ecclesiam absque dubitatione pervenit vel etiam perveniret.

Master They hold that there are five kinds of truth from which christians are not permitted to dissent in any way. The first is those which are handed down in sacred scripture or can be inferred from them by necessary argument. The second is those which have come to us from the apostles through the report of those who succeeded them or through the writings of the faithful, even if they may not be found included in the sacred scriptures and can not be inferred from them alone by necessary argument. The third is those which we find in chronicles or histories or the accounts of believers which are worthy of trust. The fourth is those which can be clearly inferred from truths of the first and second kind alone or from them or one or other of them together with truths of the third kind. The fifth is those which, in addition to the truths revealed to the apostles, God revealed to or, also, inspired in others or would newly reveal or even inspire, a revelation or inspiration which has come or, also, would come to the universal church without any doubt.

Discipulus Quamvis non intenderim de istis te amplius molestare, quia tamen unum genus veritatum de quibus nullus dubitat catholicus omisisti edissere quare isti inter alias veritates illas quae in decretalibus et diffinitionibus ecclesiae reperiuntur nequaquam enumerant?

Student Although I did not intend to trouble you further about these matters, nevertheless because you omitted one kind of truth about which no catholic has doubts, set down why they do not count among other truths those which are found in the decretals and definitions of the church?

Magister Ideo de illis veritatibus mentionem non faciunt specialem quia putant quod ecclesia rite procedens nullam veritatem determinat aut diffinit nisi in Scriptura Sacra aut traditionibus apostolorum aut cronicis, historiis, vel revelationibus indubitabilibus fidelium vel in his quae sequuntur ex praedictis aut aliquo praedictorum vel in revelatione seu inspiratione divina modo debito manifestata valeat se fundare. Et ideo omnes veritates quas determinat aut diffinit ecclesia sub aliquo quinque generum praefatorum comprehendi noscuntur.

Master They do not make particular mention of those truths for this reason, that they think that when the church proceeds correctly it determines or defines no truth unless it can base itself on sacred scripture, on the traditions of the apostles, on indubitable chronicles, histories or revelations of believers, or on those things which follow from these or any one of them, or on divine revelation or inspiration manifested in the due way. And all the truths that the church determines or defines, therefore, are known to be included under some of the above five kinds.

Discipulus Illa quae refers urgent me contra propositum praeconceptum interrogare. Quid de approbatione canonis bibliae et aliorum librorum postea conscriptorum ac omnium aliorum quae ecclesia noscitur approbare assertores sentiunt memorati?

Student What you are reporting urges me to ask questions about the above proposition. What do those who affirm the above position think about the approval of the canon of the bible, of other books composed later and of all the others which the church is known to approve?

Magister Hoc pro certissimo tenent quod non est in potestate ecclesiae quaecunque ad placitum approbare vel etiam improbare, sed ecclesia rite approbando quaecunque in aliquo praedictorum quinque generum veritatum se fundavit. Unde et approbationem quantum ad rem, licet quantum ad nomen, a determinatione vel diffinitione in proposito non discernunt.

Master They hold this as quite certain, that it is not in the power of the church to approve or also to reject anything at all as it pleases, but when the church has approved anything correctly it has based itself on some of the above five kinds of truth. Hence also in the present case they do not make any real distinction, although there is a nominal distinction, between approval on the one hand or determination or definition on the other.

Capitulum 6

Chapter 6

Discipulus De veritatibus catholicis nonnulla quaesivi. Nunc vero ad haereses eis contrarias transeamus. In primis autem affecto scire si diffinitionem haeresis datam ab aliquo invenisti.

Student I have sought to know some things about catholic truths. But now let us pass on to the heresies opposed to them. First of all, however, I want to know if you have found a definition of heresy given by anyone.

WHAT IS A HERESY?

Magister Quidam diffiniunt vel describunt haeresim dicentes quod haeresis est dogma falsum fidei contrarium orthodoxae. In qua descriptione loco generis ponitur dogma falsum, quia omnis haeresis est dogma falsum sed non omne dogma falsum debet haeresis reputari. Quod enim omnis haeresis sit dogma falsum beatus Hieronymus, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Inter haeresim, testatur aperte dicens, "Haeresis perversum dogma habet." Dogma autem perversum est dogma falsum; haeresis ergo est falsum dogma. Sed non omne dogma falsum est haeresis. Nam secundum Augustinum in Enchiridion in multis rebus errare nullum aut minimum est peccatum; sed haeresis sicut infidelitas gravissimum est peccatum. Ergo non omnis error est haeresis. Ex quo concluditur quod non omne dogma falsum est haeresis cum omnis error dogma falsum sit censendum. Dogma ergo falsum in descriptione haeresis loco generis non incongrue pro genere ponitur secundum istos; fidei autem contrarium orthodoxae ponitur loco differentiae; per hoc enim ab aliis falsis quae non sunt haereses convenienter haeresis est distincta. Nam alia dogmata falsa non sunt contraria fidei orthodoxae et ideo haereses minime nuncupantur.

Master Some people do define or describe heresy, saying that a heresy is a false doctrine contrary to orthodox faith. "False doctrine" is put in this definition in place of a genus because every heresy is a false doctrine, but not every false doctrine should be regarded as a heresy. For, as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Inter heresim [col.997], Jerome clearly attests that every heresy is a false doctrine, saying, "A heresy involves a wrong doctrine." A wrong doctrine, however, is a false doctrine; therefore a heresy is a false doctrine. But not every false doctrine is a heresy. For according to Augustine in the Enchiridion [bk.2, ch.63], it is no sin or a very small one to err in many things; but like infidelity a heresy is the heaviest sin. Therefore not every error is a heresy. We conclude from this that not every false doctrine is a heresy, since every error should be considered a false doctrine. According to them, therefore, "false doctrine" is not unsuitably put in the description of heresy in place of a genus; "contrary to orthodox faith" is put as a difference; for through this a heresy is suitably distinguished from other falsities which are not heresies, since other false doctrines are not contrary to orthodox faith, and therefore are not called heresies.

Capitulum 7

Chapter 7

Discipulus Ex verbis beati Hieronymi allegatis moveor ad quaerendum an beatus Hieronymus cum dicit "haeresis perversum dogma habet " intenderit diffinitionem aut descriptionem haeresis assignare.

Student I am moved by the words of Jerome that you brought forward to seek to know whether when blessed Jerome says, "A heresy involves a wrong doctrine", he intended to assign a definition or description of heresy.

Magister Dicunt illi quorum ad praecedentem interrogationem sententiam recitavi quod large accipiendo perversum pro omni qualicunque pernicioso seu nocivo beatus Hieronymus non intendit ibi haeresim diffinire. Multa enim sunt dogmata perniciosa quae haereses nullatenus sunt censendae. Si autem perversum accipiatur magis stricte pro illo quod est perniciosum in doctrina religionis, quemadmodum secundum beatum Augustinum unum genus mendacii est quod invenitur in doctrina religionis, sic potest concedi quod beatus Hieronymus ibi intendit descriptionem haeresis assignare, quia sic dogma perversum accipitur pro dogmate falso fidei contrario orthodoxae.

Master Those whose opinion of the preceding question I have recorded say that taking "wrong" broadly, as any kind of pernicious or harmful thing, Jerome did not intend there to define heresy. For there are many pernicious doctrines which should not be considered heresies. If "wrong" is taken more strictly, however, as that which is pernicious in the teaching of religion, just as according to blessed Augustine [in Liber de mendacio] one kind of falsehood is that which is found in religious teaching, so it can be granted that blessed Jerome intended to assign a description of heresy there, because in this way "wrong doctrine" is taken for false doctrine contrary to orthodox faith.

Capitulum 8

Chapter 8

Discipulus Libenter scirem an omnes concorditer reputent haeresim praedicto modo describi debere.

Student I would gladly know whether everyone is united in the thought that heresy should be described in the above way.

"New" heresies and "new" Catholic truths

Magister Sunt quidam qui non putant haeresim taliter describendam. Qui tali rationi inniti videntur: multa dogmata falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae fiunt noviter haereses quamvis non de novo incipiant esse falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae; ergo priusquam debeant haereses reputari sunt dogmata falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae; ex quo evidenter concluditur quod non omnia dogmata falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae debent haereses reputari. Antecedens videtur evidens quia multae sunt novae haereses quamvis prius fuerint falsa dogmata fidei contraria orthodoxae. Urbanus enim papa, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Notandum, ait, "Sanctus Augustinus cum legatis sanctae Romanae ecclesiae et cum sanctis episcopis suis Pelagium et Caelestinum novam haeresim in sanctam Dei ecclesiam introducentes excommunicavit." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Pelagius et Caelestinus opinionem quae erat tunc nova haeresis in ecclesiam induxerunt, et tamen illa opinio prius fuit fidei contraria orthodoxae. Ergo illa opinio seu assertio priusquam esset haeresis fuit dogma falsum fidei contrarium orthodoxae, et ita illa non est descriptio convertibilis cum haeresi. Hinc Gratianus 24, q. 1, para. 1 ait, "Omnis haereticus aut iam damnatam haeresim sequitur aut novam confingit." Et glossa ibidem dicit, "Tu dic indistincte quod sive veterem," scilicet haeresim, "sive novam sequatur excommunicatus est, licet sit occultus." Glossa etiam ibidem ait, "Si scirem praelatum meum esse haereticum quia novam haeresim fingit nec tamen praedicaret si me excommunicaret celebrarem in occulto." Ex his habetur aperte quod fuerunt et possunt esse novae haereses quae tamen non sunt nova falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae; et per consequens non omne falsum fidei contrarium orthodoxae debet inter haereses computari.

Master There are some people who think that heresy should not be described in such a way. They seem to rely on the following argument. Many false doctrines contrary to orthodox faith newly become heresies although they do not begin from the start to be falsities contrary to orthodox faith; therefore they are false doctrines contrary to orthodox faith before they should be regarded as heresies; we conclude evidently from this that not all false doctrines contrary to orthodox faith should be regarded as heresies. The antecedent seems evident because many heresies are new although previously they were false doctrines contrary to orthodox faith. For as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Notandum [col.1000], Pope Urban says, "St. Augustine, together with legates of the holy Roman church and his own holy bishops, excommunicated Pelagius and Celestine for introducing a new heresy into the holy church of God." We gather from these words that Pelagius and Celestine introduced into the church an opinion that at that time was a new heresy, and yet that opinion was previously contrary to orthodox faith. Before that opinion or assertion was a heresy, therefore, it was a false doctrine contrary to orthodox faith, and so that description is not convertible with heresy. Hence Gratian says in 24, q. 1, para. 1 [col.966], "Every heretic either follows a heresy already condemned or invents a new one." And at that place [s. v. quod autem; col.1382] the gloss says, "Say without distinction that whether he follows a new one," that is a heresy, "or an old one he is excommunicated, even if he is hidden." The gloss also says at that point [s. v. qui vero; col.1382], "If I knew that my prelate was a heretic because he invented a new heresy and yet he was not preaching it, I would celebrate in secret if he were to excommunicate me." We clearly find from these that there have been and can be new heresies, which, nevertheless, are not new falsities contrary to orthodox faith; and therefore not every falsity contrary to orthodox faith should be counted among the heresies.

Capitulum 9

Chapter 9

Discipulus His non obstantibus diffinitio seu descriptio haeresis supradicta congrua mihi videtur, et ideo qualiter praedictis obiectionibus respondetur indicare digneris.

Student Notwithstanding these [points] the above definition or description of heresy seems suitable to me. Would you deign to indicate, therefore, how reply is made to the above objections.

Magister Qui praedictam descriptionem assignant dupliciter respondere conantur. Primo enim dicunt quod aliqua haeresis dicitur nova non quia in rei veritate incipiat noviter esse haeresis, sed quia noviter est asserta, illo modo loquendi quo aliquae veritates, etiam necessarie necesse, dicuntur esse novae non quin prius fuerint veritates sed dicuntur novae quia sunt noviter publice dogmatizatae. Tali etiam modo aliqui errores dicuntur esse novi non quin prius fuerint in rei veritate errores sed dicuntur novi quia noviter sunt asserti. Et iste modus loquendi ex verbis Gelasii papae, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. 1, colligitur evidenter. Ait enim, "Achatius non est factus inventor novi erroris, sed veteris imitator." Cui concordat Felix papa eisdem c. et q. c. Achatius dicens, "Achatius non fuit novi vel proprii inventor erroris." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod si Achatius fuisset primus sui erroris assertor fuisset reputatus novi erroris inventor, et tamen idem error antea fuisset error censendus. Multi enim errores antequam asserantur ab aliquo ab aliis non errantibus reprobantur, et per consequens antequam habeant assertorem seu defensorem sunt errores censendi; et tamen secundum unum modum loquendi si aliquis inciperet eos defendere dicerentur novi errores. Consimili etiam modo loquendi quidam Athenienses, ut habetur Actuum 17, dicebant de beato Paulo, "Novorum daemoniorum videtur annunciator esse ", appellantes "nova daemonia" non quia putabant quod antea non fuissent daemonia sed quia putabant antiqua daemonia a Paulo noviter praedicari. Ita dicunt aliqui aliquas haereses vocari novas propter novitatem assertionis vel defensionis quia aliquis eas noviter asserit vel defendit quae tamen prius in rei veritate fuerunt haereses reputandae.

Master Those who assign the above description try to reply in two ways. For they say firstly that any heresy is said to be new not because in truth of fact it begins newly to be a heresy, but because it is newly asserted, in that way of speaking by which any truths, even those that are necessary, are said to be new not in that they were not truths before but are said to be new because they have been newly propounded in public. In that way too some errors are said to be new not because in truth of fact they were not errors before but they are said to be new because they have been newly asserted. We clearly gather this way of speaking from the words of Pope Gelasius found in 24, q. 1, c. 1 [ col.966]. For he says, "Achatius did not become the inventor of a new error but the imitator of an old one." Pope Felix agrees with this in the same causa and quaestio c. Achatius [col.966] when he says, "Achatius was not the inventor of a new error or of his own error." We are given to understand by these words that if Achatius had been the first to affirm his error he would have been regarded as the inventor of a new error, and yet that error had been considered an error previously. For before they are affirmed by someone many errors are condemned by others who are not in error, and consequently they should be considered errors before they have an assertor or a defender; and yet according to one way of speaking, if someone were to begin to defend them they would be called new errors. In a similar way of speaking too certain Athenians said of blessed Paul, as we find in Acts 17[:18], "He seems to be a proclaimer of new demons", calling them "new demons" not because they thought that they had not been demons before but because they thought that they were old demons newly preached by Paul. In this way some people say that certain heresies are called new because of a new assertion or defence of them, because someone newly asserts or defends those which nevertheless should previously have been regarded in truth of fact as heresies.

Aliter respondent praedictis, ut dicunt, minime obviando quod quemadmodum, ut notat in glossa Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. 1, fides aliquando dicitur credulitas secundum quam credimus quod non videmus, et alio modo dicitur collectio articulorum fidei, licet etiam dicatur aliis sex modis ut habetur ibidem, sic tam error quam haeresis potest dupliciter dici. Potest enim error uno modo dici actus vel habitus quo quis errat, alio modo ipsum obiectum talis habitus vel actus errandi vocatur error. Haeresis etiam potest accipi uno modo pro actu vel habitu haeresis, alio modo dicitur obiectum talis habitus vel actus. Primo modo accipiendo haeresim et consimiliter errorem multae possunt esse novae haereses et novi errores quae vel qui antea haereses vel errores non fuerunt. Secundo modo accipiendo haeresim non dicuntur novae haereses nisi quia noviter sunt assertae, sicut dictum est in responsione priori, et consimiliter de multis erroribus potest dici.

Otherwise they reply to the above, as they say, without opposing it, that just as faith is sometimes said to be the credence by which we believe what we do not see, and in another way is said to be a collection of articles of faith, as we find in the gloss on Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. 1 [col.5] - although it may also be used in another six ways as we find in the same place - so error as well as heresy can be used in two ways. For in one way an error can be said to be the act or disposition by which someone errs, in another way the very object of such a disposition or act of erring is called an error. A heresy too can be taken in one way for the act or disposition of heresy, in another way it is said to be the object of such a disposition or act. If we take heresy and likewise error in the first way, there can be many new heresies and new errors which were not heresies or errors before. If we take heresy in the second way, heresies are not said to be new unless they have been newly affirmed, as was said in the earlier reply, and a similar thing can be said about many errors.

Capitulum 10

Chapter 10

Discipulus Ut mihi videtur pertractata difficultas de haeresibus novis magis est vocalis quam realis, et ideo circa ipsam non amplius immoreris. Sed an aliter obiiciatur contra descriptionem haeresis supradictam noli celare.

Student It seems to me that the difficulty about new heresies that has been investigated is more verbal than real, and so would you not dwell upon it any longer. But do not hide from me whether there is any other objection to the above description of heresy.

Magister Per verba beati Hieronymi quae ponuntur 24, q. 3, c. Haeresis dicta descriptio improbari videtur. Ait enim, "Haeresis autem Graece ab electione dicitur, quod scilicet eam sibi unusquisque eligat disciplinam quam putat esse meliorem." Ex quibus verbis duo dantur intelligi, quorum primum est quod ex quo haeresis ab electione dicitur nullum falsum antequam quis ipsum elegerit opinari vel dogmatizare aut asserere debet inter hereses computari. Secundum est quod cum non solum infideles sed etiam catholici et fideles eligant disciplinam quam putant esse meliorem, non solum assertiones infidelium sed etiam assertiones fidelium debent haereses appellari. Et ex utroque istorum concluditur quod descriptio haeresis saepedicta est incongrue assignata.

Master That description seems to be disproved by the words of blessed Jerome which are put in 24, q. 3, c. Haeresis [col.997]. For he says, "Heresy is taken from the Greek for 'choice', that is, that each person chooses for himself that teaching which he thinks to be the better." We are given to understand two things from these words. The first is that from the fact that heresy is taken from choice no falsity should be counted among the heresies before someone chooses to propound, opine or assert it. The second is that since not only unbelievers but also catholics and believers choose the teaching that they think is better, the assertions not only of unbelievers but also of believers should be called heresies. And we conclude from both of these that the oft-cited description of heresy has been unsuitably assigned.

Capitulum 11

Chapter 11

Discipulus Ista obiectio fortis mihi videtur, sed qualiter respondeatur ad ipsam non differas explicare.

Student That seems to me to be a strong objection, but would you not delay explaining how reply is made to it.

Magister Dicunt quod verba sanctorum sane intelligenda sunt. Quorum intellectus saepe ex diversis dictis eorum accipi debet, et ideo non semper intelligenda sunt sicut in superficie sonant; et ideo dicunt quod licet praedicta verba Hieronimi prima facie videantur praetendere quod ante electionem actualem nullum falsum debeat haeresis appellari et quod omnis disciplina quam quis putat meliorem, sive sit vera sive falsa, possit ad haeresim pertinere, non tamen sic intelligit Hieronymus. Nam Hieronymus, scribens praedicta verba super epistolam ad Galatas, inter schisma et haeresim differentiam nititur assignare, dicens, "Inter schisma et haeresim hoc esse arbitror quod haeresis perversum dogma habeat, schisma post episcopalem discessionem ab ecclesia pariter separat;" et parum post, "caeterum nullum est schisma nisi sibi aliquam haeresim confingit, ut recte ab ecclesia recessisse videatur." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod secundum beatum Hieronymum haeresis sine perverso dogmate contrario doctrinae ecclesiae minime invenitur. Quare verba Hieronimi cum dicit, "Haeresis autem Graece ab electione", etc, de electione non cuiuscunque disciplinae sed disciplinae falsae contrariae disciplinae ecclesiae debent intelligi et non debent intelligi de electione actuali sed etiam magis potentiali qua quis potest disciplinam falsam contrariam disciplinae ecclesiae eligere quam putat meliorem.

Master They say that the words of the saints have to be understood soundly. An understanding of them often has to be taken from a variety of their writings and so they should not always be understood in a superficial sense. And therefore they say that although the above words from Jerome seem prima facie to allege that no falsity should be called a heresy before there has been an actual choice and that every teaching that someone thinks is better, whether it be true or false, can pertain to a heresy, yet Jerome does not understand them in this way. For in writing the above words about the letter to the Galatians, Jerome tries to mark out the difference between schism and heresy by saying [in 24, q. 3, c. Inter heresim (col.997)], "I think that there is this between schism and heresy, that a heresy contains wrong teaching, a schism likewise separates one from the church after an episcopal separation.... but there is no schism unless someone invents some heresy for himself, with the result that he rightly seems to have withdrawn from the church." We are given to understand by these words that according to blessed Jerome heresy is not found without wrong teaching contrary to the teaching of the church. Therefore Jerome's words, when he says, "Heresy [is taken] from the Greek for choice" etc, should be understood not of any teaching at all but of false teaching contrary to the teaching of the church and should not be understood of an actual choice but more of a potential [choice] by which someone can choose a false teaching which is contrary to the teaching of the church [but] which he thinks is better.

Capitulum 12

Chapter 12

Discipulus Video quod verba Hieronymi sic intellecta praedictae descriptioni haeresis non repugnant. Ex qua sequi videtur quod omnes assertiones quae Scripturae Sacrae quomodolibet adversantur sunt inter haereses computandae, sed an omnes christiani hoc sentiant et affirment ignoro. Quare si aliqui hoc non sentiunt nequaquam occultes.

Student I see that understood in this way Jerome's words do not oppose the above description of heresy. It seems to follow from this that all assertions which are in any way at all opposed to sacred scripture should be counted among the heresies, but I do not know whether all christians think and affirm this. Do not conceal it, therefore, if some people do not think this.

Magister Fuerunt Manichaei qui vetus testamentum minime receperunt; aliqui etiam haeretici multa in novo testamento respuerunt.

Master There were the Manichees who did not accept the Old Testament; some heretics have also rejected many things in the New Testament.

Discipulus Illi de quibus nunc loqueris fuerunt haeretici ab ecclesia condemnati, de quibus non curo audire. Sed libenter cognoscerem an sint aliqui catholici vel aliqui ab ecclesia nullatenus condemnati qui non reputent omnes assertiones haereticas quae Sacrae Scripturae quomodolibet adversantur.

Student Those about whom you are now speaking were condemned as heretics by the church and I do not care to hear about them. But I would willingly learn whether there are any catholics or any people not condemned by the church who do not regard as heretical all assertions that are in any way opposed to sacred scripture.

Magister Sunt quidam moderni dicentes quod multae sunt assertiones quae in rei veritate adversantur Scripturae Divinae quia tamen ab ecclesia minime sunt condemnatae non sunt inter haereses numerandae, quemadmodum multae sunt veritates consonae Scripturae Divinae quae, quia tamen non sunt per ecclesiam diffinitae vel determinatae, non sunt inter veritates catholicas computandae. Sed postquam assertiones Scripturae Divinae contrariae fuerunt per summum pontificem condemnatae pro haeresibus sunt habendae, et veritates consonae Scripturae Divinae postquam fuerint per summum pontificem diffinitae seu determinatae catholicae sunt censendae. Propter quod dicunt quod papa potest facere novum articulum fidei et eadem ratione potest facere quod assertio quae prius non erat haereticalis postea per condemnationem suam esse haereticalis incipiat.

Master There are some moderns who say that there are many assertions which in truth of fact are opposed to divine scripture and which should nevertheless not be numbered among heresies because they have not been condemned by the church, just as there are many truths in harmony with divine scripture which nevertheless should not be counted among catholic truths because they have not been defined or determined by the church. But after assertions contrary to divine scripture have been condemned by the highest pontiff they must be held to be heresies, and after truths in harmony with divine scripture have been defined or determined by the highest pontiff they must be considered catholic. For this reason they say that the pope can make a new article of faith and, by the same argument, can bring it about that an assertion which was not previously heretical begins to be heretical after his condemnation.

Can the pope make a new article of faith?

Discipulus Haec opinio multis prioribus assertionibus quae videbantur mihi probabiles apparet omnino repugnans. Ideo si in rationibus vel auctoritatibus satagat se fundare declara.

Student This opinion seems completely contrary to many earlier assertions which seemed probable to me. Make clear, therefore, if it tries to base itself on arguments or authorities.

Magister In duobus, ut audio, praedicti se fundant. Primo in capitulo Alexandri 3 Extra, De haereticis, Cum Christus ubi, ut dicunt, fecit novum articulum, scilicet Christus est Deus et homo, quia ante tempora Alexandri praedicti licebat, ut dicunt, non credere Christum esse Deum et hominem. Secundo fundant se in constitutione domini Iohannis Cum inter nonnullos in qua diffinitur deinceps esse haereticum dicere Christum et eius apostolos non habuisse aliquid nec in speciali nec in communi, et per consequens antea non fuit haereticum. Ex quibus sequitur quod papa potest novos articulos fidei facere et potest facere quod assertiones quae non fuerunt haereticae esse haereticae de novo incipiant.

Master Those who hold it base themselves, as I hear, on two [examples]. Firstly, [they base themselves] on Alexander III's chapter Cum Christus in Extra, De haereticis [col.779] where, as they say, he made a new article [of faith], namely that Christ is God and man, because it was permissible before Alexander's time, as they say, not to believe that Christ was God and man. Secondly, they base themselves on Lord John's constitution Cum inter nonnullos, in which it is defined that hereafter it is heretical to say that Christ and his apostles did not have anything either individually or in common, and consequently it was not heretical before. It follows from these that the pope can make new articles of faith and can bring it about that assertions which were not heretical begin to be newly heretical.

Discipulus Exemplum adductum de constitutione sanctissimi patris Iohannis papae 22 peto quod nullatenus hic pertractes, quia, ut dixi, postea de tota doctrina eiusdem quaestiones tibi movebo. Sed si pro praedicta opinione aliquas rationes alias cogitasti profer easdem.

Student I ask you not to investigate here the example you brought forward from the constitution of the most holy father, Pope John XXII, because later on, as I have said, I will produce some questions for you about all of his teaching. But if you have thought of some other arguments for the aforesaid opinion put them forward.

Magister Aliter potest opinio memorata muniri. Primo sic: pro assertione haeresis est quis tanquam haereticus condemnandus; sed multae fuerunt assertiones falsae de quibus assertores earum, antequam fuerunt ab ecclesia condemnatae, non fuerunt tanquam haeretici condemnandi; postquam autem dictae assertiones fuerunt ab ecclesia condemnatae, fuerunt assertores earum tanquam haeretici condemnandi; ergo tales assertiones ante damnationem ecclesiae non fuerunt inter haereses computandae quae tamen post damnationem pro haeresibus fuerunt habendae; et per consequens eadem assertio quae primo non erat haeresis per condemnationem ecclesiae haeresibus numeratur. Quare eadem ratione eadem assertio quae primo non est catholica postea per approbationem ecclesiae fit catholica. Huiusmodi autem approbatio et damnatio spectat ad summum pontificem; ergo summus pontifex de assertione non catholica potest facere catholicam, et de assertione non haeretica potest facere haereticam; et ideo novum articulum fidei facere potest.

Master That opinion can be fortified in other ways. Firstly, as follows: anyone should be condemned as a heretic for the assertion of a heresy; but there have been many false assertions the affirmers of which ought not to have been condemned as heretics before [those assertions] were condemned by the church; after the said assertions have been condemned by the church, however, their affirmers should be condemned as heretics; therefore such assertions, which after their condemnation should be considered as heresies, should not be reckoned among the heresies before their condemnation by the church; and, consequently, the same assertion which at first was not a heresy is numbered among the heresies because of its condemnation by the church. By the same argument, therefore, the same assertion which at first is not catholic, may later be catholic through the approval of the church. Approval or condemnation of this kind, however, pertains to the highest pontiff; therefore the highest pontiff can make a catholic assertion of one which is not catholic, and can make heretical an assertion which is not heretical; and therefore he can make a new article of faith.

Maior istius rationis est manifesta; minor exemplis probatur apertis. Nam Graeci negantes Spiritum Sanctum procedere a Filio ante assertionis damnationem eorum non fuerunt heretici reputati; qui tamen post damnationem eiusdem inter haereticos deputantur. Assertores etiam opinionis Ioachim a concilio generali damnatae post damnationem haeretici iudicantur, ipse tamen abbas Ioachim, quamvis ante damnationem assertionem eandem tenuerit, non fuit haereticus, ut habetur Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica c. Damnamus. Similiter qui post constitutionem Alexandri 3 quae habetur Extra, De haereticis c. Cum Christus tenuerint quod Christus non est aliquid secundum quod homo fuerunt haeretici iudicandi secundum quod glossa notat ibidem, qui tamen antea pro haereticis minime habebantur. Patet igitur quod pro nonnullis assertionibus non sunt assertores ante damnationem haeretici reputandi qui tamen post damnationem inter haereticos computantur.

The major [premise] of this argument is manifest; the minor is proved by clear examples. For the Greeks, who deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, were not regarded as heretics before the condemnation of their assertion, yet after its condemnation they were considered to be among the heretics. Those too who affirm Joachim's opinion which was condemned by a general council were judged to be heretics after its condemnation, yet Abbot Joachim himself was not a heretic, as we find in Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Damnamus [col.6], although he maintained the same assertion before its condemnation. Similarly those who, after Alexander III's constitution which is found in Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum Christus [col.779], held that Christ is not anything as a man, should have been judged as heretics, according to what the gloss notes at that point [s. v. sub anathemate; col.1671]. Yet before that they were not considered as heretics. It is clear, therefore, with regard to some assertions that their affirmers should not be regarded as heretics before their condemnation, yet after their condemnation they are counted among heretics.

Secundo sic. Ille ad quem pertinet autentice diffinire quae assertio catholica, quae haeretica est censenda, de assertione non catholica catholicam et de assertione non haeretica haereticam facere potest, quia aliter diffinitio sua nihil videretur penitus operari plus quam diffinitio vel determinatio doctoris qui per auctoritates vel rationes declarat et probat quae assertio in rei veritate est catholica et quae haeretica aestimanda. Sed ad summum pontificem non solum per modum docentis vel doctrinae sed etiam autentice pertinet diffinire quae assertio catholica quaeve haeretica est censenda. Ergo summus pontifex de assertione non catholica catholicam et de assertione non haeretica haereticam facere potest.

Secondly as follows: He to whom it pertains to define by authority which assertion should be considered catholic and which heretical can make catholic an assertion which is not catholic and heretical an assertion which is not heretical, because otherwise his definition would seem to have no more effect at all than the definition or determination of a teacher who declares and proves by authorities or arguments which assertion should in truth of fact be regarded as catholic and which as heretical. But it pertains to the highest pontiff to define not only by way of teaching or doctrine but also by authority which assertion should be considered catholic or which heretical. Therefore the highest pontiff can make catholic an assertion which is not catholic and heretical an assertion which is not heretical.

Capitulum 13

Chapter 13

Discipulus Istae duae rationes apparentiam habere videntur, tamen conclusio est mihi difficilis ad tenendum. Unde si aliqui asserunt contrarium tibi placeat explicare.

Student Those two arguments seem plausible, yet the conclusion is difficult for me to hold. If some people affirm the opposite, therefore, would you please set it forth.

Magister Sunt nonulli dicentes quod sicut quantum ad ea quae spectant ad fidem nostram et nequaquam ex voluntate humana dependent non potest summus pontifex nec etiam tota ecclesia Dei de assertione non vera facere veram nec de assertione non falsa facere falsam, ita non potest de assertione non catholica facere catholicam nec de assertione non heretica facere hereticam; et ideo non potest novum articulum fidei facere nec de non haeresi potest facere haeresim quoquo modo, quia sicut catholicae veritates absque omni approbatione ecclesiae ex natura rei sunt immutabiles et immutabiliter verae, ita immutabiliter sunt catholicae reputandae et consimiliter sicut haereses absque omni damnatione ecclesiae sunt falsae ita absque omni damnatione ecclesiae sunt haereses.

Master There are some people who say that just as with respect to those things that pertain to our faith and do not depend on human will, the highest pontiff can not, nor can even the whole church of God, make true an assertion that is not true nor false an assertion that is not false, so he can not make catholic an assertion that is not catholic nor heretical an assertion that is not heretical; and therefore he can not make a new article of faith nor in any way at all make a heresy of what is not a heresy, because just as without any approval by the church catholic truths are immutable and immutably true by the very nature of things so they should be regarded as immutably catholic, and similarly just as heresies are false without any condemnation by the church so they are heresies without any condemnation by the church.

Discipulus Ista sententia magis me allicit et ideo si potest rationibus confirmari eas non differas allegare.

Student That opinion attracts me more, and so if it can be confirmed by arguments do not hesitate to bring them forward.

Magister Ista sententia rationibus paucis ostenditur quarum prima est haec. Si aliqua veritas est catholica aut est dicenda catholica quia a Deo revelata vel quia in Scripturis Divinis contenta vel quia ab ecclesia universali recepta vel quia sequitur ex illis aut ex aliquo illorum quae sunt divinitus revelata et in Scripturis Divinis inventa et ab ecclesia universali recepta vel quia a summo pontifice approbata.

Master That opinion is shown by a few arguments of which the first is this. [A] If any truth is catholic it should be called catholic [Ai] either because it has been revealed by God, [Aii] or because it is contained in the divine scriptures, [Aiii] or because it has been accepted by the universal church, [Aiv] or because it follows from those things or some of those things that have been divinely revealed and found in the divine scriptures and accepted by the universal church, [Av] or because it has been approved by the highest pontiff.

Si aliqua veritas ideo est catholica quia est a Deo revelata et revelatio divina nullatenus dependet ex approbatione summi pontificis nec ex approbatione totius ecclesiae, ergo approbatio summi pontificis nihil facit ad hoc quod talis veritas sit vere catholica.

[Ai] Now if some truth is catholic because it has been revealed by God and that divine revelation does not depend on the approval of the highest pontiff nor on the approval of the whole church, the approval of the highest pontiff, in that case, adds nothing to the fact that such a truth is truly catholic.

Si detur secundum, scilicet quod aliqua veritas est catholica quia in Divinis Scripturis inserta, et constat quod talem veritatem inseri in Scripturis Divinis ex nulla approbatione ecclesiae vel papae dependet, ergo talis veritas absque omni approbatione tali inter veritates catholicas est numeranda.

[Aii] If the second is granted, namely that some truth is catholic because it is inserted in the divine scriptures, and it is certain that the insertion of such a truth in the divine scriptures does not depend on any approval by the church or pope, that truth should therefore be numbered among catholic truths without any such approval.

Si detur tertium, scilicet quod aliqua veritas est catholica quia ab ecclesia universali recepta, quaerendum est quare ecclesia universalis talem recipit veritatem: aut quia sibi divinitus revelatur vel etiam inspiratur, et tunc absque tali receptione ecclesiae vere est catholica quia divinitus revelatur vel etiam inspiratur; aut eam recipit universalis ecclesia quia eam in Divinis Scripturis invenit, et tunc adhuc absque tali receptione est catholica iudicanda; aut recipit eam universalis ecclesia quia per experientiam vel rationem naturalem eam cognoscit, quod de multis veritatibus catholicis nullatenus dici potest, et tunc etiam ecclesia in faciendo aliquam veritatem catholicam rationi vel experientiae inniteretur, quod dici non potest. Sequeretur enim quod ecclesia universalis omnem veritatem geometricam et omnes alias quarumcunque scientiarum demonstrative probatas posset veritatibus catholicis aggregare; ex quo sequeretur quod omnes assertiones falsas huiusmodi veritatibus naturaliter notis contrarias posset ecclesia universalis inter haereses computare et omnem assertorem cuiuscunque assertionis falsae veritati naturaliter notae contrariae tanquam haereticum condemnare, quod est inconveniens reputandum. Aut talem veritatem recipit universalis ecclesia quia sibi placet, quod dici non potest quia tunc ecclesia universalis in recipiendo aliquam veritatem et faciendo eam catholicam inniteretur solummodo humanae voluntati, et ita fides nostra esset in voluntate hominum. Cum tamen asserat Apostolus quod fides nostra non est in sapientia hominum 1 ad Corinthios 2 et multo fortius non est in voluntate hominum. Ecclesia igitur universalis nullam recipit veritatem tanquam catholicam nisi quia divinitus revelatur vel quia in sacris literis invenitur. Talis autem veritas etiam si nulla esset ecclesia vere esset catholica.

[Aiii] If the third is granted, namely that some truth is catholic because it has been accepted by the universal church, it should be asked why the universal church receives such a truth: [Aiiia] either because it is divinely revealed to it or also inspired in it, and then it is truly catholic without such acceptance by the church because it is divinely revealed or even inspired; [Aiiib] or the universal church accepts it because it finds it in the divine scriptures, and then again it should be judged as catholic without any such acceptance; [Aiiic] or the universal church accepts it because it knows it by experience or natural reason - which can not be said about many catholic truths - and then also in making some truth catholic the church would be relying on reason or experience, and this can not be said. For it would follow that the universal church could add every geometrical truth and everything else proved demonstratively by any science at all to catholic truths; from this it would follow that the universal church could count as among the heresies all false assertions of this kind that were contrary to naturally known truths and could condemn as a heretic everyone who affirms any false assertion of this kind which is contrary to any naturally known truth, and this should be regarded as irrational. [Aiiid] Or the universal church accepts such a truth because it pleases it, and this can not be said because then the universal church would rely only on human will in accepting some truth and making it catholic, and so our faith would rest on on human will. Yet since the apostle affirms in 1 Cor. 2[:5] that our faith does not rest on human wisdom, much more is it so that it does not rest on human will. The universal church accepts no truth as catholic, therefore, unless it is revealed divinely or is found in the sacred writings. Such a truth, however, would be truly catholic even if there were no church.

Si detur quartum, scilicet quod aliqua veritas est catholica quia sequitur ex illis vel aliquo illorum quae sunt divinitus revelata et in Scripturis Divinis inserta et ab ecclesia universali recepta, et palam est quod propter approbationem ecclesiae non magis potest ex eis inferri. Ergo per talem approbationem non fit catholica, sed ante fuit catholica.

[See Significant Variants, para. 5.] [Aiv] If the fourth is granted, namely that some truth is catholic because it follows from those things or some of those things which have been divinely revealed and inserted in the divine scriptures and accepted by the universal church, it is also clear that it can not be inferred from them more because of the church's approval. It would not be made catholic because of such approval, therefore, but it was catholic before that.

Si detur quintum, scilicet quod ideo aliqua veritas est catholica quia est a summo pontifice approbata, tunc quaerendum est an summus pontifex veritatem aliquam approbando innititur revelationi divinae vel Scripturis Sacris aut doctrinae universalis ecclesiae, et quodcunque istorum detur sequitur quod summus pontifex per approbationem suam non facit talem veritatem esse catholicam sed talem veritatem fuisse et esse catholicam determinat et diffinit. Vel summus pontifex approbando aliquam veritatem propriae prudentiae vel voluntati innititur, et si hoc dicatur sequitur quod propter talem approbationem summi pontificis non est aliqua veritas pro catholica acceptanda, quia fides nostra nec in sapientia nec in voluntate hominis potest consistere.

[Av] If the fifth is granted, namely that some truth is catholic because it has been approved by the highest pontiff, then it should be asked whether in approving the truth the highest pontiff relies on divine revelation or on the sacred scriptures or on the teaching of the universal church, and whichever of these is granted it follows that the highest pontiff does not make such a truth catholic by his approval, but he determines and defines that such a truth was and is catholic. Or in approving some truth the highest pontiff relies on his own prudence or will, and if this is said it follows that the truth should not be accepted as catholic because of this approval by the highest pontiff because our faith can not rest on the wisdom or will of a man.

Patet igitur quod nulla veritas est catholica nisi quia divinitus revelata vel quia in Scripturis Divinis inserta vel quia per certitudinem ecclesiae universali innotuit vel quia ex aliquo illorum necessario argumento concluditur. Nullum autem praedictorum ex approbatione summi pontificis vel etiam ecclesiae noscitur dependere. Ergo per approbationem talem nulla veritas catholica fieri potest, sed per talem approbationem aliqua veritas fuisse et esse catholica diffinitur. Et ita summus pontifex non facit aliquam assertionem esse catholicam vel haerticam, sed per approbationem suam determinat et diffinit veritates quas approbat esse et fuisse catholicas et per condemnationem suam determinat et diffinit assertiones quas reprobat esse et fuisse haereticas. Et ita non facit novum articulum fidei sed noviter diffinit aliquem articulum pertinere et pertinuisse ad catholicam veritatem, et ita talis veritas, quamvis noviter diffiniatur esse catholica, prius tamen fuit catholica.

It is clear therefore that no truth is catholic unless it has been divinely revealed or has been inserted in the divine scriptures or has become known to the universal church as a certainty or because it is inferred by necessary argument from any of those. None of these, however, is known to depend on the approval of the highest pontiff or also of the church. Therefore no truth can be made catholic through such approval, but through such approval a truth is designated as having been and being catholic. And so the highest pontiff does not make any assertion catholic or heretical, but by his approval he determines and defines truths that he approves as being and having been catholic and by his condemnation he determines and defines assertions that he condemns as being and having been heretical. And so he does not make a new article of faith but newly defines some article as pertaining and having pertained to catholic truth, and so even if such a truth is newly defined as catholic, it was nevertheless catholic before.

Secunda ratio est hec. Si aliqua veritas est catholica solummodo quia est a Romano pontifice approbata, aut ergo est catholica quia est a Romano pontifice sive explicite sive implicite approbata aut est tantummodo catholica quia est a Romano pontifice explicite approbata. Si detur primum sequitur quod pontifex Romanus non potest facere novum articulum fidei de aliqua veritate quae antea necessaria existebat quia omnes veritates divinitus revelatae, in Scripturis Sacris insertae et quas unversalis ecclesia recipit et quae sequuntur ex aliqua vel aliquibus praedictarum fuerunt antea explicte vel implicite per Romanos pontifices approbatae. Ipsi enim totam fidem ecclesiae approbaverunt et per consequens implicite approbaverunt omnia quae sequuntur quia, sicut qui unum dicit dicit omnia quae sequuntur ex illo, ita qui unum approbat approbat omnia quae sequuntur ex illo. Si detur secundum, scilicet quod ideo aliqua veritas solummodo dicitur catholica quia est a Romano pontifice explicite approbata, ergo tales veritates "Christus mortuos suscitavit", "Christus fuit Deus et homo", "Deus omnia praescit", et huiusmodi non essent catholicae reputandae nisi essent a Romano pontifice explicite approbatae, quod pro inconvenienti videtur habendum.

[B] A second argument is this. If some truth is catholic only because it has been approved by the Roman pontiff, it is as a result catholic [Bi] either because it has been approved either explicitly or implicitly by the Roman pontiff or [Bii] it is catholic only because it has been approved explicitly by the Roman pontiff. [Bi] If the first is granted, it follows that the Roman pontiff can not make a new article of faith from any truth that was necessary beforehand, because all truths divinely revealed, inserted in the sacred scriptures, accepted by the universal church and following from some one or some of those have been explicitly or implicitly approved earlier by Roman pontiffs. For they have approved the whole faith of the church and, as a consequence, have approved implicitly everything which follows [from it], because just as he who says one thing says everything which follows from it, so he who approves one thing approves everything which follows from it. [Bii] If the second is granted, however, namely that some truth is said to be catholic only because it has been explicitly approved by a Roman pontiff, such truths as "Christ raised the dead", "Christ was God and man", "God foreknows everything", and the like should not have been regarded as catholic unless they had been explicitly approved by a Roman pontiff, and it seems that this should be considered irrational.

Per istas itaque rationes ostenditur quod summus pontifex non potest facere novum articulum fidei nec de veritate non catholica potest facere catholicam. Ex quo concludunt isti quod Romanus pontifex de assertione non haeretica non potest facere haereticam quia omni assertioni catholicae contradicit assertio haeretica et econverso quia, sicut si una contradictoriarum est vera altera est falsa et econverso, ita si una contradictoriarum est catholica altera est haeretica; sed sicut probatum est Romanus pontifex non potest de veritate non catholica facere catholicam, ergo nec de assertione non haeretica potest facere haereticam.

And so it is shown by these arguments that the highest pontiff can not make a new article of faith and can not make catholic a truth that is not catholic. They conclude from this that a Roman pontiff can not make heretical an assertion that is not heretical because an heretical assertion contradicts every catholic assertion, and vice versa, because just as if one of [two] contradictories is true the other is false, and vice versa, so if one of [two] contradictories is catholic the other is heretical. But just as it has been proved that a Roman pontiff can not make catholic a truth that is not catholic, nor can he, therefore, make heretical an assertion that is not heretical.

Tertia ratio est ista. Si ideo solummodo aliqua assertio est inter haereses computanda quia est a Romano pontifice vel etiam ab ecclesia condemnata, aut ergo quia damnata sive implicite sive explicite aut solum quia damnata explicite. Si detur primum, sequitur quod omnis assertio quae potest licite damnari est modo haeresis, quia omnis talis est iam per ecclesiam et Romanos pontifices, qui totam fidem approbando omnem falsitatem contrariam damnaverunt, implicite vel explicite condemnata. Si detur secundum, scilicet quod aliqua assertio ideo solummodo est haeretica quia explicite condemnata, ergo ista assertio, "Christus non est homo", non erat haeretica antequam esset per ecclesiam condemnata, quod isti pro manifesto maximo inconvenienti habent.

[C] A third argument is this. If an assertion is reckoned among the heresies only because it has been condemned by a Roman pontiff or also by the church, this is therefore [Ci] because it has been condemned either implicitly or explicitly or [Cii] only because it has been condemned explicitly. [Ci] If the first is granted it follows that every assertion which can permissibly be condemned is now a heresy, because every such [assertion] has already been condemned implicitly or explicitly by the church and by the Roman pontiffs who by approving the whole of faith have condemned every contrary falsity. [Cii] If the second is granted, namely that any assertion is heretical only because it has been explicitly condemned, then the assertion, "Christ is not a man", was not heretical before it was condemned by the church, and they hold this as clearly irrational.

Quarta ratio quae eis demonstrativa videtur est haec. Omnis assertio cuius pertinax defensator est vere haereticus est vere haeresis; sed omnes pertinaces defensatores assertionum quae possunt per ecclesiam rite et legitime tanquam haereses condemnari sunt vere haeretici, licet eorum assertiones non sint de facto explicite et sub forma propria ab ecclesia condemnatae; ergo tales assertiones ante damnationem huiusmodi vere sunt inter haereses numerandae. Maior est manifesta quia nemo est haereticus nisi propter haeresim cui adhaeret. Minor auctoritatibus beati Augustini probatur, qui, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Dixit apostolus et c. Qui in ecclesia, asserit manifeste quod qui sententiam falsam ac perversam et qui morbidum aliquid et pravum sapiunt et corrigi nolunt sunt heretici; sed omnis assertio que potest per ecclesiam rite damnari est falsa, perversa, morbida et prava; ergo omnis pertinax defensator talis assertionis, licet non sit de facto explicite per ecclesiam condemnata, est vere hereticus. Ex his concludunt isti quod ecclesia non potest facere de assertione non heretica hereticam, sed ecclesia aliquam heresim condemnando determinat et diffinit eam fuisse et esse hereticam.

[D] A fourth reason, which seems demonstrative to them, is this. Every assertion is truly a heresy if a pertinacious defender of it is truly a heretic; but all pertinacious defenders of assertions which can rightly and legitimately be condemned by the church as heresies are truly heretics, even if their assertions have not in fact been condemned explicitly and in that exact form by the church; such assertions, therefore, should truly be reckoned among the heresies before a condemnation of this kind. The major [premise] is manifest because no one is a heretic except on account of a heresy to which he adheres. The minor [premise] is proved by texts from blessed Augustine who manifestly affirms, as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Dixit apostolus [col.998] and c. Qui in ecclesia [col.998], that those who hold a false and perverse opinion and those who hold something unwholesome and evil and refuse to be corrected are heretics; but any assertion that can rightly be condemned by the church is false, perverse, unwholesome and evil; every pertinacious defender of such an assertion, therefore, even if in fact it has not been explicitly condemned by the church, is truly a heretic. They conclude from this that the church can not make heretical an assertion that is not heretical, but, by condemning any heresy, the church determines and defines that it has been and is heretical.

Capitulum 14

Chapter 14

Discipulus Istae ultimae rationes apparent mihi fortes et tamen rationes pro prima sententia videntur difficiles; et ideo refer quomodo respondetur ad ipsas.

Student Those last arguments seem strong to me, and yet the arguments for the first opinion seem difficult. Set forth, therefore, how reply is made to them.

Magister Ad primam illarum respondent secundae sententiae assertores dicentes quod sicut saepe aliquis est haereticus et tamen quia est tantummodo occultus haereticus non debet tanquam haereticus iudicari, ita saepe aliquis est haereticus quia haeresi pertinaciter adhaeret et tamen quia non est certum explicite quod assertio sua est et fuit haeretica, antequam explicite innotuerit ecclesiae quod assertio sua est et fuit haeretica, non debet tanquam haereticus condemnari. Postquam autem per diligentem considerationem innotuerit ecclesiae quod assertio sua est haeretica si pertinax invenitur debet tanquam haereticus condemnari.

Master In response to the first of them those who affirm the second opinion say that, just as often someone is a heretic and yet ought not be judged as a heretic because he is only a secret heretic, so often someone is a heretic because he clings pertinaciously to a heresy and yet because it is not explicitly certain that his assertion is and was heretical he should not be condemned as a heretic before it has become explicitly known to the church that his assertion is and was heretical. After it has become known to the church by careful reflection, however, that his assertion is heretical, he should be condemned as a heretic if he is found to be pertinacious.

Discipulus Ista responsio mihi videtur apparens nisi quod dubito de qua ecclesia isti loquuntur.

Student That reply seems clear to me, except that I am uncertain of which church they are speaking about.

Magister Ipsi loquuntur de ecclesia quae est concilium generale vel papa quia non sufficit in hoc casu ad damnationem alicuius quod innotescat alicui alteri quam concilio generali vel papae quod talis assertio fuerit et sit haeretica.

Master They are speaking about the church which is a general council or a pope, because in this case it does not suffice for someone's condemnation that it becomes known to anyone other than a general council or a pope that such an assertion was and is heretical.

Discipulus Dic quomodo respondent ad exempla de Graecis et Ioachim et illis qui dixerunt Christum non esse aliquid secundum quod homo.

Student Tell me how they reply to the examples of the Greeks and Joachim and those who have said that Christ is nothing as a man.

Magister Dicunt quod assertiones illae antea fuerunt haereticae, pertinaces etiam assertores earum fuerunt haeretici, quia tamen antea non innotuerat ecclesiae quod eorum assertiones erant haereticae non debuerunt tanquam haeretici condemnari, sed postea debuerunt tamquam haeretici condemnari.

Master They say that those assertions were heretical before, and those who affirmed them pertinaciously were also heretics, yet because it had not earlier become known to the church that their assertions were heretical they should not have been condemned as heretics, but afterwards they should have been condemned as heretics.

Discipulus Intelligo responsionem eorum ad rationem illam. Dicas ergo quomodo respondent ad secundam.

Student I understand their reply to that argument. Would you tell me therefore how they reply to the second.

Magister Respondent quod licet ad summum pontificem non solum per modum doctrinae sed etiam autentice pertineat diffinire quae assertio catholica, quae haeretica est censenda, non tamen potest facere de veritate non catholica veritatem catholicam nec de assertione non haeretica haereticam valet efficere. Quo tamen non obstante, diffinitio sua plus operatur quam determinatio doctoris, quia post determinationem doctoris licet cuilibet, sicut prius, contrarium opinari et publice opinando tenere; hoc autem non licet post determinationem summi pontificis. Aliud etiam operatur quia post diffinitionem rectam summi pontificis licet cuilibet episcopo et inquisitori haereticae pravitatis contra tenentes contrarium illius quod rite per summum pontificem diffinitum extitit procedere iuxta canonicas sanctiones, nisi tales offerrent se ad probandum summum pontificem erronee diffinisse, in quo casu esset ad generale concilium recurrendum. Post determinationem autem cuiuscumque doctoris non licet episcopis et inquisitoribus pravitatis haereticae contra tenentes contrarium procedere magis quam ante.

Master They reply that although it pertains to the highest pontiff to define not only by means of teaching but also by authority which assertion should be considered catholic and which heretical, yet he can not make catholic a truth which is not catholic nor is he able to make heretical an assertion which is not heretical. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this, his definition has more effect than the determination of a doctor because after the determination of a doctor anyone at all is permitted, just as before, to opine, and to maintain publicly by opining, the opposite; this is not permitted, however, after a determination by the highest pontiff. It also has another effect because after a correct definition by the highest pontiff any bishop or inquisitor into heretical wickedness is permitted to proceed in accord with canonical laws against those holding the opposite of what has been rightly defined by the highest pontiff, unless such people bring themselves forward to prove that the highest pontiff has made an erroneous definition, in which case recourse should be had to a general council. After a determination by any doctor at all, however, bishops and inquisitors into heretical wickedness are not permitted to proceed against those holding the contrary more than they were before.

Capitulum 15

Chapter 15

Discipulus Licet quaedam retuleris de quibus admiror, unde et de eis postea interrogationem habebo, tamen conclusio principalis secundae sententiae videtur mihi probabilis, et miror quod aliquis tenet quod papa potest facere novum articulum fidei. Tamen qualiter respondetur ad c. Extra, De haereticis, Cum Christus indica mihi.

Student Although you have recounted some things at which I wonder - and I will as a result question you about them later - the main conclusion of this second opinion does nevertheless seem probable to me, and I wonder that anyone holds that the pope can make a new article of faith. For all that, indicate to me how reply is made to the chapter Cum Christus in Extra, De hereticis [col.779].

Magister Volo te scire quod illa allegatio est quorundam canonistarum, de quibus nonnulli theologi scandalizantur quando vident eos de theologicis difficultatibus se intromittere ultra verba theologorum quae in scriptis suis inveniunt aliquid ex suo ingenio proferendo. Quia enim in theologia sunt minime eruditi ideo auctoritates theologiae quas in suis libris reperiunt non debent exponere ultra sensum grammaticalem, nec ex eis debent aliquas conclusiones inferre, nisi sequantur tam patenter quod quilibet illiteratus utens ratione possit advertere, quia cum saepe verum auctoritatum theologiae non habeant intellectum si ex eis voluerint alias conclusiones inferre facile incident in errores, quod in istis canonistis qui ex praedicto capitulo Alexandri 3 Cum Christus volebant inferre quod papa potest facere novum articulum fidei sine difficultate potest adverti. Nam ex illo capitulo credebant posse concludi quod ante illam constitutionem licebat dicere Christum non esse Deum et hominem, cum tamen non dicat nec ibi inhibeat dicere Christum non esse Deum et hominem, sed inhibet dicere Christum non esse aliquid secundum quod homo. Cuius causam assignat quia Christus est verus Deus et verus homo. Istae autem sunt assertiones distinctae, "Christus est verus Deus et verus homo" et "Christus est aliquid secundum quod homo", una tamen sequitur ex alia.

Master I want you to know that that argument is adduced by certain canonists by whom some theologians are scandalised when they see them concern themselves with theological difficulties by putting forward something on the basis of their own way of thinking beyond the words of theologians that they find in their own writings. For because they are not learned in theology they should as a result not expound the theological authorities that they find in their own books in more than a grammatical sense, nor should they infer any conclusions from them unless they follow so clearly that any unlearned person at all using his reason can observe them because, since they often do not have a true understanding of theological texts, they will easily fall into errors if they want to infer other conclusions from them. This can be observed without difficulty in those canonists who were wanting to infer from the above chapter of Alexander III, Cum Christus, that the pope can make a new article of faith. For they believed that it can be concluded from that chapter that before [Alexander's] constitution it was permissible to say that Christ is not God and man, although he does not say, nor in that place restrain [anyone] from saying, that Christ is not God and man, but restrains [anyone] from saying that Christ is nothing as a man. The reason he adduces for this is that Christ is true God and true man. However those assertions, "Christ is true God and true man" and "Christ is something as a man", are distinct; yet one follows from the other.

Discipulus Clare video quod praedicti canonistae dictum capitulum Cum Christus male allegant ad probandum quod ante tempora Alexandri licebat dicere Christum non esse Deum et hominem. Sed videtur quod bene allegaverunt ad probandum papam posse facere novum articulum fidei, quia quod Christus est aliquid secundum quod homo ante tempora Alexandri 3 non fuit articulus fidei, imo licebat contrarium opinari; ipse autem fecit quod esset articulus fidei et quod non licet dicere contrarium. Ergo ipse fecit novum articulum fidei.

Student I see clearly that the aforesaid canonists wrongly adduce the said chapter Cum Christus to prove that before the time of Alexander it was permissible to say that Christ is not God and man. But it seems that they have adduced it correctly to prove that a pope can make a new article of faith, because before the time of Alexander III it was not an article of faith that Christ is something as a man - indeed it was permissible to hold the opposite - however he brought it about that it was an article of faith and that it is not permissible to say the opposite. Therefore he made a new article of faith.

Magister Ad istam tuam obiectionem respondent secundae sententiae assertores dicentes quod articulus fidei accipitur stricte, pro veritate catholica in symbolo autentico sub propria forma inserta, et sic non loquimur nunc de articulo fidei. Aliter potest accipi articulus fidei large, pro omni catholica veritate, et isto modo est nunc sermo de articulo fidei. Et sic non potest papa facere novum articulum fidei, nec Alexander fecit talem novum articulum fidei quia non fecit novam catholicam veritatem sed fecit quod nec asserendo nec opinando liceret dicere contrarium illius quod ante fuit catholica veritas et quod dicentes contrarium excommunicationis sententiae subderentur. Et ita ista, Christus secundum quod homo est aliquid, ante Alexandrum 3 fuit vere catholica veritas, sed ante tempora Alexandri non innotuit ecclesiae quod esset catholica. Ex illis enim quae in Scripturis Divinis habentur veritates multae sequuntur quae tamen latent ecclesiam, et ideo catholicae sunt, licet ecclesia nondum discusserit an catholicam sapiant veritatem.

Master Those who affirm the second opinion reply to that objection of yours by saying that "article of faith" is taken strictly, as a catholic truth inserted in the authentic creed in that exact form, and we are not now speaking about an article of faith in that sense. Otherwise "article of faith" can be taken broadly, as any catholic truth, and the discussion now is about an article of faith in that sense. And in this sense a pope can not make a new article of faith, and Alexander did not produce such a new article of faith because he did not produce a new catholic truth but brought it about that neither by asserting nor by opining would it be permissible to say the contrary of what was previously a catholic truth and that those saying the contrary would be subjected to a sentence of excommunication. And so before Alexander III it was truly a catholic truth that Christ as a man is something, but before his time it was not known to the church that it was catholic. For from what we find in the divine scriptures many truths follow which nevertheless are hidden from the church, and so they are catholic even if the church has not yet investigated whether they smack of catholic truth.

Capitulum 16

Chapter 16

Discipulus Quia diffinitio haeresis de qua disseruisti plura conveniens mihi videtur, nec tamen ex ea intelligo an haeresis sit species specialissima vel sub se plures species habens, de hoc quid sentiant literati non postponas exprimere.

Student Because the definition of heresy about which you have spoken much seems reasonable to me, and yet I do not understand from it whether heresy is an ultimate species or has many species within it, would you not delay describing what the learned think about this.

Are there several kinds of heresies?

Magister De diffinitione specifica sunt plures opiniones. Quidam enim dicunt quod eadem res sub diversis speciebus collocari non potest, quidam dicunt contrarium.

Master There are several opinions on the definition of a species. For some people say that the same thing can not be put under different species, while some say the opposite.

Discipulus De talibus difficultatibus te nullatenus intromittas. Nam ad philosophicas scientias spectant quarum difficultates proprias quantum potes evita. Sed dic mihi nunc quid tenetur de haeresibus, an omnes sub uno modo vel nomine aut specie continentur vel sub pluribus.

Student Would you not involve yourself in such difficulties. For they pertain to the philosophical sciences, the particular difficulties of which you should avoid as much as you can. But tell me now what is held about heresies, whether they are all comprehended under the one mode or name or species, or under several.

Magister Intentionem tuam adverto et ideo ad mentem tuam volo tibi opiniones contrarias recitare. Si recolis, de veritatibus catholicis opiniones narravi, quia quidam dicunt quod illae solae veritates sunt catholicae reputandae quae explicite vel implicite in Scripturis Divinis habentur. Alii autem asserunt quod praeter illas veritates sunt nonnullae aliae inter catholicas veritates numerandae. Iuxta istas opiniones sunt etiam de haeresibus opiniones contrariae. Quidam enim tradunt quod haeresis habet solummodo sub se tres species sive tres modos haeresum diversarum propter quas solummodo debet quis puniri. Prima species vel primus modus haeresum est illarum quae veritatibus sub forma propria in Scriptura Divina repertis non solum quomodolibet adversantur sed etiam in eisdem terminis contradicunt. Tales sunt istae "Verbum non est caro factum", "Deus non creavit in principio coelum et terram", "Christus non est assumptus in coelum", et huiusmodi. Aliae sunt haereses quae patenter omni intelligenti, etiam illiterato, his quae in Scripturis Divinis habentur obviant et repugnant. Quales sunt tales, "Christus non fuit natus pro salute nostra", "Nulla est vita beata", et consimiles. Aliae sunt haereses quae non patenter omnibus sed solummodo literatis et sapientibus eruditis in Scripturis Divinis per magnam et subtilem considerationem patent sacris literis adversari. Cuiusmodi sunt tales, "Christus non est aliquid secundum quod homo", "Duae personae sunt in Christo", et huiusmodi multae.

Master I advert to your intention and so I want to record the opposing opinions for you according to your thoughts. If you remember, I reported opinions about catholic truths, because some people say that only those truths should be regarded as catholic which are found explicitly or implicitly in the divine scriptures. However, others assert that besides those some other truths should be reckoned among catholic truths. In line with these opinions there are also opposing opinions about heresies. For some people teach that there are only three species of heresy or three modes of different heresies on account of which alone someone should be punished. The first species or mode of heresy is those which not only in some way oppose truths found in divine scripture in that exact form but even contradict them using the same terms. The following are of this kind, "The word did not become flesh", "God did not create heaven and earth in the beginning", "Christ was not taken up into heaven", and the like. There are other heresies which in a way clear to anyone with understanding, even to the unlearned, oppose and conflict with those things that are found in the divine scriptures. The following are of this kind, "Christ was not born for our salvation", "There is no life of beatitude", and others like this. There are other heresies which do not clearly oppose sacred writings in the eyes of everyone but only in the eyes of the learned and wise who are erudite in the divine scriptures after long and subtle investigation. The following are of this kind, "Christ is nothing as a man", "There are two persons in Christ", and many like this.

Alii autem sunt qui praedictos modos haeresum asserentes dicunt quod praeter haereses iam dictas sunt aliae, illae videlicet quae doctrinae apostolicae, quae doctrina absque scriptis apostolicis per relationem fidelium sibi succedentium vel per scripturas fidelium ad nos pervenit, quomodolibet adversantur. Si etiam aliqui errores alicui veritati post tempora apostolorum ecclesiae revelatae repugnant, omnes illi sunt inter haereses computandi.

There are others, however, who affirm the above modes of heresy but say that besides the heresies already mentioned there are others, namely those which oppose in some way apostolic teaching, teaching which has come to us not in apostolic writings but by the narration of the believers succeeding them or by the writings of the believers. Also if some errors conflict with any truth revealed to the church after apostolic times, they should all be reckoned among the heresies.

Capitulum 17

Chapter 17

Discipulus Ista secunda sententia magis mihi apparet consona veritati, sed dic mihi an isti assertores omnes errores pestiferos quos nulli licet Christiano fideli asserere sub istis modis haeresum comprehendant.

Student That second opinion seems more in accord with the truth to me, but tell me whether those who affirm it include under those modes of heresy all the pestiferous errors which no believing christian is permitted to affirm.

Magister Praeter haereses supradictas affirmant esse quosdam alios errores mortiferos qui tamen non debent stricte haereses appellari. Tales errores dicunt esse illos qui cronicis et historiis ecclesiasticis fide dignis ac probatis gestis fidelium obviari noscuntur. Alii adhuc sunt errores qui veritatibus catholicis et cronicis vel historiis ecclesiasticis fide dignis ac gestis quae rationabiliter negari non possunt incompossibiles demonstrantur. Cuiusmodi sunt tales, "Regulae religiosorum non sunt catholicae", "Fides beati Augustini non fuit vera nec fidelis ", et huiusmodi, et istos errores quamvis stricte accipiendo vocabulum haeresis non reputent inter haereses computandos, dicunt tamen quod sapiunt haeresim manifestam, quod non est aliud quam dicere quod ex eis et aliis veris quae negari non possunt sequuntur haereses proprie dictae. Et ideo dicunt quod isti errores possunt large haereses appellari.

Master They say that besides the afore-mentioned heresies there are some other deadly errors which nevertheless should not strictly be called heresies. They say that errors of this kind are those which are known to be opposed to ecclesiastical chronicles and histories worthy of trust and to demonstrated deeds of believers. There are still other errors which are shown to be incompatible with catholic truths together with ecclesiastical chronicles or histories worthy of trust and deeds which can not reasonably be denied. The following are of this kind, "The rules of religious are not catholic", "The faith of blessed Augustine was not true or sincere", and the like; and although taking the word "heresy" strictly they do not reckon that those errors should be counted among the heresies, they say nevertheless that they smack of manifest heresy, which is only to say that heresies properly so called follow from them and [i.e. together with] other truths which can not be denied. And therefore they say that those errors can broadly be called heresies.

Discipulus Enumera generales modos pestiferorum errorum quos secundum istam secundam sententiam nulli licet catholico et fideli pertinaciter defensare.

Student Enumerate the general modes of pestiferous errors which, according to that second opinion, no catholic believer is permitted to defend pertinaciously.

Magister Tales modi generales, quorum aliqui plures sub se modos continent speciales, sunt quinque. Quorum primus est eorum qui solis contentis in Scriptura Divina repugnant et iste plures modos continet speciales, sicut ex praedictis apparet, et omnes isti errores debent haereses appellari. Secundus est eorum qui doctrinae apostolicae extra scripta eorum quoquomodo repugnant, et iste etiam continet plures modos. Tertius est eorum qui revelatis vel inspiratis ecclesiae post apostolos quomodolibet obviarent. Quartus est eorum qui cronicis, historiis et gestis ab ecclesia approbatis contrariantur. Quintus est eorum qui Scripturae Divinae vel doctrinae apostolicae extra scripta eorum vel inspiratis seu revelatis ecclesiae et aliis veris quae negari non possunt incompossibiles demonstrantur, licet ex forma propositionum solis contentis in Scriptura Divina et doctrina apostolica et revelatis seu inspiratis ecclesiae incompossibiles nequaquam appareant, et isti errores proprie possunt dici sapere haeresim manifestam, licet stricte sumendo nomen haeresis non sint haereses nuncupandae. Talis est iste error, "Castitas monachorum castitati non praeeminet coniugali". Nam iste error ex forma propositionis non repugnat alicui contento in Scriptura Divina vel doctrina apostolica, si tunc non fuerunt tales monachi qulaes modo sunt, nec etiam repugnat, ut videtur, alicui revelato vel inspirato ecclesiae. Contentis tamen in Scriptura Divina et isti vero quod nulla potest tergiversatione negari, "Monachi vovent et servant perpetuam continentiam propter Deum", incompossibilis esse dinoscitur, et ideo iste error, licet non videatur stricte sumpto vocabulo haeresis appellanda, sapit tamen haeresim manifestam quia ex ipso et quodam vero aperto sequitur haeresis manifesta.

Master There are five of these general modes, some of which contain several particular modes within them. The first of these consists of those [errors] which conflict with things contained solely in divine scripture, and it contains several particular modes, as is clear from what has been said above, and all those errors should be called heresies. The second consists of those [errors] which conflict in some way with apostolic teaching which is outside their writings, and that [mode] also contains several modes. The third consists of those [errors] which would in some way be opposed to things revealed to or inspired in the church after the apostles. The fourth consists of those [errors] which are contrary to chronicles, histories and deeds approved by the church. The fifth consists of those [errors] which are shown to be incompatible with divine scripture, or with the teaching of the apostles outside their writings, or with things inspired in or revealed to the church and [i.e. together with] other truths which can not be denied, even if by the form of the propositions they do not appear to be incompatible with things solely contained in divine scripture and apostolic teaching and things revealed to and inspired in the church, and those errors can properly be said to smack of manifest heresy, even if they should not be called heresies taking the word "heresy" strictly. An example of the latter is the following error, "The chastity of monks does not excel conjugal chastity". For in the form of its proposition that error does not conflict with anything contained in divine scripture or in apostolic teaching, if there were not monks then such as there are now, nor, as it seems, does it, also, even conflict with anything revealed to or inspired in the church. Yet it is known to be incompatible with things contained in divine scripture and indeed with the following, which can not be denied with any shifting, "Monks vow and observe perpetual continence for the sake of God", and therefore that error, even if it does not seem that it should be called a heresy taking that word strictly, does nevertheless smack of manifest heresy because from it and a certain clear truth manifest heresy does follow.

Capitulum 18

Chapter 18

Discipulus Nunc adverto quam utile fuit inquirere quae veritates debeant catholicae iudicari, quia ex solutione quaestionis illius potest intelligenti patere qui errores debent haereses reputari. Ex investigatis etiam circa catholicas veritates sequi videtur quod omnis haeresis sit damnata, quia, si omnis veritas catholica est per ecclesiam approbata, videtur quod per eandem ecclesiam omnis haeresis est damnata cum omnis haeresis alicui veritati catholicae adversetur. Approbato autem uno contrariorum constat aliud reprobari et damnari. An ergo aliqui literati teneant omnem haeresim esse damnatam nequaquam occultes.

Student I now observe how useful it was to ask which truths should be adjudged catholic, because from the explanation of that question it can be clear to someone with understanding which errors should be regarded as heresies. It seems also to follow from what has been investigated about catholic truths that every heresy has been condemned because if every catholic truth has been approved by the church it seems that every heresy has been condemned by the same church, since every heresy is opposed to some catholic truth. When one of [two] contraries is approved, however, it is certain that the other is rejected and condemned. Therefore do not conceal [from me] whether any learned men hold that every heresy has been condemned.

Has every heresy been condemned already?

Magister Multi tenent et probare conantur quod omnis haeresis est damnata. Hoc enim concilium generale sub Innocentio 3 celebratum, de quo habetur Extra, De haereticis, c. Excommunicamus, sentire videtur. Ait enim, "Excommunicamus et anathematisamus omnem haeresim, extollentem se adversus hanc sanctam, catholicam et orthodoxam fidem quam superius exposuimus." Ex quibus verbis patenter habetur quod omnis haeresis est excommunicata et anathematisata, et per consequens omnis haeresis est damnata.

Master Many hold and try to prove that every heresy has been condemned. For the general council celebrated under Innocent III, about which we read in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus [col.787], seems to think this. For it says, "We excommunicate and anathematise every heresy that exalts itself against this holy, catholic and orthodox faith that we expounded above." It is clearly established from these words that every heresy has been excommunicated and anathematised, and as a consequence every heresy has been condemned.

Discipulus Ex hac auctoritate non videtur quod omnis haeresis sit damnata sed solummodo quod omnis haeresis extollens se adversus fidem quam supra generale concilium exposuit in capitulo quod habetur Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Firmiter, sit damnata.

Student It does not seem from this text that every heresy has been condemned, but only that every heresy exalting itself against the faith that the general council expounded earlier in the chapter Firmiter found in Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica [col.5] has been condemned.

Magister Isti probant quod per dictum capitulum Excommunicamus omnis haeresis simpliciter sit damnata ex hoc ipso quod omnis haeresis extollens se adversus fidem expositam in dicto capitulo Firmiter sit damnata. Nam in dicto capitulo Firmiter tota fides catholica approbatur. Ergo omnis haeresis simpliciter per capitulum Excommunicamus quod damnat omnem haeresim extollentem se adversus fidem quam exposuit et approbavit in c. Firmiter reprobatur et damnatur. Quod autem c. Firmiter approbet simpliciter totam fidem catholicam patet expresse cum asserendo et approbando dicat "Haec sancta Trinitas, secundum communem essentiam individua et secundum personales proprietates discreta, primo per Moysen et sanctos prophetas aliosque famulos suos iuxta ordinatissimam dispositionem temporum humano generi doctrinam tribuit salutarem. Et tandem unigenitus Dei filius Iesus Christus, a tota Trinitate communiter incarnatus ex Maria semper virgine Spiritu Sancto cooperante conceptus, verus homo factus, ex anima rationali et humana carne compositus, una in duabus naturis persona, viam vitae manifestius demonstravit." Ex his verbis datur intelligi quod totam doctrinam Christi et famulorum suorum qui veritates catholicas humano generi tradiderunt praedictum concilium approbat manifeste. Ergo et per capitulum Excommunicamus simpliciter omnis haeresis est damnata, et hoc glossa 24, q. 1, para. 1. notat, aperte dicens, "Omnis haeresis est damnata et omnis haereticus est excommunicatus quantumcunque sit occultus."

Master They prove that every heresy has simply been condemned by the said chapter Excommunicamus from the fact that every heresy exalting itself against the faith expounded in the said chapter Firmiter has been condemned. For in that chapter Firmiter the whole of catholic faith is approved. Therefore every heresy is rejected and condemned simply by the chapter Excommunicamus which condemns every heresy that exalts itself against the faith that is expounded and approved in the chapter Firmiter. That the chapter Firmiter approves simply the whole of catholic faith is expressly clear since in its assertion and approval it says: "This holy Trinity, individual according to a common essence and distinct according to their personal properties, has bestowed its salvific teaching on the human race firstly through Moses, the holy prophets and their other servants according to the very well ordered arrangement of time. And at length the only begotten son of God, Jesus Christ, made flesh by the whole Trinity together, was conceived of Mary, ever virgin, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, became a true man, made up of a rational soul and human flesh, one person with two natures, and very clearly demonstrated the way to life." We are given to understand by these words that the aforesaid council clearly approves the whole teaching of Christ and his servants who handed on catholic truths to the human race. Therefore simply every heresy is also condemned by the chapter Excommunicamus, and the gloss on 24, q. 1, para. 1 [s. v. qui vero; col.1382] notes this clearly when it says, "Every heresy has been condemned and every heretic, however hidden he is, has been excommunicated."

Capitulum 19

Chapter 19

Discipulus Apparenter ostenditur quod omnis haeresis est damnata, de quo tamen miror eo quod saepe audierim literatos distinguere inter illos qui incidunt in haeresim iam damnatam et illos qui incidunt in haeresim non damnatam. Unde et Gratianus, ut habetur 24. q. 1. para. 1, eandem distinctionem approbare videtur dicens, "Omnis enim haereticus aut iam damnatam haeresim sequitur aut novam confingit." Cuius distinctionis primum membrum statim prosequitur, secundum vero membrum prosequitur eisdem causa et quaestione para. Si autem, "Si autem ex corde suo novam haeresim confingit " etc. Quocirca dic an praedicti assertores eandem distinctionem simpliciter negent?

Student We are clearly shown that every heresy has been condemned, yet I wonder about this because I have often heard the learned distinguish between those who fall into a heresy that has already been condemned and those who fall into a heresy that has not been condemned. Whence, as we find in 24, q. 1, para. 1 [col.966], Gratian too seems to approve to approve this distinction, saying, "For every heretic either follows an already condemned heresy or invents a new one." He follows up the first part of this distinction at once, while he follows up the second part in the same causa and quaestio, para. Si autem [col. 967], "However, if someone invents a new heresy out of his own heart", etc. Tell me, therefore, do those who make that assertion simply deny that distinction?

Magister Non omnino negant dictam distinctionem sed cum distinctione concedunt, dicentes quod quaedam haereses sunt damnatae explicite, quaedam vero solum damnatae sunt implicite; et ideo concedunt dictam distinctionem sub isto intellectu: quaedam haereses sunt damnatae explicite et quaedam non sunt damnatae explicite.

Master They do not wholly deny that distinction but grant it with a distinction, saying that some heresies have been condemned explicitly, but some have been condemned only implicitly; and therefore they grant the said distinction with the following meaning: some heresies have been condemned explicitly and some have not been condemned explicitly.

Condemnation may be explicit or implicit

Discipulus Quas vocant haereses damnatas explicite?

Student Which heresies do they call explicitly condemned?

Magister Haeresum damnatarum explicite ponunt quatuor modos. Primus est earum quae damnatione speciali in qua de ipsis haeresibus sub forma propria fit mentio specialis condemnatur. Isto modo haereses Arrii, Nestorii, Macedonii, Euticis et Dioscori damnatae fuerunt, sicut ex dist. 15, c. 1 et c. Sicut sancti et c. Sancta Romana patenter habetur. Sic etiam damnatus est error Ioachim Extra, De summa trinitate et fide c. Damnamus et error dicentium Christum non esse aliquid secundum quod homo Extra, De haereticis, c. Cum Christus.

Master They lay down four modes of explicitly condemned heresies. The first is of those which are condemned by a particular condemnation in which particular mention is made of those heresies in that exact form. The heresies of Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Euticis and Dioscorus have been condemned by that mode, as we clearly find in dist. 15, c. 1 [col.34], c. Sicut sancti [col.35] and c. Sancta Romana [col.36]. Also condemned in this way are Joachim's error (Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Damnamus [col.6]) and the error of those who say that Christ is nothing as a man (Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum Christus [col.779]).

Secundus modus haeresum damnatarum explicite est earum quarum contradictoriae sub forma propria asseruntur seu approbantur, quia una contradictoriarum approbata explicite, altera explicite intelligitur reprobata. Tales sunt omnes haereses quae contradicunt veritatibus catholicis quae in symbolis, conciliis generalibus ac decretis et decretalibus epistolis summorum pontificum tanquam catholicae approbantur. Unde ista haeresis, "Deus non est factor omnium visibilium et invisibilium", est haeresis explicite condemnata pro eo quod per symbolum, "Credo in unum Deum", explicite approbatur Deum esse factorem omnium visibilium et invisibilium.

The second mode of explicitly condemned heresies is of those the contradictories of which have been approved in that exact form, because with the explicit approval of one of [two] contradictories the other is understood to have been explicitly condemned. Of this mode are all heresies which contradict the catholic truths which are approved as catholic in the creeds, in general councils and in decrees and decretal letters of the highest pontiffs. Whence the heresy, "God is not the maker of all things visible and invisible", is an explicitly condemned heresy because through [the article of] the creed, "I believe in one God", it is explicitly approved that God is the maker of all things visible and invisible.

Tertius est earum quarum contradictoriae in aliquo volumine vel libro aut tractatu specialiter approbato tanquam catholico sub forma propria continentur. Et isto modo omnes haereses quarum contradictoriae in canone Bibliae confirmato sub forma propria continentur haereses damnatae explicite sunt censendae, quia eo ipso quod canon Bibliae explicite approbatur omnes veritates in ipso inserte explicite approbantur, et per consequens earum contradictoriae explicite reprobantur et damnantur.

The third [mode] consists of those the contradictories of which are contained in that exact form in some volume, book or tractate particularly approved as catholic. And in that way all heresies the contradictories of which are contained in that very form in the confirmed canon of the bible should be considered explicitly condemned heresies because by the very fact that the canon of the bible is explicitly approved all the truths inserted in it are explicitly approved, and, as a consequence, their contradictories are explicitly rejected and condemned.

Quartus est earum ex quibus patenter omnibus, etiam laicis, usum habentibus rationis sequitur aliqua haeresis sub aliquo trium modorum primorum comprehensa.

The fourth [mode] consists of those from which some heresy included under any of the first three modes follows in a way clear to everyone having the use of reason, even laymen.

Discipulus Contra aliqua praedictorum possem dubia multa movere, sed forsitan non essent multum ad rem quia voces sunt ad placitum, et ideo possunt vocare haereses damnatas explicite stricte et large sicut placet eis dummodo hoc auctoribus non inveniatur expresse contrarium. Idcirco dic quas haereses vocant damnatas solum implicite.

Student I could raise many doubts about some of the above, but perhaps they would not be much to the point because words are a matter of opinion and so they can call heresies explicitly condemned strictly or broadly just as they please as long as this is not found to be explicitly contrary to any [authoritative] writers. Tell me therefore which heresies they say are condemned only implicitly.

Magister Haereses de quibus solummodo viris literatis in sacris literis eruditis per subtilem considerationem patet quomodo catholicae veritati contentae in Scripturis Sacris vel doctrina expressa universalis ecclesiae adversantur et quod ex eis sequitur aliqua haeresis aliquo praedictorum modorum damnata explicite dicunt esse damnatas implicite et non explicite. Talis haeresis fuit haeresis Graecorum dicentium Spiritum Sanctum non procedere a Filio antequam damnaretur explicite. Multae etiam haereses de quibus habetur in decretis aliquando fuerunt huiusmodi quae post explicite damnatae fuerunt. Tales sunt haereses nonnullorum doctorum modernorum. Est enim notorium quod moderni theologi circa divina opiniones tenent contrarias quas putant in Scripturis Divinis fundari, quarum altera in rei veritate Scripturae Divinae repugnat, sicut et tenent contrarium opinantes. Unde et eam per Scripturam Divinam improbare nituntur, sicut in scriptis eorum patet aperte, et ita in rei veritate altera earum est damnata implicite, cum veritas contraria sit implicite approbata ex hoc quod doctrina ecclesiae ex qua infertur noscitur approbata.

Master They say that those heresies have been condemned implicitly and not explicitly about which it is clear only by subtle reflection to learned men erudite in sacred letters how they are opposed to the catholic truth contained in the sacred scriptures or in the express teaching of the universal church and that from them some heresy explicitly condemned in any of the aforesaid modes follows. A heresy of this kind was that of the Greeks when they were saying that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son before that was explicitly condemned. Many heresies also which we find in the decretals were once of this kind, which were afterwards condemned explicitly. The heresies of some modern doctors are of this kind. For it is well known that about divine matters modern theologians hold opposing opinions which they believe to be based on the divine scripture. One or other of these is in truth of fact opposed to divine scripture, as those holding these opposing [opinions] do indeed maintain. So it is that each tries to disprove the other through divine scripture, as is quite clear in their writings.Thus in truth of fact one of them has been implicitly condemned, since the opposing truth has been implicitly approved because of the fact that the teaching of the church from which it has been inferred is known to have been approved.

Capitulum 20

Chapter 20

Discipulus Sive isti devient a proprio modo loquendi sive non video quod inter haereses quas dicunt esse damnatas explicite et quas dicunt esse damnata simplicite implicite est aperta distinctio. Sed ad quam utilitatem istam distinctionem assignant ignoro et tamen desidero scire.

Student Either they are deviating from their own way of speaking or I do not see that there is a clear distinction between the heresies that they say have been condemned explicitly and those that they say have been condemned only implicitly. But I do not even know, and yet want to know, what utility they assign to that distinction.

Who has the authority to condemn heresies?

Magister Putant istam distinctionem esse summe necessariam episcopis et inquisitoribus haereticae pravitatis, ut sciant contra quos accusatos de haeresi debeant procedere et contra quos potestatem procedendi non habent. Nam omnes tenentes pertinaciter haeresim aliquo praedictorum modorum damnatam explicite possunt legitime iudicare. Tenentes vero haereses damnatas tantummodo implicite iudicare non possunt nec de talibus haeresibus. Licet eas valeant ventilare et investigando discutere, de eis tamen nequeunt diffinitivam sententiam proferre. Sed huiusmodi haeresim asserens vel defendens summi pontificis vel generalis concilii est reservandus examini.

Master They think that that distinction is of the highest importance to bishops and inquisitors into heretical wickedness so that they may know against which of those accused of heresy they ought to proceed and against which they do not have the power to proceed. For they can legitimately judge all those pertinaciously maintaining a heresy explicitly condemned in any of the above ways. But they can not judge those maintaining heresies condemned only implicitly, nor judge of such heresies. Although they can discuss them and inquire into them by investigation, nevertheless they can not pronounce a definitive sentence about them. On the contrary, anyone affirming or defending a heresy of this kind should be kept for examination by the highest pontiff or a general council.

Discipulus Si isti suam sententiam auctoritate vel ratione valeant confirmare non tardes ostendere.

Student If they can confirm their opinion with an authority or an argument, do not be slow to show me.

Magister Possunt se fundare in una ratione quae talis est. Ad illum solum spectat asserentem damnatam haeresim implicite, de qua nondum innotuit ecclesiae an debeat haeresis reputari, tanquam haereticum condemnare ad quem spectat huiusmodi haereses solenniter condemnare; quod videtur maxime veritatem habere quando inter catholicos literatos in sacra pagina eruditos de tali assertione an debeat censeri haeretica opiniones habentur contrariae. Sed assertionem quae est in rei veritate haeretica, de qua tamen an sit haeretica inter doctos opiniones reperiuntur contrariae, solenniter et explicite condemnare pertinet ad solum summum pontificem et concilium generale et universalem ecclesiam. Ergo ad nullum inferiorem summo pontifice nec aliquod collegium inferius generali concilio spectat assertorem haeresis tanquam haereticum condemnare.

Master They can found themselves on one argument which is the following. The condemnation as a heretic of someone asserting an implicitly condemned heresy about which it has not yet become clear to the church whether it should be regarded as a heresy pertains only to him to whom it pertains solemnly to condemn heresies of this kind; this seems especially to be true when opposing opinions are held among learned catholics well informed about the sacred page about whether an assertion of this kind should be considered heretical. But the solemn and explicit condemnation of an assertion which in truth of fact is heretical yet about which opposing opinions are found among the learned as to whether it is heretical pertains only to the highest pontiff and a general council and the universal church. Therefore it pertains to no one inferior to the highest pontiff nor to any college inferior to a general council to condemn as a heretic one who asserts a heresy of this kind.

Maior istius rationis videtur certa quia qui iudicialiter pronunciat aliquem haereticum potest pronunciare solenniter assertionem pro qua iudicat eum esse haereticum inter haereses computandam.

The major [premise] of this argument seems certain because he who pronounces judicially that someone is a heretic can solemnly pronounce that the assertion on account of which he judges him to be a heretic should be reckoned among the heresies.

Minorem ostendunt auctoritate et ratione. Auctoritate primo Innocentii papae, qui, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Quotiens, ait, "Quotiens fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres et coepiscopos non nisi ad Petrum, id est sui nominis et honoris auctoritatem, referre debere." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod quaestio fidei ad inferiorem summo pontifice referri non debet. Hinc dicit glossa ibidem, "Aliud est quaestionem de fide motam terminare, quod nulli praeterquam Romanae sedi permittitur, sicut hic dicitur. Aliud est ipsam sine diffinitione ventilare, quod patriarchae facere possunt." Et infra, glossa obiiciens, ait, "Videtur contra Extra, De haereticis, Ad abolendam. Nam ibi innuitur quod illi vitandi sunt tanquam haeretici quos episcopi vitandos duxerint ", et respondens ait, "Sed dic quod illud intelligendum est quando tale quid dicunt quod certum est esse haeresim, hic vero ubi dubium est."

They show the minor [premise] by an authority and by an argument. Firstly, by the authority of Pope Innocent who says, as we find in 24, q. 1, c. Quotiens [col.970], "As often as an argument about faith is ventilated, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to no one but Peter, that is to the authority of his name and honour." By these words we are given to understand that a question of faith should not be referred to anyone less than the highest pontiff. Hence the gloss at that place [s. v. fidei; col.1388] says, "It is one thing to determine a question raised about faith, which is not permitted to anyone except the Roman see, as is said here. It is another to ventilate it without determining it, which patriarchs can do." And further on the gloss raises an objection and says, "This seems to be against Extra, De hereticis, c. Ad abolendam. For it is implied there that those whom bishops have said should be avoided, should be avoided as heretics." And in reply it says, "The response is that this should be understood of when they are talking about something that it is certain is a heresy; but this [a case] where there is a doubt."

Istis concordare videtur glossa dist. 80, c. 2, quae super verbo "in fide" ait, "'In fide'", id est fideliter "infra 24, q. 1, Quotiens ubi dicitur quod tantum ad Petrum referenda est quaestio fidei; sed expone hic in fide, id est fideliter. Vel possunt agitare causas fidei sed non procedere ad sententiam, vel distingue qui sunt qui dubitant. Nam si laici, videtur quod episcopi possunt determinare Extra, De haereticis, Ad abolendam; si clerici, papa Extra eodem titulo, Cum Christus." Ex his colligitur quod nullus inferior summo pontifice potest terminare questionem motam de fide, praecipue quando literati dubitant et contrarie opinantur.

The gloss on dist. 80, c. 2 on the words "in fide" seems to agree with these, saying "'in faith'", that is faithfully. "See below, 24, q. 1, c. Quotiens where it is said that a question of faith should be referred only to Peter. But here expound 'in faith', that is faithfully. [The alternatives are] either [that the bishops] are able to carry the case on but not proceed to judgment or we can distinguish who they are who doubt: for if they are laymen, it seems that bishops can make a determination (Extra, De hereticis, c. Ad abolendam), if they are clerics, the pope (the same title, c. Cum Christus)." We gather from these [texts] that no lesser person than the highest pontiff can determine a question raised about the faith, especially when learned men are in doubt and offer opposing opinions.

Quod etiam Innocentius 3, Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, c. Maiores, sentire videtur. Ait enim, "Maiores ecclesiae causas, praesertim articulos fidei contingentes, ad Petri sedem referendas intelliget qui eum quaerenti Domino, quem discipuli dicerent ipsum esse, respondisse notabit, 'Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi.'" Ex quibus verbis patenter habetur quod ad sedem beati Petri est quaestio fidei referenda et ita nec collegium inferius concilio generali nec aliquis episcopus inferior papa potest aliquam haeresim de qua est dubium an sit haeresis condemnare et per consequens nullum talem haeresim asserentem valet tanquam haereticum condemnare. Irrationabile enim videtur omnino quod episcopus vel inquisitor haereticae pravitatis, qui saepe sacrae paginae imperitus existit, opiniones doctorum theologiae posset tanquam haereticas condemnare.

Innocent III seems to think this too in Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, c. Maiores [col.644]. For he says, "He who notes that Peter replied to the Lord when he asked who the disciples said he was, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God", will understand that the church's greater causes, especially those touching on the articles of faith, should be referred to Peter's see." It is clearly established from these words that a question of faith should be referred to the see of blessed Peter, and so no gathering less than a general council and no bishop less than the pope can condemn any heresy about which there is doubt whether it is a heresy, and can not, consequently, condemn as a heretic anyone affirming such a heresy. For it would seem completely irrational that a bishop or inquisitor into heretical wickedness, who is often ignorant of the sacred page, could condemn as heretical the opinions of doctors of theology.

Capitulum 21

Chapter 21

Some problematic cases

Discipulus Quamvis ista sententia videatur fortiter esse probata, tamen contra ipsam urgentes instantias in mente revolvo. Quarum prima est de Universitate Parisiensi quae multas opiniones, etiam Thomae de Aquino, ipso vivente, tanquam erroneas excommunicavit et damnavit. Secunda est de duobus archiepiscopis Cantuariensibus, quorum primus erat doctor theologiae in Ordine Praedicatorum et postea cardinalis, secundus erat etiam doctor theologiae de Ordine Fratrum Minorum, qui plures opiniones Thome excommunicaverunt et damnaverunt. Tertia est de Ordine Fratrum Minorum qui doctrinam Fratris Petri Iohannis damnavit, et ita videtur quod tam ad collegium inferius concilio generali quam ad alias personas inferiores summo pontifice spectat errores a theologis opinatos damnare. Quamobrem qualiter respondetur ad praedictas instantias manifesta.

Student Although that opinion seems to have been proved strongly, yet I am in my mind reflecting on some objections which urge against it. The first of these concerns the University of Paris which excommunicated and condemned as erroneous many opinions, even of Thomas Aquinas while he was still alive. [See E. Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (London, 1955), p. 417] The second concerns two archbishops of Canterbury, the first of whom was a doctor of theology from the Order of Preachers and later a cardinal [Robert Kilwardby]; the second was also a doctor of theology from the Order of Friars Minor [John Pecham]; they excommunicated and condemned many of Thomas's opinions. [See Gilson, pp. 406, 359]. The third concerns the Order of Friars Minor which condemned the teaching of brother Peter John. [See David Burr, Olivi and Franciscan Poverty (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 1989), chapter 4, p. 88ff and pp. 109 and 125. See also Leo Amorós, "Series condemnationum et processuum contra doctrinam et sequaces Petri Ioannis Olivi", Archivum franciscanum historicum, 24 (1931), pp. 399-451 -- a document that may have been composed by Bonagratia of Bergamo, written post 1328. On p. 509 it mentions a chapter at Marseilles, called by Michael of Cesena in 1319, which examined the errors of Peter John Olivi and condemned them and passed sentence of excommunication against every brother who knowingly held and used his books.] And so it seems that it pertains both to a gathering inferior to a general council and to other persons inferior to the highest pontiff to condemn the errors put forward as opinions by theologians. Make clear, therefore, how reply is made to the above objections.

Magister Ad primam instantiam de Universitate Parisiensi multipliciter respondetur. Uno modo quod multas assertiones temerarie condemnavit, veritates scilicet condemnando. Nullo enim modo potest solenniter veritas absque temeritate damnari. Licet namque absque temeritate damnabili valeat quis veritati contrarium opinari et de veritate dubitare, nunquam tamen veritas solenniter et publice absque damnabili temeritate damnatur. Cum igitur multorum iudicio inter articulos damnatos Parisius contineantur veritates quamplures, sequitur quod eadem universitas plures assertiones temerarie condemnavit. Istius sententiae fuerunt et sunt omnes illi qui extra Universitatem Parisiensem opiniones damnatas Parisius tenuerunt et tenent. Eiusdem etiam sententiae sunt omnes illi qui post revocationem praedictae sententiae quantum ad opiniones Thomae easdem opiniones Thomae prius damnatas nunc Parisius tenent et approbant publice vel occulte.

Master To the first objection, about the University of Paris, many replies are made. One way is that it has condemned many assertions rashly, that is, by condemning truths. For in no way can the truth be solemnly condemned without rashness. For although anyone can without culpable rashness offer an opinion which is opposed to a truth and can doubt its truth, yet a truth is never solemnly and publicly condemned without culpable rashness. Therefore since very many truth are, according to the judgement of many, contained among the articles condemned at Paris, it follows that that university condemned many assertions rashly. Of that opinion have been and are all those outside the University of Paris who have held and hold the opinions condemned at Paris. Also of that way of thinking are all those who, since the revocation of the aforesaid sentence in respect of Thomas's opinions, now publicly or secretly maintain and approve at Paris those same opinions of his that were earlier condemned.

Discipulus Miror quod dicis aliquos ante revocationem sententiae Parisiensis assertiones damnatas Parisius tenuisse, nisi forsitan ignoranter nescientes assertiones fuisse damnatas ibidem.

Student I wonder at your saying that before the revocation of that sentence of Paris some people had maintained the assertions condemned at Paris, unless perhaps in their ignorance they did not know that the assertions had been condemned there.

Magister Volo te scire quod multi scienter nonnullas assertiones damnatas Parisius occulte et publice docuerunt. Unde et per certitudinem scio quendam doctorem de Ordine Praedicatorum assertionem damnatam Parisius publice ante praedictam revocationem determinasse, et cum contra se ipsum obiceret quod dicta assertio quam tenuit erat excommunicata Parisius respondit illam excommunicationem nequaquam mare transisse. Istius etiam sententiae Magister Godfridus de Fontibus fuisse videtur, determinans et in scriptis relinquens quod articuli damnati erant corrigendi.

Master I want you to know that many people have knowingly taught secretly and publicly a number of assertions condemned at Paris. Whence I know as a certainty that a certain doctor of the Order of Preachers had publicly taught an assertion condemned at Paris before the above-mentioned revocation, and when he made the objection against himself that the assertion which he maintained had been excommunicated at Paris he replied that the said excommunication had not crossed the sea. Master Godfrey of Fontaines seems to have been of that opinion too, teaching and leaving it in his writings that the condemned articles should have been corrected.

Capitulum 22

Chapter 22

Discipulus Verba quae refers cogunt me incidentaliter interrogare, si aliquae veritates cum assertoribus earundem fuerunt Parisius excommunicatae, an tenentes Parisius veritates easdem in excommunicationis sententiam inciderunt cum sententia lata ex causa iniqua neminem involvere videatur.

Student The words which you report force me to ask you incidentally whether, if some truths together with those affirming them were excommunicated at Paris, those maintaining those truths at Paris fell under a sentence of excommunication, since a sentence imposed for an unfair reason is seen not to involve anyone.

Magister Nonnulli putant quod si dicta sententia excommunicationis aliquae assertiones catholicae excommunicatae fuerunt, ipsa nullum tenentem veritatem damnatam de facto potuit quoquomodo ligare, nec talis debuit se reputare ligatum, licet alii credentes dictam sententiam non esse iniquam ipsum tanquam excommunicatum vitare debuerunt.

Master Some people think that if some catholic assertions were excommunicated by the said sentence of excommunication, it could in fact in no way have bound anyone holding the condemned truth, nor should such a person have regarded himself as bound, although others who believe that the said sentence was not unfair should have avoided him as an excommunicate.

Hanc assertionem triplici ratione probare nituntur, quarum prima est haec. Secundum Innocentium 3, ut habetur Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, c. Per tuas, sententia excommunicationis continens intolerabilem errorem non ligat; sed excommunicare assertionem catholicam est intolerabilis error; ergo talis sententia nullum ligat.

They try to prove this assertion by three arguments of which this is the first. According to Innocent III, as we find in Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, c. Per tuas [col.906], a sentence of excommunication that contains an intolerable error is not binding; but to excommunicate a catholic assertion is an intolerable error; therefore such a sentence binds no one.

Secunda ratio est haec: nullus potest cogi ad malum; negare autem assertionem catholicam est de se malum; ergo ad hoc per nullam sententiam potest quis cogi, et per consequens sententia ad hoc cogens est nulla. Sententia autem excommunicationis qua excommunicatur catholica veritas, quantum est ex forma sententiae, cogit negare catholicam veritatem; ergo talis sententia nulla est, et per consequens neminem ligat.

The second argument is this: no one can be forced to evil; to deny a catholic assertion, however, is of itself evil; therefore no one can be forced to this by any sentence, and consequently a sentence forcing someone to this is null. However, a sentence of excommunication by which a catholic truth is excommunicated forces the denial of a catholic truth, as far as a formal sentence can do; therefore such a sentence is null and consequently is not binding on anyone.

Tertia ratio est haec: sententia haeretici neminem ligat, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Audivimus; sed si dicta sententia excommunicationis se extendebat ad catholicas veritates, ferentes eandem sententiam fuerunt haeretici, quia si dubius in fide est infidelis multo fortius damnans sententialiter veritatem catholicam haereticus est censendus; si autem ferentes dictam sententiam fuerunt haeretici ipsa nullum omnino ligavit.

 

The third argument is this: the sentence of a heretic is binding on no one, as we find in 24, q. 1, c. Audivimus [col.967]; but if the said sentence of excommunication extended to catholic truths those imposing that sentence were heretics because, if someone who doubts in a matter of faith is an unbeliever, much more is it the case that he who condemns a catholic truth in a sentence should be considered a heretic; if those imposing the said sentence were heretics, however, it did not bind anyone at all.

Capitulum 23

Chapter 23

Discipulus An excommunicantes ignoranter assertionem catholicam sint censendi haeretici postea diligenter inquiram, et ideo ad propositum revertaris et quomodo ad praefatam instantiam de Universitate Parisiensi aliter respondetur enarra.

Student I will carefully inquire later whether those unknowingly excommunicating a catholic assertion should be considered heretics, and so would you return to the argument and tell me in what other way reply is made to the above objection about the University of Paris.

Magister Sunt quidam dicentes quod dicta universitas multas assertiones temerarie excommunicavit, non quia illas assertiones putent sapere catholicam veritatem sed quia quomodo repugnent fidei orthodoxae non apparet. Alii dicunt quod ideo dicta excommunicatio fuit temeraria reputanda, quia excommunicantes potestatem quam non habebant indebite usurparunt, et ideo iuste fuit postea eadem sententia revocata. Adhuc est quarta responsio, quod episcopus Parisiensis auctoritate apostolicae sedis rite eandem tulit sententiam. Damnare autem assertionem catholicam auctoritate sedis apostolicae ad inferiorem summo pontifice potest licite pertinere.

Master There are some people who say that the said university excommunicated many assertions rashly, not because they think that those assertions smack of catholic truth but because it is not clear how they are opposed to orthodox faith. Others say that the said excommunication should have been considered rash because those who pronounced the excommunication usurped without just cause a power that they did not have, and so it was just that the sentence was later revoked. There is yet a fourth response, that the bishop of Paris rightly imposed that sentence with the authority of the apostolic see. To condemn a catholic assertion with the authority of the apostolic see, however, can licitly pertain to someone inferior to the highest pontiff.

Discipulus Si tam damnans solenniter assertionem catholicam quam revocans ritam et iustam damnationem haereticae pravitatis sit iudicandus haereticus, de quo inferius interrogationes tibi proponam, videtur necessario concedendum vel ferentes dictam sententiam excommunicationis contra opiniones Thomae vel postea revocantes eandem sunt inter haereticos computandi.

Student If both someone condemning solemnly a catholic assertion and someone revoking a right and just condemnation of heretical wickedness should be judged heretical - and I will propose some questions to you about this later - it seems that it should be granted necessarily that either those imposing the said sentence of excommunication against the opinions of Thomas or those revoking it later should be reckoned among the heretics.

Magister Quibusdam videtur quod tantum ferentes, aliis quod revocantes sunt haeretici reputandi, sed qui verius dicant sciri non potest nisi praecognito an assertiones damnatae et postea revocatae haereticae vel catholicae sint censendae.

Master It seems to some people that only the sentencers, to others [only] the revokers are be regarded as heretics, but it can not be known who is speaking more truly unless it is first known whether the assertions condemned and later revoked should be considered heretical or catholic.

Capitulum 24

Chapter 24

Discipulus De ista instantia ad praesens te non amplius intromittas, sed dic quomodo ad secundam instantiam respondetur.

Student Do not involve yourself any further with that objection now, but tell me how reply is made to the second objection.

Magister Instantia illa comprehendit duas, quarum prima est de primo archiepiscopo qui fuit Ordinis Praedicatorum. Secunda est de secundo archiepiscopo qui fuit Ordinis Minorum. De primo diversimode dicitur a diversis. Dicunt enim quidam quod damnatio sua temeraria existebat eo quod veritates, ut dicunt, condemnavit. Unde et quidam alius archiepiscopus ipsum de dicta damnatione acriter reprehendit, scribens eidem epistolam in qua manifeste asseruit quod veritates damnaverat. Multi tamen putantes ipsum veritates plures temere condemnasse quod fuerit haereticus nequaquam affirmant, quia, ut dicunt, nullam veritatem catholicam sed plures veritates philosophicas condemnavit. De assertionibus enim grammaticalibus, logicalibus et pure philosophicis in eadem damnatione se, ut asserunt, temere intromisit.

Master That objection comprises two [parts], of which the first concerns the first archbishop who was of the Order of Preachers. The second concerns the second archbishop who was of the Order of Minorites. Different people speak in different ways about the first. For some say that his condemnation was rash in that he condemned what they say are truths. Thus also a certain other archbishop [Peter of Conflans] censured him fiercely for that condemnation, writing a letter to him in which he clearly affirmed that he had condemned truths. Yet many people who think that he rashly condemned many truths do not assert that he was a heretic because, as they say, he did not condemn any catholic truth but many philosophical truths. For they affirm that in that condemnation he rashly involved himself with grammatical, logical and purely philosophical assertions.

Discipulus An iste propter dictam damnationem fuerit haereticus reputandus vel non sciri non posset nisi assertiones discuterentur quas damnavit, quod ad praesens non intendo. Sed posito quod damnasset aliquam assertionem quae in rei veritate est pure philosophica tanquam haereticam, nunquid fuisset haereticus?

Student Whether he should have been regarded as a heretic or not because of that condemnation could not be known unless the assertions which he condemned were discussed, and I do not intend to do this now. But if it is assumed that he had condemned some assertion as heretical which in truth of fact is purely philosophical, would he have been a heretic?

Magister Quidam dicunt quod sic, quia pertinaciter asserens aliquid esse de substantia fidei quod ad fidem non pertinet est haereticus iudicandus.

Master Some people say 'yes', because someone who affirms pertinaciously that something which does not pertain to the faith concerns the substance of faith should be judged a heretic.

Discipulus De hoc postea perscrutabor, et ideo ad propositum revertere principale et dic an aliqui alii praeter archiepiscopum de quo dixisti censuerint fuisse temerariam damnationem praedictam.

Student I will investigate this later, and so return to the main argument and say whether anyone else besides the archbishop you spoke about [i.e. Peter of Conflans] considered that the aforesaid condemnation was rash.

Magister Plures alii ipsam fuisse temerariam reputarunt. Plures enim doctores et scholares Parisienses assertiones damnatas a dicto archiepiscopo publice tenuerunt. Nam opinionem Thomae de unitate formae in homine inter alias condemnavit, et tamen tu scis quod plures Parisius ipsam publice tenent et defendunt ac docent, et ita est de multis aliis.

Master Many others reckoned that it was rash. For many doctors and students at Paris publicly held the assertions condemned by the said archbishop [i.e. Robert of Kilwardby]. For among other opinions of Thomas, he condemned the one about the unity of form in a man, and yet you know that many people in Paris publicly hold, defend, and teach it; and so it is with many others.

Discipulus Dic aliam responsionem ad instantiam secundam.

Student Tell me another response to the second objection.

Magister Alii dicunt quod dictus archiepiscopus articulos illos temere condemnavit non quia inter illos veritates aliquae sint damnatae sed quia sibi potestatem damnandi quam non habuit usurpavit.

Master Others say that the said archbishop condemned those articles rashly not because among them some truths were condemned but because he usurped to himself a power of condemning that he did not have.

Discipulus Isti reprehendendo dictam damnationem primo fundamento solummodo, scilicet quod nullus inferior summo pontifice habet potestatem aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam condemnandi, inniti videntur.

Student In censuring his condemnation they seem to be relying on this one principle only, namely that no one inferior to the highest pontiff has the power to condemn any assertion as heretical.

Magister Non est, ut dicis, quia isti non solum innituntur fundamento praefato, sed etiam asserunt quod assertiones pure philosophicae quae ad theologiam non pertinent non sunt ab aliquo solenniter condemnandae seu interdicendae, quia in talibus quilibet esse debet liber ut libere dicat quid sibi placet; et ideo quia dictus archiepiscopus damnavit et interdixit opiniones grammaticales, logicales et pure philosophicas sua sententia fuit temeraria reputanda.

Master It is not as you say, because they do not rely only on the aforesaid principle, but they also affirm that purely philosophical assertions which do not pertain to theology should not be solemnly condemned or forbidden by anyone, because in connection with such [assertions] anyone at all ought to be free to say freely what pleases him; and therefore because the said archbishop condemned and forbad grammatical, logical and purely philosophical opinions his sentence should be regarded as rash.

Discipulus An liceat alicui tales assertiones damnare nolo ad praesens inquirere, sed indica si ad saepe dictam instantiam aliter respondetur.

Student I do not want to inquire now whether anyone is permitted to condemn such assertions, but indicate if any other reply is made to the often-cited objection.

Magister Sunt quidam dicentes quod quilibet episcopus habet potestatem damnandi haereses, ex quo sibi patenter innotescit quod fidei obviant orthodoxae.

Master Some people say that any bishop has the power to condemn heresies from the fact that it is clear to him that they are opposed to orthodox faith.

Discipulus Isti negant quod prius probasti, scilicet quod sola apostolica sedes potest terminare quaestionem motam de fide. Unde non curo quod plus loquaris de isto archiepiscopo, sed dic quid dicitur de alio.

Student They deny what you proved before, that is, that only the apostolic see can determine a question raised about faith. Therefore I do not care for you to speak further about that archbishop, but set out what is said about the other one [i.e. John Pecham].

Magister Quidam putant ipsum temerarie condemnasse opiniones Thomae quia continent veritatem, quidam autem quia ad eum quamcunque assertionem damnare minime pertinebat. Quidam vero dicunt quod rite damnavit quia illae opiniones fidei obviant orthodoxae, eo quod tota opinio de unitate formae in homine doctrinae ecclesiae manifeste repugnat quae docet quod idem fuit corpus Christi vivum et mortuum. Et quilibet episcopus habet potestatem damnandi assertiones doctrinae ecclesiae repugnantes.

Master Some people think that he condemned Thomas's opinions rashly because they contain the truth, some, however, because it did not pertain to him to condemn any opinion at all. But indeed some say that he condemned them rightly because those opinions are opposed to orthodox faith in that the whole opinion about the unity of form in a man is clearly opposed to the teaching of the church which teaches that Christ's body was the same alive and dead. And any bishop at all has the power to condemn assertions opposed to the teaching of the church.

Capitulum 25

Chapter 25

Discipulus Narra quomodo respondetur ad tertiam instantiam de Ordine Minorum qui damnauit doctrinam Petri Iohannis.

Student Tell me how reply is made to the third objection about the Order of Minorites which condemned the teaching of Peter John.

Magister Ad illam multipliciter respondetur. Ad cuius evidentiam debes scire quod de doctrina Petri Iohannis diversi diversimode sentiunt. Quidam enim putant totam doctrinam suam esse catholicam. Quidam aestimant quod nihil in ea invenitur quod haeresim sapiat manifestam, multa tamen falsa et fantastica continet et praecipue cum futura praedicit. Alii reputant quod haereses continet manifestas.

Master There are many replies to this. To make this clear you should know that different people think differently about Peter John's teaching. For some people think that all his teaching is catholic. Some think that nothing is found in it which smacks of manifest heresy, yet that it contains many false and fantastic features, especially when he predicts future events. Others reckon that it contains manifest heresies.

Primi et secundi tenent quod Ordo Minorum dictam doctrinam temerarie condemnavit, immo nonnulli putant quod damnantes incurrerint haereticam pravitatem quia sententialiter damnare catholicam veritatem efficit damnantem haereticum pertinacem. Tertii variantur, quidam enim licet reputent doctrinam Petri Iohannis esse haereticam, tamen asserunt quod Ordo antedictus temere condemnavit eandem potestatem quam non habuit usurpando. Alii dicunt quod condemnantes nequaquam temere processerunt quia processerunt auctoritate papae. Dicunt enim quod Nicolaus 4 eandem doctrinam mandaverit condemnari. Tertii dicunt specialiter de capitulo Massiliensi quod non temere condemnavit praefatam doctrinam quia solum damnavit, vel potius damnatam declaravit seu pronunciavit, illa quae prius per concilium generale vel per aliquem pontificem Romanum damnata fuerunt vel quae aperte contradicebant Scripturae Divinae.

The first and second groups hold that the Order of Minorites condemned the said teaching rashly, indeed some of them think that the condemners fell into heretical wickedness because to condemn a catholic truth in a sentence makes the condemner a pertinacious heretic. The third group is diversified, for although some of them regard Peter John's teaching as heretical, yet they assert that the aforesaid Order condemned it rashly in usurping a power which it did not have. Others say the condemners did not proceed rashly because they proceeded with the authority of the pope. For they say that Nicholas IV ordered that his teaching be condemned. A third group says about the chapter at Marseilles in particular that it did not condemn that teaching rashly because it condemned, or rather declared or pronounced condemned, only those things which had been condemned previously by a general council or by some Roman pontiff or which were clearly in contradiction with divine scripture.

Discipulus Ista ultima sententia magis mihi placet pro eo praecipue quod nec Ordini antedicto attribuit usurpasse potestatem quam non habuit nec damnationi domini Iohannis papae 22 noscitur obviare, et ideo ipsam quantum potes fulcire nitaris.

Student That last opinion pleases me more, especially because it did not charge that Order with usurping power which it did not have and because it is not known to be opposed to the condemnation by the lord, Pope John XXII, and therefore try to support it as well as you can.

Magister Istam sententiam declarare non possem nisi articulos condemnatos et acta Ordinis saepedicti ac etiam doctrinam praefati Petri de qua dicti articuli sunt accepti haberem. Tu autem scis quod nullum habeo praedictorum, et forte illi de Ordine nollent mihi communicare eadem.

Master I could not make that opinion clear unless I had the condemned articles, the acts of the above Order and also the teaching of Peter from which the said articles have been taken. You know, however, that I have none of those and perhaps the members of the Order would refuse to share them with me.

Capitulum 26

Chapter 26

Discipulus Ex quo istam ultimam sententiam declarare non potes, declarationem eiusdem usque ad aliud tempus, si forte praedicta ab eodem Ordine habere potueris, differamus, et dic an aliqui teneant quod aliquis inferior summo pontifice possit interdicere et praecipere assertiones aliquas non teneri, licet eas damnare non possit.

Student Because you can not make that last opinion clear let us defer its clarification until another time, if by chance you can get the above things from that Order. [See Significant Variants, para. 6.] And tell me whether anyone holds that someone inferior to the highest pontiff can forbid some assertions and order them not to be held, even if he can not condemn them.

Magister Sunt nonnulli putantes quod licet nec aliquod collegium inferius concilio generali nec aliquis inferior summo pontifice valeat licite quamcumque assertionem non damnatam explicite tamquam haereticam excommunicare vel damnare, licet tamen collegiis aliis et praelatis inferioribus papa assertiones erroneas ex causa rationabili interdicere et praecipere quod nullatenus publice defendantur. Et ideo dicunt quod si Universitas Parisiensis et Cantuarienses archiepiscopi saepefati ex causa rationabili opiniones Thomae interdixissent, tantummodo praecipiendo quod publice eas nullus defenderet aut doceret Parisius et ad sententiam excommunicationis et damnationis opinionum earundem nullatenus processissent nil temerarium commisissent.

Master There are some who think that although no gathering less than a general council nor anyone inferior to the highest pontiff can licitly excommunicate or condemn as heretical any assertion that has not been explicitly condemned, yet other gatherings and prelates inferior to the pope are permitted for a reasonable cause to forbid erroneous assertions and to order that they not be defended publicly. And therefore they say that if the University of Paris and the oft-mentioned archbishops of Canterbury had forbidden Thomas's opinions for a reasonable cause, only ordering that no one was to defend or teach them publicly at Paris, and had not proceeded to a sentence of excommunication and condemnation of those opinions, they would have done nothing rash.

Discipulus Quae potest esse causa rationabilis praecipiendi opiniones aliquas publice non teneri?

Student What can be a reasonable cause for ordering that some opinions not be held publicly?

Magister Dicunt quod pro scandalo et schismate aliisque malis et periculis evitandis possunt opiniones aliquae etiam verae quandoque rationibiliter interdici.

Master They say that any opinions, even sometimes true ones, can be reasonably forbidden for the purpose of avoiding scandal, schism and other evils and dangers.

Discipulus Nunquid fuit unquam aliquod scandalum de opinionibus Thomae?

Student Was there ever any scandal about Thomas's opinions?

Magister Saepe audivi a multis Anglicis enarrari quod de opinione Thomae de unitate formae quando conclusiones quae sequuntur ex ipsa explicabantur scandalum fuit in Anglicano populo infinitum.

Master I have often heard it said by many Englishmen that when conclusions which follow from Thomas's opinion about the unity of form were explained there was endless scandal among the English people.

Discipulus Quae fuerunt illae conclusiones sequentes ex opinione de unitate formae quae expresse scandalizabant populum?

Student What were those conclusions following from that opinion about the unity of form which expressly scandalised the people?

Magister Secundum istos subscriptae sunt. Quod corpus Christi non fuit idem numero vivum et mortuum; quod corpus quod iacuit in sepulchro Christi triduo nunquam fuit corpus Christi dum viveret; quod corpora et reliquiae quae a fidelibus pro corporibus sanctorum et reliquiis venerantur nunquam fuerunt corpora nec partes sanctorum dum viverent; quod corpora mortua nunquam fuerunt corpora viventium; quod caro mortua nunquam fuit viva.

Master According to them, they are those written below. That Christ's body was not the same in number alive and dead; that the body that lay in Christ's tomb over the three days was never Christ's body when he was alive; that the bodies and relics that are venerated by believers as the bodies and relics of saints were never the bodies and parts of the saints when they were alive; that dead bodies were never the bodies of people alive; that dead flesh was never living.

Discipulus Satis exemplificasti de conclusionibus sequentibus ex opinione de unitate formae substantialis, et ideo ad propositum redeundo explica rationes, si quae sunt, pro assertione praedicta.

Student You have sufficiently exemplified the conclusions which follow from that opinion about the unity of substantial form, and so returning to our plan set out the arguments for the above assertion, if there are any.

Magister Assertionem suam probant isti tali ratione. Omne illud quod potest licite praetermitti a subditis potest ex causa rationabili a praelatis et iurisdictionem habentibus super subditos interdici; nam qui praeest potest et debet in omnibus utilitati omnium providere et periculis obviare, et in talibus licitis et honestis oportet subditos obedire, ut colligitur ex sacris canonibus 11, q. 3, c. Si autem et c. Si quis et c. Absit; sed opiniones aliquas non defendere nec docere est licitum, imo quandoque necessarium et expediens, ergo et potest a praelatis et collegiis iurisdictionem habentibus ex causa rationabili interdici.

Master They prove their assertion by the following argument. Everything that can licitly be omitted by subjects can for a reasonable cause be forbidden by prelates and by those having jurisdiction over the subjects; for he who is in command can and should make provision for everyone's benefit in all matters and prevent dangers, and it behoves their subjects to obey them in permitted and honest matters of this kind, as we gather from the sacred canons, 11, q. 3, c. Si autem [col.646], c. Si quis [col.646] and c. Absit [col.647]; but there are some opinions which it is permissible, indeed sometimes it is necessary and expedient, not to defend or teach, and therefore this can also be forbidden for a reasonable cause by prelates and colleges having jurisdiction.

Discipulus Secundum hanc rationem liceret quandoque praelatis interdicere veritates. Nam quandoque tacere veritatem est expediens.

Student According to this argument prelates would sometimes be permitted to forbid truths, for it is sometimes expedient to be silent about the truth.

Magister Interdicere veritatem omnibus et pro omni tempore nemini licet secundum istos, aliquibus tamen et pro aliquo tempore imperare ne aliquas veritates docere praesumant licet, sicut dixit Apostolus, "Mulieri docere non permitto", et Dominus in evangelio ait, "Nolite dare sanctum canibus; neque mittatis margaritas ante porcos." Ex quibus colligitur quod nec omnibus nec omni tempore veritatem expedit praedicare aut docere vel defensare.

Master According to them no one is permitted to forbid the truth to everyone and for all time, yet it is permissible to order some people for some time not to presume to teach some truths, just as the Apostle said [1 Tim. 2:12], "I suffer not a woman to teach", and in the gospel [Matt. 7:6] the Lord said, "Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine." We gather from these words that it is not expedient for everyone all the time to preach, teach or defend the truth.

Discipulus Ex hoc videtur quod nulli licet opiniones seu assertiones quas damnare nequit omnibus et pro omni tempore interdicere, licet aliquibus et pro aliquo tempore ipsas licite interdicere possit.

Student It seems from this that no one is permitted to forbid to everyone for all time opinions or assertions which he can not condemn, although he can licitly forbid them to some people for some time.

Magister Hanc conclusionem ipsi concedunt, et ideo signanter dicunt quod ex causa rationabili licet inferioribus aliquas assertiones interdicere, per hoc insinuantes quod cessante causa cesset interdictum.

Master They grant this conclusion, and therefore it is significant that they say that inferiors are permitted to forbid some assertions "for a reasonable cause", implying by this that when the cause ceases the forbidding ceases.

Capitulum 27

Chapter 27

Discipulus Licet circa praedicta mihi multae dubitationes occurrant, illis tamen omissis ad intentum principale revertor. Mihi autem videtur probabile quod nullus inferior papa potest aliquam assertionem non damnatam explicite tanquam haereticam excommunicare vel damnare explicite, sed adhuc ignoro cui fundamento papa vel concilium generale in damnando explicite aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam debet inniti. Unde de hoc quid sentiunt literati dicere non postponas.

Student Although many doubts about the foregoing occur to me, nevertheless I will put them aside and return to the main argument. It seems probable to me, however, that no one inferior to the pope can excommunicate or condemn explicitly as heretical any assertion not explicitly condemned, but I still do not know on what principle a pope or a general council should rely in explicitly condemning some assertion as heretical. Would you therefore not delay telling me what the learned think about this.

On what basis can a doctrine be condemned as heresy?

Magister Circa interrogationem tuam opiniones contrarias recitabo. Sunt enim quidam dicentes quod tantae auctoritatis est papa quod ad placitum potest quamcunque assertionem tanquam haereticam condemnare, et isti videntur esse imitatores sequacium Sergii papae, persecutoris papae Formosi, qui, ut in quodam libro antiquissima litera legitur, in tantum volebant papam extollere quod asserebant papam non posse damnari sed quod quicquid faceret salvaretur. Ita isti dicunt quod quicquid papa diffinit esse tenendum omnes catholicos oportet credere et tenere. Hinc dicit glossa dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum, "Illud quod papa approbat vel reprobat, nos approbare vel reprobare debemus."

Master I will recite opposing opinions about your question. For there are some people who say that the pope is of such great authority that as it pleases him he can condemn any assertion as heretical, and they seem to be imitators of the followers of Pope Sergius, the persecutor of Pope Formosus. As we read in a certain book with a very old script, they wanted to exalt the pope so much that they asserted that a pope can not be damned but would be saved whatever he did. Thus they say that it is necessary for all catholics to believe and hold whatever a pope defines should be held. Hence, the gloss on dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum [s. v. reprobantur; col.80] says, "That of which a pope approves or disapproves, we ought to approve or disapprove."

Discipulus Ista assertio sonat quod papa non potest haereticari, de quo postea interrogationem specialem habebo. Ideo de hoc pro nunc transeas, et narra ut promisisti assertionem contrariam.

Student That assertion suggests that the pope can not be a heretic, a matter about which I will have a particular question later. Would you pass over this now, therefore, and set out the opposing assertion, as you promised.

Magister Alii asserunt manifeste quod papa et concilium generale ac etiam universalis ecclesia, si recte damnet aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam stricte loquendo, de assertione haeretica uni vel pluribus de tribus fundamentis debet inniti et se patenter fundare.

Master Others assert clearly that if a pope, a general council and also the universal church rightly condemn some assertion as heretical strictly speaking, they should rely and clearly base themselves in connection with that heretical assertion on one or more of three principles.

Primum est Scriptura Sacra et isti fundamento innitebantur concilia generalia principalia haereses Arrii, Macedonii, Nestorii, Euticis et Diostori condemnando. Sicut enim aliqua illorum conciliorum, condendo symbola, in auctoritate Scripturae Divinae se fundabant, testante Isidoro qui, ut habetur dist. 15, c. 1, ait, "Sancti patres in concilio Niceno de omni orbe terrarum convenientes iuxta fidem evangelicam et apostolicam secundum post apostolos symbolum tradiderunt", ita haereses damnando pro fundamento sacras literas posuerunt. Sic etiam Alexander 3 damnando assertionem dicentem quod Christus non est aliquid secundum quod homo in hac veritate a Scriptura Divina accepta, "Christus est verus Deus et homo", se fundavit. Sic etiam sancti doctores haereses reprobando ipsas per Scripturas Sacras convincere conabantur, sicut ex libris eorum patenter habetur. Unde et Isidorus, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Quidam autem, plures haereses per Scripturam Sacram arguit evidenter.

The first is sacred scripture, and the earliest general councils relied on this principle in condemning the heresies of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Euticis and Diostorus. For just as some of those councils based themselves on the authority of divine scripture in producing the creeds, as Isidore attests when he says, as we find in dist 15, c. 1 [col.34], "The holy fathers coming together at the council of Nicea from all the lands on earth handed on the second creed after the apostles in accordance with evangelical and apostolic faith", so also in condemning heresies they laid down sacred letters as their principle. So too, in condemning the assertion that says that Christ is nothing as a man Alexander III based himself on this truth taken from divine scripture, "Christ is true God and true man". So too, when refuting heresies holy doctors tried to convict them through the sacred scriptures, as is clearly found from their books. Hence, as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Quidam autem [col.1001], Isidore too clearly censured many heresies through sacred scripture.

Secundum fundamentum est doctrina apostolica, quae in scriptis apostolicis non redacta sed relatione succedentium fidelium vel in scripturis fide dignis ad nos pervenit, et isti fundamento innititur Nicolaus papa qui, ut ex capitulo eius in decretis dist. 22 inserto patenter colligitur, diffinit haereticum fore censendum dicere Romanam ecclesiam non esse caput omnium ecclesiarum. Cum tamen de hoc in Scripturis Sacris mentio minime habeatur sed hoc apostoli tradiderunt et docuerunt fideles, quae doctrina relatione fidelium sibimet succedentium et scripturis sanctorum patrum ad nos pervenit. Pro hoc faciunt rationes ac auctoritates quas supra, cum tractarem interrogationem tuam quae veritates sunt catholicae reputandae, adduxi.

The second principle is apostolic teaching, which has reached us not rendered in apostolic writings but by the account of succeeding believers or in trustworthy writings. As we clearly gather from his chapter inserted in dist. 22 [c. Omnes, col.73], Pope Nicholas relies on this principle when he determines that it should be considered heretical to say that the Roman church is not the head of all churches. Yet since no mention is found of this in the sacred scriptures, rather the apostles handed this on and taught it to believers, this teaching has reached us in the account of the believers who followed them and in the writings of the holy fathers. The arguments and texts which I brought forward above when I was investigating your question, "Which truths should be regarded as catholic?" tell in favour of this.

Tertium fundamentum est revelatio vel inspiratio nova divina. Si enim aliqua veritas aeterna de his quae pertinent ad salutem de novo revelaretur ecclesiae, illa esset tanquam catholica approbanda et omnem falsitatem ei contrariam posset ecclesia et etiam papa tanquam haereticam condemnare. Et quamvis isti exemplum nesciant invenire, quod unquam ecclesia aliquam haeresim condemnando se in tali revelatione vel inspiratione fundaverit, tamen dicunt quod hoc non est impossibile quia posset Deus, si sibi placeret, multas veritates catholicas noviter revelare vel inspirare.

The third principle is a new divine revelation or inspiration. For if any eternal truth about those things that pertain to salvation were newly revealed to the church it would be approved as catholic, and the church, and also the pope, could condemn as heretical every falsity opposed to it. And although they do not know how to find an example, that in condemning some heresy the church has ever based itself on such a revelation or inspiration, yet they say that this is not impossible because if it were pleasing to him God could newly reveal or inspire many catholic truths.

Discipulus Quid si papa vel generale etiam concilium dicat sibi aliquam veritatem esse revelatam a Deo vel etiam inspiratam? Nunquid alii fideles credere astringuntur?

Student What if a pope or even a general council says that some truth had been revealed to it, or, also, inspired in it, by God? Are other believers bound to believe?

Magister Dicunt isti quod absque miraculo manifesto non est eis credendum quia non sufficit nude asserere quod est eis veritas revelata vel etiam inspirata, sed oportet quod talem revelationem seu inspirationem miraculi operatione confirment aperta.

Master They say that they should not be believed without an obvious miracle, because it is not enough to assert barely that a truth has been revealed to them or even inspired in them, but it is necessary that they confirm a revelation or inspiration of this kind by the clear working of a miracle.

Discipulus Quid dicerent isti si omnes christiani nullo excepto aliquam veritatem tanquam catholicam firmiter acceptarent quam tamen nec ex Scripturis Divinis nec ex aliqua doctrina ecclesiae praecedenti possent ostendere?

Student What would they say if all christians with no exception were firmly to accept some truth as catholic which nevertheless they could not show from the divine scriptures nor from any earlier teaching of the church?

Magister Dicunt quod talis veritas esset tanquam catholica acceptanda quia talis concors adhaesio omnium christianorum nullo excepto alicui assertioni huiusmodi sine miraculo non posset contingere. Cum enim omnes fideles firmissime teneant quod iuxta promissionem Salvatoris Matthaei ultimo, "Vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi", ecclesia universalis nunquam errabit, constat quod sine inspiratione divina speciali nunquam ecclesia universalis assertioni quae non dependet ex doctrina ecclesiae praecedenti firmiter adhaerebit, et ita si unquam tali veritati adhaerebit miraculose adhaerebit, et ideo tunc miraculum fieri esset credendum.

Master They say that such a truth should be accepted as catholic because such a harmonious agreement of all christians with no exception could not occur in connection with any assertion of this kind without a miracle. For since all believers most firmly hold, in accordance with the Saviour's promise in the last chapter of Matthew [28:20], "I am with you always, to the end of the age", that the church universal will never err, it is certain that without special divine inspiration the universal church will never cling firmly to an assertion which does not derive from earlier teaching of the church, and so if it does ever cling to such a truth it will cling miraculously, and therefore it should be believed that a miracle has happened.

Discipulus Quid sentiunt si omnes christiani praeter paucos vel unum assertioni tali quae ex doctrina ecclesiae praecedenti probari non posset noviter adhaererent?

Student What do they think if all christians except a few or one were newly to adhere to an assertion of this kind which could not be proved from the previous teaching of the church?

Magister Dicunt quod si unus solus dissentiret non esset talis veritas acceptanda quia in uno solo potest stare tota fides ecclesiae, quemadmodum tempore mortis Christi tota fides catholica in sola beata virgine remanebat, nec est credendum quod omni tempore post tempora apostolorum sint aliqui magis accepti Deo quam fuerunt apostoli ante mortem Christi. Si igitur Christus post crucifixionem suam permisit cunctos apostolos a fide catholica deviare et solam beatam virginem firmiter permanere in fide temerarium est asserere quod nunquam ante finem mundi Deus permitteret totam multitudinem christianorum praeter unum a fide recedere orthodoxa.

Master They say that if only one person were to dissent, such a truth should not be accepted because the whole faith of the church can abide in one single person, just as in the time of Christ's death the whole catholic faith endured in the blessed virgin alone, and it should not be believed that at any time after the times of the apostles some people were more accepted by God than the apostles were before the death of Christ. If therefore after his crucifixion Christ permitted all the apostles to turn aside from the catholic faith and the blessed virgin alone to endure firmly in the faith it is rash to assert that never before the end of the world would God permit the whole multitude of christians except one to withdraw from orthodox faith.

Discipulus Ista nescio improbare, sed videtur quod ad hoc quod omnes catholici teneantur alicui veritati noviter revelatae firmiter adhaerere non sufficit eam operatione miraculi confirmare cum per malos et infideles fiant miracula, sicut ex verbis evangelii Matthei 7 colligitur, ut apparet Christo dicente, "Multi dicent mihi in illa die, Domine, Domine, nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus, et in nomine tuo daemonia eiecimus, et in nomine tuo virtutes multas fecimus? Et tunc confitebor illis, quia nunquam novi vos," hoc est nunquam approbavi vos. Huic etiam concordat glossa Extra, De haereticis, c. Cum ex iniuncto dicens, "Quandoque miracula fiunt per malos."

Student I do not know how to disprove these things, but it seems that for all catholics to be bound to adhere firmly to some newly revealed truth it is not enough to confirm it with the working of a miracle since miracles are performed by the wicked and by unbelievers, as we gather, so it seems, from the words of the gospel of Matthew, 7[:22-3] when Christ says, "Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out demons in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?' And then I will profess unto them, 'I never knew you.'", that is I never approved you. The gloss on Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum ex iniuncto [col.1678, s.v. miraculi] agrees with this too, saying, "Sometimes miracles are performed by the wicked."

Magister Ad istam obiectionem respondent dicentes quod, licet per malos fiant miracula, nunquam tamen fit verum miraculum ad confirmationem falsitatis asserte per malos; et ideo quando docent aliquem errorem, ad confirmationem illius erroris nunquam fit verum miraculum; sed si praedicant veritatem quamvis sint mali fiunt aliquando miracula ad confirmationem veritatis. Sic Iudas proditor quamvis fuerit malus quia tamen docuit veritatem miracula faciebat. Quando ergo fit miraculum verum ad assertionem aliquam confirmandam tenendum est indubie quod talis assertio pro vera debet haberi sive illi quibus revelata fuerit inter bonos sive inter malos fuerint computandi.

Master They reply to that objection by saying that although miracles are performed by the wicked, yet a true miracle is never performed to confirm a falsity asserted by the wicked; and therefore when they teach some error a true miracle is never performed to confirm it; but if they preach the truth they sometimes perform miracles to confirm this truth even if they are evil. So although the traitor Judas was evil he nevertheless performed miracles because he taught the truth. Therefore when a true miracle is performed to confirm some assertion, it should be held without doubt that such an assertion should be considered the truth whether those to whom it was revealed should be reckoned among the good or among the evil.

Discipulus Ista responsio est apparens. Unde quae dixisti de ista secunda sententia sufficiant; sed si nosti alios aliter dicere non differas indicare.

Student That reply is clear. Let what you have said about that second opinion be enough, therefore; but do not postpone making known to me if you know that others say something else.

Magister Nonnulli putant quod tam concilium generale quam etiam papa in damnando aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam in sola Scriptura Sacra debet se fundare, quia solae veritates in Scriptura Sacra contentae et quae sequuntur ex eis catholicae sunt censendae. De hac sententia tractatus praecedens te poterit informare.

Master Some people think that both a general council and also a pope should base themselves on sacred scripture alone when condemning some assertion as heretical because only truths contained in sacred scripture and those which follow from them should be considered catholic. The preceding treatment can inform you about this opinion.

Capitulum 28

Chapter 28

Discipulus Satis adverto ex praecedentibus quomodo ista sententia fulciri poterit et quomodo etiam poterit improbari, et ideo ad quaestionem aliam me converto. Adhuc enim nescio an ad hoc quod catholici aliquam assertionem habere debeant pro damnata explicite oporteat in damnatione talem vel aequipollentem modificationem seu specificationem vel determinationem tanquam haereticam vel contrariam catholica veritati adiungere taliter vel aequipollenter proferendo sententiam, "Talem assertionem tanquam haereticam vel catholicae veritati inimicam damnamus." Unde circa hoc unam vel plures narra sententias.

Student I perceive sufficiently from what you have said how that opinion can be strengthened and also how it can be disproved, and so I turn to another question. For I still do not know whether, in order for catholics to have to consider some assertion as explicitly condemned, it is necessary in the condemnation to add this or some equivalent modification, specification or determination of it as "heretical" or "opposed to catholic truth", by publishing a sentence like the following, or something equivalent, "We condemn such an assertion as heretical or as dangerous to catholic truth." Tell me therefore one or more opinions about this.

Magister Ad hoc dupliciter respondetur. Quidam enim dicunt quod talis determinatio vel modificatio seu specificatio in sententia est ponenda ad hoc ut assertio improbata pro haeresi damnata explicite habeatur, quia dicunt quod assertio quae non est damnata tanquam haeretica pro haeretica haberi non debet. Alii dicunt quod ad hoc quod aliqua assertio pro haeretica habeatur sufficit absque tali determinatione vocali quod ipsa falsa assertio reprobetur vel veritas contraria explicite approbetur et quod talis approbatio vel reprobatio fundetur in catholica veritate. Sic Alexander 3 reprobans et interdicens ne aliquis dicat Christum non esse aliquid secundum quod homo suam reprobationem fundavit in veritate catholica ista, videlicet Christus est verus Deus et verus homo. Et ideo voluit quod dicta assertio pro haeretica haberetur licet talem determinationem tanquam haereticam condemnamus vocaliter in sua prohibitione nequaquam expresserit.

Master This is replied to in two ways. For some people say that such a determination, modification or specification should be put in the sentence in order that the rejected assertion be considered as an explicitly condemned heresy, because they say that an assertion that has not been condemned as heretical should not be considered as heretical. Others say that for some assertion to be considered as heretical it is enough that the false assertion itself be rejected or its opposing truth explicitly be approved without such a determination in words and that such an approval or rejection be based on catholic truth. So when Alexander III forbad and rejected anyone's saying that Christ is nothing as a man, he based his rejection on this catholic truth, that Christ is true God and true man. And therefore he wanted the said assertion to be considered heretical, although in his prohibition he did not vocally express a determination such as, "We condemn it as heretical".

Hoc etiam ratione probatur. Nam veritas explicite approbata et in veritate catholica fundata pro catholica debet haberi; ergo et falsitas contraria debet haeretica iudicari; sed sive approbetur veritas sive damnetur contraria falsitas, semper veritas approbatur quia reprobatio unius contradictoriarum est alterius approbatio et econverso; ergo talis assertio contraria veritati in fide fundatae catholica haeretica est censenda et pro damnata explicite est habenda.

This is also proved by argument. For an explicitly approved truth which is based on catholic truth should be considered as catholic; its opposing falsehood therefore should be judged as heretical; but whether a truth be approved or its opposing falsehood condemned, the truth is always approved because the rejection of one of [a pair] of contradictories involves the approval of the other, and vice versa; therefore an assertion of a kind that is opposed to a truth based on catholic faith, should be considered heretical and accounted condemned.

Capitulum 29

Chapter 29

Discipulus Adhuc habeo quod de haeresum damnatione interrogem. Mihi enim apparet quod omnis error qualitercunque sive patenter sive latenter Scripturae Divinae obvians et repugnans numero haeresum aggregetur; constat autem quod theologi de his quae spectant ad Scripturam Sacram contrarie opinantur, qui tamen omnes opiniones suas Scriptura Divina fulcire nituntur et per eandem Scripturam Sacram opiniones contrarias reprobare moliuntur; ergo aliquae dictarum opinionum contrariarum numero haeresum aggregantur. Nunquid ergo papa damnabiliter peccat negligendo huiusmodi haereses condemnare?

Student There is something further I will ask about the condemnation of heresies. For it seems to me that every error that is opposed to and inconsistent with divine scripture in any way at all, whether openly or secretly, may be added to the number of the heresies; it is certain however that theologians offer opposed opinions about those matters that pertain to sacred scripture, while nonetheless striving to support all their opinions with divine scripture and trying to reject opposed opinions through the same sacred scripture; some of these said opposed opinions, therefore, are added to the number of the heresies. Does a pope sin culpably, therefore, by neglecting to condemn heresies of this kind?

Is a pope to blame if he does not condemn the heresies of well-intentioned theologians?

Magister Quidam dicunt quod papa in nullo peccat permittendo theologos huiusmodi assertiones quae sunt in rei veritate haereticae opinando tenere, quod tali ratione videtur posse probari. Permittere licita non est peccatum, cum quandoque absque peccato illicita permittantur; sed huiusmodi errores qui non sunt damnati explicite opinando tenere est licitum, quia talis opinio, quamdiu opinans paratus est corrigi, opinantem non reddit haereticum; ergo absque peccato permittit papa theologos huiusmodi errores qui in rei veritate sunt haereses opinando tenere.

Master Some people say that the pope does not sin at all in allowing theologians to hold as their opinion assertions of this kind which are in truth of fact heretical, and this seems provable by the following argument. It is not heretical to allow what is permissible since sometimes what is impermissible is allowed without sin; but it is permissible to hold as an opinion errors of this kind which have not been condemned explicitly because such an opinion does not make the one who holds it a heretic as long as he is prepared to be corrected; [See Significant Variants, para. 7.] the pope is without sin, therefore, in allowing theologians to hold as their opinion errors of this kind which are in truth of fact heresies.

Alii sentiunt quod plures summi pontifices damnabiliter in hoc peccaverunt permittendo haereses huiusmodi etiam opinando teneri. Quod probant primo sic: non solum haeretici sed etiam haereses sunt de ecclesia exstirpandae teste concilio generali quod, prout habetur Extra, De haereticis, c. Excommunicamus, episcopos indicat deponendos qui super expurgando de suis diocesibus haereticae pravitatis fermento negligentes fuerint vel remissi; ille ergo ad quem spectat ex officio sibi iniuncto haereses exstirpare si negligens fuerit vel remissus de damnabili remissione vel negligentia excusari non potest; sed ad summum pontificem spectat totam ecclesiam de haeresibus non solum iam damnatis explicite sed etiam aliis quibuscunque purgare; ergo qui tales haereses sustinuerunt teneri vel doceri damnabiliter peccaverunt.

Others think that many highest pontiffs have sinned culpably in allowing heresies of this kind to be held even as an opinion. They prove this first as follows: not only should heretics be rooted out of the church but also heresies, as the general council found in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus [col.1685] attests; it indicates that bishops who have been negligent or remiss about purging their dioceses of the leaven of heretical wickedness should be deposed; if therefore he to whom it pertains in accordance with the office with which he is charged to root out heresies has been negligent or remiss, he can not be excused from culpable negligence or laxness; but it pertains to the highest pontiff to purge the whole church of heresies, not only those already explicitly condemned but also any others at all; those who have supported the holding or teaching of such heresies, therefore, have sinned culpably.

Discipulus Non videtur quod papa teneatur de novis haeresibus quae non sunt damnatae explicite purgare ecclesiam; sed sufficit sibi quod eam purget vel purgatam conservet ab omni pravitate haeretica explicite iam damnata.

Student It does not seem that the pope is bound to purge the church of new heresies that have not been condemned explicitly, but it is enough for him to purge it or keep it purged of every heretical wickedness already condemned explicitly.

Magister Hoc improbant isti, dicentes quod papa qui haereses insurgentes de novo negligit improbare et damnare apostolos et sanctos patres qui haereses pullulantes celerrime damnaverunt nullatenus imitatur, quorum tamen vestigiis inhaerere oportet Romanum pontificem si eis vult in coelesti patria aggregari. Peccaverunt ergo summi pontifices qui damnare huiusmodi haereses neglexerunt.

Master They reject this, saying that a pope who neglects to oppose and condemn heresies which newly rise up is not imitating the apostles and holy fathers who very swiftly condemned heresies as they came forth. Yet it is necessary for the Roman pontiff to cleave to their footsteps if he wants to join them in the heavenly homeland. Highest pontiffs who have neglected to condemn heresies of this kind, therefore, have sinned.

Discipulus Apostoli et sancti patres ideo haereses damnaverunt quia invenerunt pertinaces huiusmodi haeresum assertores. Cum ergo theologi haeresum quas putant veritati catholicae minime obviare pertinaces non fuerunt assertores, non fuerunt haereses quas opinando solummodo docuerunt per Romanos pontifices condemnandae.

Student The apostles and holy fathers condemned heresies because they found pertinacious assertors of heresies of this kind. Therefore since theologians have not been pertinacious assertors of heresies which they think are not opposed to catholic truth, the heresies which they have taught only as an opinion should not be condemned by Roman pontiffs.

Magister Istam excusationem Romanorum pontificum isti dupliciter impugnare. Primo quia nescierunt an theologi suis opinionibus haereticalibus pertinaciter adhaererent ex quo de hoc nullam inquisitionem omnino fecerunt; ergo in inquirendo veritatem ut periculis fidei obviarent negligentes vel remissi fuerunt. Secundo sic: maiori periculo est fortius ac diligentius et celerius obviandum; sed ex haeresibus publice opinatis et dogmatizatis maius imminet periculum religioni christianae quam ex consuetudinibus onerosis et pravis quia, esto quod dogmatizantes suis opinionibus minime pertinaciter adhaererent, tamen timendum est ne simplices discipuli audientes assertiones huiusmodi a magnis doctoribus edoceri et pro eis fortiter allegari et a catholicis nullatenus condemnari ex apparentia rationum quas nesciunt solvere in adhaesionem pertinacem eisdem haeresibus inducantur, et ne errores pestiferi pro veritatibus catholicis incipiant venerari et pertinaciter defensari; sed consuetudines onerosae et pravae sunt celerrime comprimendae ne in privilegiorum ius ab impiis assumantur, ut asserit Nicolaus papa, prout habetur dist. 8, c. Mala; ergo multo fortius haereses qualitercunque pullulaverint sunt evellendae radicitus et damnandae ne a simplicibus et seducibilibus pro veritatibus catholicis approbentur.

Master They try to attack in two ways that excuse for the Roman pontiffs. Firstly, because the latter have not known whether theologians would cling pertinaciously to their heretical opinions because they have not made any inquiry about this at all; they have been negligent or remiss, therefore, in inquiring about the truth in order to resist dangers to the church. The second is as follows: a greater danger should be resisted more strongly, diligently and swiftly; but a greater danger threatens the christian religion from heresies held publicly as an opinion and propounded than from burdensome and evil customs because, even if those propounding their opinions were not to adhere to them pertinaciously, it should nevertheless be feared lest simple students hearing assertions of this kind taught by great doctors and argued for strongly and not condemned by catholics be induced by the plausibility of arguments they do not know how to refute to a pertinacious adherence to those heresies, and lest pestiferous errors begin to be venerated and defended pertinaciously as catholic truths; but burdensome and evil customs should be very quickly repressed lest they be adopted by the impious as a right and privilege, as Pope Nicholas affirms, as we find in dist. 8, c. Mala [col.14]; it is much more the case, therefore, that howsoever heresies come forth they should be completely rooted out and condemned lest they be approved as catholic truths by those who are simple and may be misled.

Discipulus Ista ratio ultima est apparens, sed prima omni apparentia carere videtur quia secundum sacros canones non est de aliquo inquisitio facienda nisi prius fuerit diffamatus, ut habetur Extra, De accusationibus, c. Qualiter et quando et in multis aliis locis; sed theologi de haeresibus nullatenus diffamati fuerunt; ergo de eis summi pontifices non debuerunt inquirere.

Student That last argument is clear; but the first seems to lack all plausibility because according to the sacred canons an inquisition should not be made into anyone unless he has first been accused, as we find in Extra, De accusationibus, c. Qualiter et quando [col.745] and in many other places; but theologians have not been accused about heresies; therefore, highest pontiffs should not have made an inquisition into them.

Magister Dicunt isti quod ista excusatio non est sufficiens, quia, licet theologi non fuerint diffamati quod essent haeretici, diffamabantur tamen quod haereses docuerunt; unde et multi theologi nunc putant quod alii theologi haereses dogmatizent quamvis nollent asserere quod sint inter haereticos computandi. Multi enim etiam forte cum assertione putant quod omnes opiniones Thomae quae quondam fuerunt damnatae Parisius sunt haereticae iudicandae. Nonnulli etiam credunt omnes opiniones suas quas Cantuarienses archiepiscopi damnaverunt inter haereses computandas. Quidam enim firmissime credunt quod dicere voluntatem nihil posse velle contra actuale iudicium rationis sapiat haeresim manifestam quia, ut dicunt, omne meritum tollit et demeritum. Quidam etiam credunt quod dicere in homine non esse nisi unam formam substantialem veritati obviat orthodoxae. Quidam etiam putant quod multae opiniones Scoti sint inter haereses numerandae. Dicere enim quod sapienta Dei ab essentia Dei ex natura rei quomodolibet distinguatur putant simplicitati divinae et per consequens veritati catholicae repugnare. Idem sentiunt de unitate minori, unitate numerali et prioritatibus quas ponit in Deo et de aliis quae opinatur quasi innumeris. Hoc idem de multis opinionibus Egidii multi existimant. Est ergo notorium quod theologi haereses dogmatizare notantur quamvis haeretici minime reputentur. Propter talem ergo famam debuerunt summi pontifices pro inquisitione facienda moveri.

Master They say that that is not an adequate excuse, because although theologians have not been accused of having been heretics yet they were accused of having taught heresies; so indeed many theologians now think that other theologians teach heresies as doctrine, even if they would not want to affirm that they should be reckoned among heretics. For together with this affirmation many also think perhaps that all Thomas's opinions which were once condemned at Paris should be judged as heretical. Some also believe that all his opinions which the archbishops of Canterbury condemned should be reckoned among the heresies. For some people most firmly believe that to say that the will can will nothing against the actual judgement of reason smacks of manifest heresy, because, as they say, it [this doctrine] takes away every merit and demerit. Some people also believe that to say that there is nothing in man except one substantial form conflicts with orthodox truth. Some people also think that many of Scotus's opinions should be reckoned among the heresies. For they think that to say that the wisdom of God may in some way be distinguished in reality from the essence of God contradicts the divine simplicity and, consequently, conflicts with catholic truth. They think the same about lesser unity, numeral unity and the priorities which he locates in God and about practically numberless other opinions he holds. Many think the same about many of Egidius's [Giles of Rome's] opinions. It is notorious therefore that theologians are well known to teach heresies as doctrine, although they are not regarded as heretics. Because of this reputation, therefore, highest pontiffs ought to have been moved to have had an inquiry made.

Discipulus Forte talis fama ad summos pontifices non pervenit.

Student Perhaps such a reputation had not reached the highest pontiffs.

Magister Dicunt isti quod hoc omni probabilitate caret, quia nullam verisimilitudinem habet quod damnationes opinionum Thomae et aliorum, quae solenniter et publice pluries factae fuerunt Parisius et in Anglia, summos pontifices latuissent, praesertim cum quidam de Ordine Praedicatorum contra damnationem latam in Anglia ab archiepiscopo Cantuariensi contra quasdam opiniones Thomae ad curiam Romanam appellaverint et illa de causa accesserint ad eandem. Dicunt ergo quod quamvis fama quod opinantes essent haeretici non pervenerit ad Romanos pontifices, ipsos tamen non latuit quod opiniones eorum damnatae fuerunt Parisius et in Anglia. Quare ad inquisitionem faciendam procedere debuerunt, exemplo sanctorum patrum qui, antequam Arrius, Eumonius, Macedonius, Nestorius et alii multi pertinaces convincerentur haeresum defensores, de ipsis et eorum dogmatibus inquisitionem fecere solertem, exemplo etiam Innocentii 3, qui, ut habetur Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholia, c. Damnamus, quamvis Ioachim sui erroris nunquam fuerit pertinax defensator et licet eidem errori solemnissimus tunc temporis doctor Ricardus de sancto Victore adhaeserit, quamvis non pertinaciter, ad inquisitionem et damnationem faciendas processit.

Master They say that this lacks all probability because it is not at all plausible that the condemnations of the opinions of Thomas and of others, which were often solemnly and publicly pronounced at Paris and in England, had been unknown to the highest pontiffs, especially since some members of the Order of Preachers appealed to the Roman curia against the condemnation published in England by the archbishop of Canterbury of some of Thomas's opinions and for that reason they [the appellants] had gone to Rome. Therefore they say that even if the report that those opiners were heretics did not reach the Roman pontiffs, it was nevertheless not unknown to them that their opinions had been condemned in Paris and in England. Therefore they ought to have proceeded to the making of an inquisition, on the example of the holy fathers who made an expert inquisition into Arius, Eumonius, Macedonius, Nestorius and many others and their teachings before they were convicted as pertinacious defenders of heresies, and on the example too of Innocent III who, as we find in Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Damnamus [col.6], proceeded to the making of an inquisition and a condemnation although Joachim was never a pertinacious defender of his error and although a most fully qualified doctor of that time, Richard of St. Victor, adhered, but not pertinaciously, to the same error.

Capitulum 30

Chapter 30

Discipulus Ista exempla animum meum fortiter angunt, unde cupio scire si aliqui aliter dictos summos pontifices excusare nitantur.

Student Those examples greatly distress my mind and so I want to know whether some people try to excuse the said highest pontiffs in some other way.

Magister Quidam per simplicitatem et imperitiam Scripturarum eos excusant, dicentes quod a tempore Innocentii 3 non fuerunt aliqui summi pontifices in sacrarum literarum peritia excellentes, et ideo de intricatis et difficilibus quaestionibus se intromittere nullatenus voluerunt, sed talia discutienda theologis reliquerunt, contenti his quae explicite approbata noscuntur. De opinionibus vero novis magis voluerunt iuxta consilium beati Hieronymi pie dubitare quam aliquid temere diffinire.

Master Some people excuse them by their simplicity and ignorance of the scriptures, saying that since the time of Innocent III there have been no highest pontiffs who excelled in knowledge of sacred letters, and so they have not wanted to involve themselves in perplexing and difficult questions but have left such matters to be discussed by theologians, contenting themselves with those matters that are known to have been explicitly approved. About new opinions, however, they have wanted rather to doubt them piously, in accordance with the advice of blessed Jerome {actually Peter Comestor, Historia Scholastica, PL 198, col.1643], than to define something rashly.

Discipulus Ista sententia concordare videtur cum illis qui dicunt quod non ad canonistas sed ad theologos principaliter pertinet inter assertiones haereticales et catholicas veritates iudicare. Plures enim post tempora Innocentii 3 fuerunt summi pontifices qui peritissimi in iure canonico extiterunt, licet in theologia non fuerint excellentes. Quare si ad canonistas principaliter pertineret inter veritates catholicas et haereses iudicare ipsi de non damnando haereses inter theologos dogmatizatas modo praedicto excusari nequirent. Sed nunquid si fuissent magistri in theologia excusari valerent?

Student That opinion seems to agree with those who say that it pertains chiefly to theologians not to canonists to judge between heretical and catholic assertions. For there have been many highest pontiffs after the times of Innocent III who have been very learned in canon law, although they have not been outstanding in theology. If it were chiefly to pertain to canonists, therefore, to judge between catholic and heretical truths they would not be able to be excused in the aforesaid way for not condemning heresies taught among theologians as doctrine. But would they have been able to be excused if they had been masters in theology?

Magister Dicunt isti quod sic, quia multi, ut asserunt, sunt in theologia doctoris nomen habentes per favores humanos et procurationes indebitas ac ambitiones diabolicas ad magisterium exaltati qui sacrarum litterarum sunt penitus imperiti.

Master They say 'yes', because there are many people, they affirm, who have the name of doctor in theology who have been raised to the position of master through human favours, undue patronage and devilish ambitions and who are wholly ignorant of sacred letters.

Capitulum 31

Chapter 31

Can, and must, the pope follow expert advice in condemning doctrine as heresy?

Discipulus Licet summi pontifices Scripturae Sacrae notitiam non habuerint excellentem, tamen per hoc non videntur aliqualiter excusandi quia poterant doctos consulere et peritos. Qui autem potest habere copiam peritorum non potest per ignorantiam excusari. Talis ergo ignorantia Scripturae Divinae eos nequaquam excusat, nisi forte dicatur quod, quia in theologia et in philosophia antequam ad papatum essent assumpti nequaquam exercitati fuerunt, non poterant ad intelligendum tam subtiles difficultates theologiae etiam per informationem peritorum attingere. Sed et hoc sufficere non videtur, quia quamvis non potuissent intelligere informationes circa huiusmodi debebant tamen credere informationibus aliorum, ut apparet, et per consequens iuxta informationem peritorum, quamvis eas per intellectum non caperent, ad condemnationem haeresum procedere debuerunt. Unde et de hoc ultimo, an scilicet si summus pontifex Sacrarum Scripturarum ignarus aliquam haeresim promulgatam, quamvis videre nequeat quomodo catholicae veritati adversatur, de consilio peritorum debeat condemnare quid teneant homines manifesta.

Student Even if the highest pontiffs did not have excellent knowledge of sacred scripture, it does not seem nevertheless that they should in any way be excused because of this since they could have consulted the learned and the experts. He who can have access to experts, however, can not be excused through ignorance. Such ignorance of divine scripture does not excuse them, therefore, unless it is said perhaps that because they had not been trained in theology and philosophy before they had been raised to the papacy they could not attain an understanding of such subtle theological difficulties even with the instruction of experts. But this also does not seem adequate, because even if they had not been able to understand instruction about these things they should nevertheless have believed the instruction of others, it seems, and consequently they should have proceeded in accordance with the instruction of experts to condemn the heresies even if they did not understand them. Would you therefore make clear what people hold about this last issue, that is whether a highest pontiff ignorant of the sacred scriptures should on the advice of experts condemn some heresy that has been promulgated even if he can not see how it is opposed to catholic truth?

Magister Quidam dicunt quod summus pontifex in hoc casu debet credere eruditis in Scriptura Sacra et iuxta eorum consilium, quamvis non videat quomodo haeresis dogmatizata veritati repugnat, ad damnationem eiusdem procedere. Alii vero astruunt manifeste quod a quibuscunque et quotcumque papae dicatur aliquam assertionem haereticam esse censendam ipse ad damnationem solemnem eiusdem nullo modo debet procedere nisi ipsemet aperte consideret vel divina inspiratione vel propria meditatione vel librorum inspectione aut aliorum informatione vel aliquo alio modo quod talis assertio veritati obviat orthodoxae. Dicunt etiam quod si omnes in generali concilio congregati praeter ipsum assererent talem assertionem esse haereticam, nisi suam sententiam miraculo confirmarent vel per informationes suas facerent ipsum advertere quomodo catholicae obviat veritati, non deberet eam, quantumcunque omnes instarent, solenniter condemnare, sed spectare teneretur quousque vel per revelationem divinam vel per miraculi operationem facti ad talem haeresim reprobandam vel propria meditatione vel aliena informatione aut quovis modo sibi innotesceret manifeste quod talis assertio veritati repugnat catholicae.

Master Some say that in this case a highest pontiff ought to believe those who are learned in sacred scripture and in accord with their advice to proceed to the condemnation of a heresy even if he does not see how the heresy that has been taught as doctrine is opposed to the truth. Others, however, argue openly that by whomever and however often it is said to a pope that some assertion should be considered heretical he should in no way proceed to a solemn condemnation of it unless he himself clearly sees, through divine inspiration, his own meditation, the reading of books, the instruction of others or some other way, that the assertion conflicts with orthodox truth. They also say that if everyone gathered together in a general council except him were to assert that such an assertion is heretical he should not solemnly condemn it, however much they all insist, unless they confirm their opinion with a miracle or by their instruction they bring him to understand how it conflicts with catholic truth, but he would be bound to wait until it became clearly known to him either by divine revelation, by the working of a miracle directed to the disproving of that heresy, by his own meditation, by someone else's instruction or by some other means that such an assertion is opposed to catholic truth.

Discipulus Miror quomodo isti dogmatizare praesumunt quod unus homo mortalis quacunque praeditus dignitate magis debet adhaerere propriae fantasiae quam omnibus viris literatis et sanctis ad generale concilium convocatis.

Student I wonder how they presume to teach as doctrine that one mortal man, endowed with whatever dignity, ought to cling to his own fantasy rather than to all the holy and learned men called together for a general council.

Magister Sententiam praedictam non capis, ut video. Non enim dicunt quod debet papa fantasiae propriae adhaerere, sed dicunt quod non debet propter verba hominum aliquam assertionem contra conscientiam vel praeter conscientiam propriam condemnare.

Master You do not understand that opinion, it seems to me. For they do not say that a pope ought to cling to his own fantasy, but they say that because of the words of men he should not condemn any assertion against or beyond his own conscience.

Discipulus Videtur quod papa in hoc casu tenetur conscientiam suam secundum conscientiam tot et tantorum virorum formare.

Student It seems that in this case a pope is bound to fashion his own conscience according to the conscience of so many great men.

Magister Dicunt quod in his quae fidei sunt non debet papa inniti conscientiis hominum sed soli auctoritati divinae.

Master They say that in those matters that concern the faith the pope should not rely on the consciences of men but only on divine authority.

Capitulum 32

Chapter 32

Discipulus Incipio magis advertere sententiam memoratam. Unde ipsam auctoritatibus vel rationibus munire coneris?

Student I am beginning to give more attention to that opinion. Would you therefore try to support it with authorities or arguments?

Magister Pro ista sententia plures rationes auctoritatibus communitae possunt adduci, quarum prima est haec. Omnes praeter papam in generali concilio congregati non sunt maioris auctoritatis quam Christus nec omnibus illis magis est credendum quam Christo; sed si Christus venisset et veritatem catholicam inauditam praedicasset et ad confirmandum suam doctrinam nullum fecisset miraculum, Iudaei, licet suae praedicationi minime credidissent, peccatum nullatenus habuissent; ergo multo fortius potest papa absque peccato sententiae omnium aliorum in generali concilio existentium, si per eos nullum fit miraculum ad suam sententiam confirmandam, nec ipsi faciunt eum intelligere quomodo sua sententia in veritate catholica est fundata, minime adhaerere, et per consequens non tenetur eos in eadem sententia sequi. Maior istius rationis est omni catholico manifesta. Minor auctoritate ipsius Christi probatur qui, ut legitur Iohannis 15, loquens de Iudaeis ait, "Si opera non fecissem in eis, quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent," mihi scilicet non credendo. "Nunc autem et viderunt," miracula manifesta quae feci, "et oderunt me et patrem meum." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod si Christus miracula non fecisset Iudaei non credendo peccatum minime habuissent.

Master Many arguments fortified by authorities can be brought forward in support of that opinion. The first of them is this. All the people except the pope who are gathered together in a general council are not of greater authority than Christ nor should all of them be believed more than Christ; but if Christ had come and preached an unheard of catholic truth and had not performed any miracle to confirm his teaching, the Jews would not have had sin even if they had not believed his preaching; much more is it the case, therefore, that without sin the pope is able not to adhere to an opinion of everyone else in a general council if no miracle is done by them to confirm their opinion and if they do not make him understand how their opinion is based on catholic truth; and consequently he is not bound to follow them in that opinion. The major [premise] of this argument is obvious to any catholic. The minor [premise] is proved by the authority of Christ himself, who, speaking of the Jews, says, as we read in John 15[:24], "If I had not done among them works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin," in not believing me, that is; "But now they have both seen" the obvious miracles that I performed, "and hated both me and my father." We gather from these words that if Christ had not performed miracles, the Jews would not have had sin in not believing.

Discipulus Si ista ratio concluderet sequeretur quod toti ecclesiae universali fides minime esset adhibenda. Immo posset aliquis absque peccato assertionem quam hactenus praedicavit universalis ecclesia si non videret quomodo esset consona Scripturae Divinae negare, cum tota congregatio quorumcunque mortalium non sit tantae auctoritatis quantae solus Christus. Et ita si Christo non fuit credendum absque miraculo nec toti ecclesiae est credendum nisi sententia ecclesiae aperto miraculo confirmetur.

Student If that argument were conclusive it would follow that faith would not have to be put in the whole universal church. Indeed anyone could without sin deny an assertion which the universal church has hitherto preached if he did not see how it was in harmony with divine scripture, since the whole gathering of any mortals at all is not of such great authority as is Christ alone. And so if Christ did not have to be believed without a miracle nor should the whole church be believed unless the opinion of the church is confirmed by an obvious miracle.

Magister Ad istam obiectionem tuam dicerent illi qui praedictam tenent sententiam quod adhaerendo sententiae universalis ecclesiae nemine discrepante, quando eadem sententia aliquo miraculo minime confirmatur, principaliter creditur Christo cuius doctrina tota est miraculis innumeris confirmata. Invenitur enim expresse quod Christus promisit fidem suam usque ad finem saeculi duraturam. Ex quo sequitur quod nunquam ecclesia universalis errabit contra veritatem catholicam. Quare si ecclesia universalis nemine discrepante docet aliquid esse tenendum tamquam catholicum, hoc firmiter est tenendum propter auctoritatem Christi et non principaliter propter auctoritatem ecclesiae, licet quodammodo etiam propter auctoritatem ecclesiae sit tenendum, inquantum firma fide tenetur quod Christus docuit ecclesiam nunquam a fide catholica recessuram.

Master Those who hold the above opinion would say to that objection of yours that to adhere to an opinion of the universal church with which no one disagreed, when that opinion is not confirmed by some miracle, is to place one's chief faith in Christ whose teaching has been confirmed by innumerable miracles. For we find expressly that Christ promised that his faith would last till the end of the age. It follows from this that the universal church will never err against catholic truth. Therefore if the universal church, with no one disagreeing, teaches that something should be held as catholic, it should be held firmly because of Christ's authority and not chiefly because of the church's authority, although it should in some way also be held because of the church's authority, in so far as it is held with firm faith that Christ taught that the church would never fall away from the catholic faith.

Discipulus Hic possem quaerere multa de ecclesia quae errare non potest et de concilio generali, sed illa omnia duxi ad tempus aliud differenda. Et ideo ad principale propositum revertaris et rationes compleas in quibus potest praedicta sententia se fundare?

Student I could ask many things here about the church that can not err and about a general council, but I have considered that all those things should be postponed to another time. Would you return to the main plan, therefore, and complete the arguments on which the above opinion can base itself?

Magister Secunda ratio pro praedicta opinione est haec. Qui non propter miraculum aliquod nec propter auctoritatem Scripturae Divinae nec propter aliquam aliam auctoritatem quam videat sed ad instantiam hominum aliquam assertionem damnat solenniter eandem damnationem in sapientia aut voluntate hominum vel instantia fundare videtur. Damnatio autem pravitatis haereticae et approbatio catholicae veritatis eidem fundamento debent inniti. Ergo licet papae approbando aliquam catholicam veritatem in sapientia hominum vel voluntate aut instantia se fundare, quod doctrinae apostolicae manifeste repugnat. Ait enim Apostolus 1 ad Corinthios 2, "Praedicatio mea non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis sed in ostensione spiritus et virtutis, ut fides vestra non sit in sapientia hominum sed in virtute Dei." Ex quibus verbis patenter habetur quod fides papae non in sapientia hominum, et per consequens multo magis nec in voluntate seu instantia hominum, debet consistere. Quare nec approbatio catholicae veritatis in sapientia hominum nec in voluntate aut instantia debet fundari; et eadem ratione damnatio heretice pravitatis non debet fundari in aliquo predictorum. Papa igitur ad hoc quod rite damnet haereticam falsitatem debet ad hoc vel per miraculum apertum induci vel oportet eum cognoscere manifeste quomodo talis falsitas veritati catholicae adversatur, ne fidem suam in sapientia hominum vel voluntate constituat.

Master A second argument for that opinion is this. He who solemnly condemns some assertion not because of some miracle or the authority of divine scripture or some other authority that he sees but at the insistence of men seems to base that condemnation on the wisdom, will or insistence of men. The condemnation of heretical wickedness, however, and the approval of catholic truth, ought to rest on the same foundation. Therefore it is licit for the pope in approving some catholic truth to base himself on the wisdom, will or insistence of men; and this is clearly opposed to apostolic teaching. For in 1 Cor. 2[:4-5] the apostle says, "My preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in showing of the Spirit and power, that your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." We clearly find from these words that the faith of the pope should not take its stand on the wisdom of men and, consequently, even more not on the will or insistence of men. Nor should the approval of catholic truth, therefore, be based on the wisdom of men, nor on their will or insistence; and by the same argument the condemnation of heretical wickedness ought not be based on any of those things. For the pope to condemn heretical falsity in a proper way, therefore, either he should be led to this by an obvious miracle or he must know clearly how such a falsity is opposed to catholic truth, so that he does not establish his faith on the wisdom or will of men.

Tertia ratio est haec. Propter illos qui possunt contra fidem errare non est aliqua assertio neque tanquam catholica approbanda neque tanquam haeretica condemnanda. Sed omnes magistri in theologia et etiam omnes alii a papa in generali concilio congregati possunt contra fidem errare, quia nec magistri in theologia nec omnes alii a papa in generali concilio congregati sunt tota illa ecclesia pro qua Christus oravit ne fides eius deficeret, licet si sint catholici sint pars eiusdem ecclesiae, sicut quilibet christianus est pars illius ecclesiae. Ergo propter omnes illos non debet papa aliquam assertionem neque tanquam catholicam approbare neque tanquam haereticam condemnare nisi aperte ostendatur papae vel per operationem miraculi vel per testimonium catholicae veritatis quod a veritate nequaquam exorbitant.

[See Significant Variants, para. 8.] A third argument is this. No assertion should be approved as catholic or condemned as heretical on account of people who can err against the faith. But all masters in theology and even all others gathered together by the pope in a general council can err against the faith, because neither masters in theology nor all the others gathered together by the pope in a general council make up that whole church for which Christ prayed that its faith would not fail, although if they are catholics they are part of that church just as any christian is part of that church. The pope should not, therefore, because of all these approve any assertion as catholic or condemn it as heretical unless it is clearly shown to him by the working of a miracle or by the testimony of catholic truth that they are not deviating from the truth.

Quarta ratio est haec. Papa non debet aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam solenniter condemnare nisi quam scit demonstrative vel firmissime credit esse haereticam. Qui autem scit demonstrative aliquam assertionem haereticam esse rationi innititur. Qui vero credit innititur auctoritati. Papa ergo in damnando aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam vel innititur rationi vel auctoritati. Sed papa qui non videt quomodo damnanda assertio fidei obviat orthodoxae rationi inniti non potest, sicut omni intelligenti constat. Ergo oportet quod innitatur auctoritati. Aut ergo innititur auctoritati divinae aut humanae; non divinae quia non videt quomodo talis assertio auctoritati divinae repugnat. Ergo papa si damnaret praedicto modo aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam inniteretur auctoritati humanae. Sed auctoritati humanae in his quae fidei sunt est minime innitendum quia fides nostra est super intellectum humanum. Ergo humano intellectui in huiusmodi est nullatenus inhaerendum.

A fourth argument is this. A pope should not solemnly condemn any assertion as heretical unless he knows demonstratively or believes most firmly that it is heretical. He who knows demonstratively that some assertion is heretical, however, relies on reason, but he who believes relies on authority. In condemning some assertion as heretical, therefore, the pope relies either on reason or on authority. But a pope who does not see how an assertion to be condemned is opposed to orthodox faith can not rely on reason, as is clear to anyone with understanding. Therefore it is necessary for him to rely on authority. He relies, therefore, either on divine or on human authority; not on divine authority because he does not see how such an assertion is opposed to divine authority. Therefore if the pope were to condemn some assertion as heretical in the aforesaid way he would be relying on human authority. But human authority should not be relied on in matters of faith because our faith is above human understanding. Therefore in matters of this kind we should not adhere to human understanding.

Quinta ratio est haec. Omnes alii a papa in generali concilio congregati non sunt maioris auctoritatis quam fuerint apostoli et Moyses in veteri lege; sed apostoli et Moyses doctrinam suam miraculis vel testimoniis auctenticis ab auditoribus iam receptis, ut redderetur credibilis, confirmaverunt nec aliter eis populi credidissent. Ergo papa non tenetur illis adhibere fidem qui nec miraculo nec testimonio catholicae veritatis sibi notae faciunt eum de sua sententia certum. Si igitur omnes alii in generali concilio nec miraculo nec auctoritate catholica ostenderent papae assertionem damnandam esse haereticam, non deberet papa ipsam tamquam haereticam condemnare. Maior istius rationis videtur aperta. Minor ostenditur manifeste per exemplum de beato Paulo, qui doctrinam suam tam miraculis quam Scripturarum testimoniis confirmavit. Unde ad Romanos 15 ait, "Non enim audeo aliquid loqui eorum quae per me non efficit. Christus in obedientiam gentium, verbo et factis, in virtute signorum et prodigiorum." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod beatus Paulus doctrinam suam signis et prodigiis confirmavit. De Scripturarum testimoniis etiam quae adduxit beatus Paulus patet ad Romanos 9 et 10 et 11 et 1 ad Corinthios 2 et 3, ad Hebreos 1, 2 et 3 et in multis aliis locis epistolarum suarum. Quod etiam omnes apostoli confirmaverint praedicationem suam testatur Marcus in Evangelii sui capitulo ultimo dicens, "Illi autem profecti praedicaverunt ubique, Domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante, sequentibus signis." Beatus etiam Petrus, ut patet Actuum 1, auctoritatibus receptarum scripturarum a Iudaeis coram ipsis suam doctrinam confirmavit. Moysi quoque dixit Dominus, ut legitur Exodi 4, "Si nec duobus quidem signis his crediderint neque audierint vocem tuam, sume aquam fluminis et funde eam super aridam et quicquid hauseris de fluvio vertetur in sanguinem." Ex quibus aliisque quampluribus patet aperte quod illi per quos Deus docuit populum catholicam veritatem ad confirmationem suae doctrinae vel Scripturarum testimonia adduxerunt vel cooperatione miraculi veritatem ostenderunt, nec eis aliter populi credere artabantur.

A fifth argument is this. All the others gathered together by the pope in a general council are not of greater authority than were the apostles and, under the old law, Moses; but, so that their teaching would be rendered credible, the apostles and Moses confirmed it with miracles or authentic testimonies already accepted by their hearers, and the people would not have believed them otherwise. Therefore the pope is not bound to show faith in those who do not make him sure about their opinion with a miracle or with the testimony of a catholic truth known to him. If all the others in a general council, therefore, were not to show to the pope either with a miracle or with catholic authority that an assertion should be condemned as heretical, the pope ought not to condemn it as heretical. The major [premise] of this argument seems obvious. The minor [premise] is shown clearly by the example of blessed Paul who confirmed his teaching with both miracles and testimonies from the scriptures. Whence he says in Romans 15[:18-9], "For I dare not speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the gentiles, by word and deed, by the virtue of signs and wonders." We gather from these words that blessed Paul confirmed his teaching with signs and wonders. That he also brought forward testimonies from the scriptures is clear from Romans 9, 10 and 11, 1 Corinthians 2 and 3, Hebrews 1, 2 and 3 and many other places in his letters. That all the apostles also confirmed their preaching with miracles Mark attests in the last chapter of his gospel [16:20] saying, "But they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed." As is clear from Acts 1, blessed Peter also confirmed his teaching before the Jews through texts of the scriptures that they accepted. The Lord also said to Moses, as we read in Exod. 4[:9], "But if they will not even believe these two signs nor hear thy voice, take of the river water and pour it out upon the dry land, and whatsoever thou drawest out of the river shall be turned into blood." It is quite clear from these and very many others that those through whom God taught people catholic truth either brought forward testimonies from the scriptures to confirm their teaching or demonstrated its truth by the working of a miracle, and the people were not constrained to believe them in any other way.

Discipulus Ista responsio videtur probare tantummodo quod papa non tenetur sequi alios in damnando haeresim quando nec miraculum faciunt nec pro se Scripturam adducunt, sed si probant assertionem quam petunt damnari esse haereticam videtur quod papa damnare debet eandem, nec per hoc quod non intelligit valet aliqualiter excusari. Sic enim possent multi haeretici excusari qui videre non possunt quomodo haereses suae fidei obvient orthodoxae.

Student That reply seems to prove only that the pope is not bound to follow others in condemning a heresy when they do not perform a miracle or bring forward scripture in their support, but if they prove that the assertion they are seeking to have condemned is heretical it seems that the pope ought to condemn it, and he can not be excused in any way by the fact that he does not understand it. For in this way many heretics could be excused who can not see how their heresies are opposed to orthodox faith.

Magister Ad hoc alii respondent quod si papa informationi catholicorum per Scripturam probantium manifeste aliquam assertionem veritati obviare catholicae pertinaci animositate, quia scilicet alicui errori irrevocabiliter adhaereret, nollet acquiescere, esset haereticus vel fautor haereticae pravitatis iudicandus; sed si ex sola simplicitate, quia non esset capax informationis qua ostenditur talem assertionem esse haereticam, minime consentiret, non esset reprehensibilis iudicandus nisi recusaret de veritate informari.

Master Others reply to this that if the pope were to refuse with pertinacious ill will to agree with the instruction of catholics who clearly prove through scripture that some assertion is opposed to catholic truth, because, that is, he was clinging irrevocably to some error, he should be judged a heretic or a supporter of heretical wickedness; but if he were not to agree out of simplicity alone, because he was not capable of [understanding] the instruction by which it is shown that the assertion is heretical, he should not be judged reprehensible unless he were to refuse to be instructed about the truth.

Discipulus Quis sit censendus haereticus postea indagabo. Ideo alias rationes, si quas cogitasti, pro principali proposito adducas?

Student I will investigate later who should be considered a heretic. Would you therefore bring forward other arguments for the main proposition if you have thought of any?

Magister Sexta ratio pro praedicta sententia est haec. Non minus debet intelligere sententiam suam seu diffinitionem summus pontifex qua damnat haereticam pravitatem quam debet iudex intelligere sententiam qua damnat aliquem de crimine qualicunque; sed iudici damnanti quemcumque de crimine non sufficit credere consiliariis suis, sed debet videre et considerare per seipsum quomodo sententia sua iustitiam et aequitatem contineat. Ergo similiter papa in damnando haereticam pravitatem non debet solummodo credere aliis, sed etiam oportet eum intelligere quomodo damnanda assertio repugnat catholicae veritati. Maior est manifesta quia in maioribus causis maior est adhibenda cautela. Minor probatur quia nisi iudex deberet intelligere quam dictat sententiam non requireretur sapientia in iudicante, sed sufficeret quod esset bonae fidei sapientum acquiescens consiliis. Sed hoc est contra illud Apostoli 1 ad Corinthios 6, "Non est inter vos sapiens quisquam qui possit iudicare inter fratrem et fratrem." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod nullus nisi sapiens debet iudicare inter fratrem et fratrem. Et ita qui iudicat debet habere saltem iudicandi peritiam ut sententiam quam dictat intelligat. Aliter enim posset simplex et fatuus quicunque esse iudex esse.

Master A sixth argument for the above opinion is this. A highest pontiff should not understand any less the sentence or definition by which he condemns heretical wickedness than a judge should understand the sentence by which he condemns someone for any kind of crime; but it is not enough for a judge condemning anyone of a crime to believe his counsellors; rather he should see and contemplate for himself how his opinion preserves justice and equity. Similarly therefore, in condemning heretical wickedness a pope should not only believe others, but it is also necessary for him to understand how the assertion to be condemned is opposed to catholic truth. The major [premise] is obvious because greater caution should be employed in greater causes. The minor [premise] is proved, because if a judge were not obliged to understand the sentence which he pronounces, wisdom would not be required in one judging, but it would be enough that he was of good faith and agreed with the advice of those who are wise. But this is against what the apostle says in 1 Cor. 6[:5], "Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man, that is able to judge between his brethren?" We are given to understand by these words that only he who is wise should judge between one brother and another. And so he who judges should have at least the skill in judging such that he understands the sentence which he pronounces. For otherwise any simple and stupid person could be a judge.

Septima ratio est haec. Qui potest contradicere congregatis in concilio generali non tenetur acquiescere eorum sententiae; sed unus etiam inferior papa potest contradicere omnibus aliis in generali concilio congregatis; ergo non tenetur acquiescere eorum sententiae. Ergo multo magis papa si omnium aliorum in generali concilio existentium videret erroneam esse sententiam vel non intelligeret eam esse catholicam atque sanam eos sequi non deberet. Maior est manifesta. Minor ostenditur exemplo Pannutii qui aliis in Nicena synodo contradixit et ad partem suam traxit, ut habetur dist. 31, c. Nicena synodus. Ubi glossa super verbo "sententiam" ait, "Unus ergo potest contradicere toti universitati si habeat causam rationabilem." Et sequitur: "Nam unus potest trahere alios ad partem suam." Unus igitur potest omnibus aliis in concilio generali contradicere et eos trahere ad partem suam. Ergo papa non debet omnes alios sequi nisi cognoverit eos a iustitia et veritate nullatenus aberrare. Ex praedictis concludunt isti quod si papa omnes alios in generali concilio congregatos sequi non debet ut aliquam assertionem condemnet tanquam haereticam nisi viderit quomodo dicta assertio catholicae veritati obviat, multo magis si papa cognoverit aliquos theologos aliquam assertionem reputare catholicam non debet propter informationem vel instantiam omnium aliorum talem assertionem tanquam haereticam condemnare nisi aperte cognoverit quomodo fidei obviat orthodoxae.

A seventh argument is this. He who can contradict those gathered together at a general council is not bound to agree with their opinion; but one man, even someone inferior to the pope, can contradict everyone else gathered in a general council; therefore he is not bound to agree with their opinion. Much more is it the case, therefore, that if a pope were to see that an opinion of everyone else in a general council was wrong or were not to understand that it is catholic and sound he should not follow them. The major premise is obvious. The minor [premise] is shown by the example of Pannutius who contradicted the others at the synod of Nicea and led them to his side, as we find in dist. 31, c. Nicena synodus [col.114]. The gloss here on the word "sentence" says [col.153], "Therefore one man can contradict the whole collectivity if he has a reasonable cause.... For one person can lead others to his side." Therefore one man can contradict all the others in a general council and lead them to his side. A pope should not follow all the others, therefore, unless he knows that they have not strayed from justice and truth. They conclude from the above that if the pope should not follow all the others gathered in a general council in condemning some assertion as heretical unless he sees how the said assertion is opposed to catholic truth, much more is it the case that he should not, if he knows that some theologians regard some assertion as catholic, condemn such an assertion as heretical because of the instruction or insistence of all the others unless he knows clearly how it is opposed to orthodox faith.

Discipulus Rationes praedictae videntur difficiles ad solvendum, quas tamen nolo nunc amplius pertractari quia postquam totum praesens opus compleveris et ego cum summo studio cogitavero volo tecum istas rationes et omnia alia retractare et mentem tuam de omnibus perscrutari. Sed dic an isti sentiant quod liceat papae aliquam assertionem de qua non constat sibi an catholica vel haeretica sit censenda interdicere et praecipere quod minime publice dogmatizetur.

Student The above arguments seem difficult to refute, but I do not want them to be investigated any further now because after you have completed the whole of this present work and I have pondered it with the greatest zeal I want to reconsider with you those arguments and everything else and to investigate your understanding of all those matters. But tell me whether they think that it is permissible for the pope to forbid some assertion about which it is not evident to him whether it should be considered catholic or heretical and to order that it not be publicly taught as doctrine.

Magister Dicunt quod in casu si ex dogmatisatione alicuius assertionis magnum scandalum esset exortum vel timeretur quod multitudo pertinaciter adhaereret liceret papae praecipere a tali assertione cessare quousque innotesceret an inter veritates vel haereses computari deberet.

Master They say that in a particular case, if a great scandal had arisen from the teaching of some assertion as doctrine or if it were feared that a large number of people would cling to it pertinaciously, it would be permissible for the pope to order the cessation of such an assertion until such time as it were to become known whether it should be reckoned as among the truths or the heresies.

Capitulum 33

Chapter 33

Discipulus Multa de damnatione haeresum retulisti. Nunc peto quatenus de damnatione aliorum errorum aliqua narrare digneris. Cupio enim scire an literati putent quod liceat papae alios errores quam haereses damnare.

Student You have reported many views about the condemnation of heresies. Now I ask that you would see fit to say some things about the condemnation of other errors. For I want to know whether the learned think that it is permissible for the pope to condemn other errors apart from heresies.

The condemnation of errors that are not heresies

Magister Errores alii sunt in triplici differentia. Quidam enim nec contrariantur his quae pertinent ad fidem et bonos mores nec eos tenere aliquod animae affert periculum. Tales sunt errores in puris philosophicis et etiam errores aliqui circa aliqua dicta divina de quibus inveniri non potest quid indubie sit tenendum. De talibus loquitur Augustinus in Encheridion dicens, "In rebus in quibus nihil interest ad capescendum Dei regnum errare nullum aut minimum est peccatum." De huiusmodi etiam intelligit Anselmus in lib. 1 Cur Deus homo c. 18 dicens, "In his rebus de quibus diversa sentiri possunt sine periculo, sicuti est istud unde nunc agimus. Si enim nescimus utrum plures homines eligendi sunt quam sunt angeli perditi, an non alterum horum existimamus plusquam alterum, nullum puto esse animae periculum Si, inquam, in huiusmodi rebus sic exposuimus divina dicta ut diversis sententiis favere videantur, nec alicubi invenitur ut quid indubitanter tenendum sit determinetur non arbitror reprehendi debere." Tales errores secundum multos non licet papae damnare quia damnando animas laquearet obligando fideles ad credendum aliqua forte contra conscientiam vel negandum quod tenere vel negare nullum parit periculum.

Master There are three kinds of other errors. For some neither are opposed to those things that pertain to faith and good morals nor is it reported of them that they hold anything of danger to the soul. Errors of this kind are those which concern purely philosophical matters and also some errors about divine sayings about which it can not be discovered what should be held without doubt. Augustine speaks about such matters in his Enchiridion, saying, "It is no sin or the slightest sin to err in those matters which do not at all pertain to the taking hold of God's kingdom." Anselm also means things of this kind when he says in chapter 18 of book 1 of Cur deus homo, "... in those matters about which different things can without danger be thought, like the matter we are now considering. For if we do not know whether more men are to be chosen than there are lost angels, I do not think there is any danger to the soul whether or not we think the one of these more than the other. If, I say, we have expounded divine sayings in matters of this kind in such a way that they seem to favour various opinions, and it is nowhere found that it is determined what should be held indubitably, I do not think that this should be censured." According to many people it is not permissible for the pope to condemn such errors because in condemning them he would entangle souls by obliging believers to believe things that are perhaps against their conscience or to deny what it produces no danger to hold or to deny.

Alii sunt errores repugnantes his quae in gestis fidelium, cronicis, vel historiis fide dignis habentur. Et de istis dicunt nonnulli quod ipsos potest papa damnare non tanquam hereticos sed tanquam periculosos et ecclesiae perniciosos. Damna enim permaxima et pericula tam corporalia quam spiritualia possent fideles incurrere si quaecunque contenta in gestis, historiis, et cronicis cuilibet negare liceret. Cum ergo papa damnis et periculis fidelium debeat obviare, potest tales errores damnare et errantes debitae subdere ultioni.

There are other errors which are opposed to what is found in accounts of the deeds of believers, in chronicles, or in histories worthy of trust. Some people say about these that the pope can condemn them not as heretical but as dangerous and pernicious to the church. For believers could incur the greatest damage and dangers both corporal and spiritual if anyone at all were permitted to deny whatever is contained in accounts of deeds, histories and chronicles. Since a pope is obliged to prevent damage and dangers to believers, therefore, he can condemn such errors and subject those erring to the appropriate punishment.

Alii sunt errores, de quibus est dictum prius, ex quibus et aliis veris quae negari non possunt contingit aliquam haereticam pravitatem inferre, qui proprie dicuntur sapere haeresim manifestam et large possunt haereses appellari. Et tales errores non tanquam haereticos stricte loquendo sed tanquam sapientes haeresim manifestam licet papae damnare. Unde si quis diceret castitatem quam moniales vovent non esse altiorem castitate coniugali, deberet papa tam asserentem pertinaciter quam assertionem damnare. Sic quidam errores negantes Fratres Praedicatores et Minores posse audire confessiones sunt damnati. Sic summi pontifices Alexander 4 et Innocentius 4 quosdam magistros Parisienses et errores eorum contra statum et vitam Praedicatorum et Minorum solenniter damnaverunt.

There are other errors of which we spoke above, from which and [i.e.together with] other truths which can not be denied it is possible to infer some heretical wickedness. These are properly said to smack of manifest heresy and can be broadly called heresies. And it is licit for the pope to condemn such errors, not as heretical strictly speaking, but as smacking of manifest heresy. If someone were to say, therefore, that the chastity vowed by nuns is not more noble than conjugal chastity, the pope ought to condemn both the one asserting this pertinaciously and the assertion. Certain errors denying that the preaching friars and the friars minor can hear confessions have been condemned in this way. The highest pontiffs Alexander IV and Innocent IV solemnly condemned in this way certain Parisian masters and their errors against the state and life of [the Orders of] preachers and minorites.

Capitulum 34

Chapter 34

Discipulus Haec probabilia mihi videntur, sed videturne aliquibus quod liceat alicui alii inferiori papa errores huiusmodi condemnare?

Student These seem probable to me, but does it seem to some people that it is licit for someone else inferior to the pope to condemn errors of this kind?

Magister Sunt quidam dicentes quod hoc inferiori papa non licet quia, ex quo non licet eis damnare haereses, quae magis quam quicunque alii errores religioni adversantur et nocent christianae, multo fortius non licet eis errores alios condemnare. Et haec ratio videtur confirmari. Nam maiori periculo est fortius resistendum; sed haereses sunt magis periculosae fidei christianae quam alii errores; cui ergo non licet haereses condemnare de aliis erroribus se intromittere minime debet.

Master There are some people who say that this is not licit for anyone inferior to the pope because, since it is not licit for them to condemn heresies, which are opposed to and harm the christian religion more than any other errors, it is much more the case that it is not licit for them to condemn other errors. And this argument seems to be confirmed. For a greater danger should be resisted more stoutly; but heresies are more dangerous to the christian faith than are other errors; he who is not permitted to condemn heresies, therefore, should not involve himself in other errors.

Alii autem dicunt quod inferioribus praelatis licet errores huiusmodi condemnare. Pro hac assertione sic arguitur. Quod aliquando licuit praelatis inferioribus et non est per summum pontificem nec per generale concilium revocatum adhuc licet eisdem; sed damnare errores huiusmodi licuit aliquando praelatis aliis et non est revocatum; ergo etc. Maior est patens. Minor probatur. Nam cui licet veritates aliquas approbare eidem licet assertiones falsas contrarias reprobare. Sed quondam licuit praelatis inferioribus veritatem asserentem aliquem esse sanctum et tanquam sanctum venerandum a fidelibus approbare quia licuit eis sanctos novos catalogo sanctorum asscribere. Ergo licuit eis assertionem falsam quod tales non essent sancti nec venerandi a fidelibus reprobare et solenniter condemnare. Ergo adhuc licet eis errores aliquos condemnare.

Other people say, however, that it is licit for inferior prelates to condemn errors of this kind. They argue as follows for this assertion. What has been licit for inferior prelates at any time and has not been revoked by the highest pontiff or by a general council is still licit for them; but it was once licit for other prelates to condemn errors of this kind, and this has not been revoked; therefore, etc. The major [premise] is clear; the minor [premise] is proved. For it is licit for anyone who is permitted to approve some truths to reject opposing false assertions. But it has sometimes been licit for inferior prelates to approve someone asserting a truth as holy, and as worthy of veneration as being holy by believers, because it has been licit for them to enter new saints in the catalogue of saints. Therefore it has been licit for them to reject and solemnly to condemn a false assertion that such people were not saints and should not be venerated by believers. It is, therefore, still licit for them to condemn some errors.

Discipulus Ista ratio non videtur concludere contra istos, quia probat tantummodo quod aliquando licuit eis errorem dicentem talem non esse sanctum condemnare. Sed modo non licet eis talem errorem damnare, sicut nec modo licet eis aliquem catalogo sanctorum asscribere.

Student That argument does not seem to be conclusive against them because it proves only that it was at some time licit for them to condemn the error that says that such a person is not a saint. But it is not now licit for them to condemn such an error, just as it is not now licit for them to enter anyone into the catalogue of saints.

Magister Non plene intelligis rationem eorum. Non enim intendunt probare quod modo liceat inferioribus papa asserentem vel assertionem eius quod aliquis pro quo dicitur Deus facere miracula non est sanctus damnare, sed intendunt arguere quod qua ratione licuit eis talem errorem damnare licuit etiam eis alios errores, ex quibus et aliis veris manifestis potest concludi haeresis manifesta, damnare. Potestas autem super alios errores non est revocata. Ergo adhuc possunt errores alios condemnare, licet modo asserentem aliquem pro quo dicunt miracula fieri non esse sanctum nequeant condemnare.

Master You do not fully understand their argument. For they do not intend to prove that it would now be licit for those inferior to the pope to condemn someone who asserts, or his assertion, that someone on behalf of whom God is said to perform miracles is not a saint, but they intend to argue that for the reason for which it was licit for them to condemn such an error it was also licit for them to condemn other errors from which, with the addition of other obvious truths, a manifest heresy can be inferred. Their power over other errors, however, has not been revoked. Therefore they can still condemn other errors, although they can not now condemn anyone asserting that someone for whom they say miracles have been performed is not a saint.

Discipulus Dictam rationem magis adverto, et ideo quomodo ad motivum aliorum respondetur expone.

Student I understand the said argument more, and so explain how it replies to the argument of the others.

Magister Dicitur quod licet non valeant haereses condemnare, possunt tamen alios errores multos minores haeresibus condemnare quia inferiores possunt minora quibus tamen maiora negocia interdicta noscuntur, quia, ut ex lege divina Deuteronomii 1 colligitur, maiora negocia ad maiores oportet referre. Nec tamen est dicendum quin praelati haeresibus resistere teneantur, sed non debent eis resistere condemnando sed eas summo pontifici vel generali concilio nunciando.

Master It is said that although they can not condemn heresies, they can nevertheless condemn many other errors more minor than heresies, because inferiors to whom greater affairs are known to be forbidden can undertake lesser ones since, as we gather from the divine law in Deuteronomy 1, it is necessary to refer greater affairs to greater men. Yet it should not be said that prelates are not bound to resist heresies, but they should not resist them by condemning them, but by announcing them to the highest pontiff or to a general council.

Return to Table of Contents