William of Ockham, Dialogus
part 1, book 3, chapters 1-5.

Text by John Kilcullen and John Scott,
Translation by John Kilcullen.

Copyright © 1999, The British Academy

 

Capitulum 1

Chapter 1

Discipulus De veritatibus catholicis sufficit praedicta quaesisse. Nunc vero de catholicis et haereticis conabor nonnulla inquirere. Primo autem quaero quis debet catholicus reputari.

Disciple Concerning Catholic truths the above investigation is enough. Now, however, I will try to investigate some points concerning Catholics and heretics. And first I ask who should be regarded as a Catholic.

Who should be regarded as a Catholic?

Magister Ille est censendus catholicus qui integram et inviolatam servat catholicam fidem.

Master He should be considered a Catholic who observes the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.

Discipulus Quomodo potest simplex laicus integram fidem servare, qui de multis quae ad fidem catholicam spectant nunquam cogitavit? Talis ergo laicus catholicus esse non potest si omnis catholicus integram tenet catholicam fidem.

Disciple How can a simple layman observe the whole faith, who has never thought of many things that belong to the Catholic faith? Such a layman therefore cannot be a Catholic, if every Catholic holds the whole Catholic faith.

Magister Respondent theologi quod servare vel tenere integram fidem contingit omnia quae ad fidem pertinent orthodoxam explicite vel implicite fideliter et absque ulla dubitatione credendo.

Master Theologians answer that to observe or hold the whole faith is possible by believing faithfully and without any doubt, explicitly or implicitly, all things that pertain to the orthodox faith.

Discipulus Quid est credere aliquid implicite?

Disciple What is it to believe something implicitly?

Magister Respondetur quod credere implicite est alicui universali ex quo multa sequuntur firmiter assentire et nulli contrario pertinaciter adhaerere, et ideo qui firmiter tenet omnia tradita in Scriptura Divina et doctrina universalis ecclesiae esse vera et sana, et non adhaeret pertinaciter alicui assertioni veritati contrariae orthodoxae, fidem catholicam inviolatam tenet et integram et catholicus est censendus.

Master It is answered that to believe implicitly is to assent firmly to some universal [statement] from which many things follow and not adhere pertinaciously to anything contrary, and therefore whoever firmly holds that everything handed down in divine scripture and the teaching of the universal church is true and sound and does not adhere pertinaciously to any assertion contrary to orthodox truth holds the Catholic faith inviolate and whole and should be considered a Catholic.

Discipulus Videtur quod sufficiat credere omnia quae tradit universalis ecclesia esse vera ad hoc quod aliquis sit reputandus catholicus, et ita superflue additur quod nulli contrario pertinaciter adhereat.

Disciple It seems that for someone to be regarded as a Catholic it would be enough to believe that all things that the universal church hands down are true, and thus it is superfluous to add that he should not adhere pertinaciously to anything contrary.

Magister Dicunt literati nonnulli quod non sufficit credere omnia esse vera quae universalis tradit ecclesia nisi simul cum hoc nulli contrario in particulari pertinaciter adhaereatur. Multi enim sunt haeretici condempnati per concilia generalia qui tamen firmiter tenuerunt omnia tradita in Scriptura Sacra esse vera; quia tamen pertinaciter adhaeserunt alicui assertioni in rei veritate contrariae assertioni Scripturae Divinae (quamvis hoc non viderent), non fuerunt catholici sed haeretici iudicati.

Master Some of the learned say that it is not enough to believe that all things that the universal church hands down are true, unless together with this nothing contrary is adhered to pertinaciously in particular. For many heretics have been condemned by general councils who nevertheless firmly held that all things handed down in sacred scripture are true; however, because they adhered pertinaciously to some assertion in truth contrary to an assertion of divine scripture (although they did not see this), they were judged to be not Catholics but heretics.

Discipulus Apparet mihi quod non potest perfecte cognosci quis est reputandus catholicus nisi sciatur quis est haereticus iudicandus. Et ideo ad quaerendum de haereticis me convertam. Dic tamen prius qualiter declaratur quod aliquis potest credere quod omnia quae continet Scriptura Divina vel ecclesia universalis sunt vera et tamen pertinaciter adherere alicui assertioni quae contrariatur alicui veritati quae in Scriptura Sacra vel doctrina universalis ecclesiae continetur.

Disciple It seems to me not possible to know perfectly who is to be regarded as a Catholic unless one knows who is to be judged a heretic, and therefore I will turn to the inquiry concerning heretics. But say first how it is explained that someone can believe that all things that divine scripture contains, or the [doctrine of the] universal church, are true, and yet adhere pertinaciously to some assertion opposed to some truth contained in sacred scripture or in the teaching of the universal church.

Magister Hoc declaratur sic. Sicut contingit aliquid scire in universali et ignorare in particulari, secundum sententiam sapientis, quod non est aliud quam scire propositionem universalem et ignorare aliquam eius singularem (sicut possum scire quod omnis homo est rationalis ignorando hanc singularem, "Iste est rationalis", demonstrato aliquo quem video a remotis de quo ignoro an sit homo vel animal brutum), ita contingit scire aliquam universalem et putare aliquam eius singularem esse falsam (sicut possum scire quod omnis homo est risibilis et tamen, demonstrato aliquo homine quem video a remotis quem puto esse asinum vel aliud animal, sicut saepe contingit, possum credere quod iste non est risibilis quia puto quod iste non est homo): sic possibile est quod aliquis credat hanc universalem, "Omnia contenta in Scriptura Divina sunt catholica et vera", et tamen credat hanc esse falsam, "Beatus Andreas fuit apostolus Christi", quia ignorat hanc veritatem "Beatus Andreas fuit apostolus Christi" contineri vel posse inferri ex Scriptura Divina. Quo posito, si pertinaciter adhaeret quacunque ex causa huic, "Beatus Andreas non fuit apostolus Christi", non catholicus sed haereticus est iudicandus, quantumcunque firmiter teneat hanc universalem, "Omnia quae docet Scriptura Divina sunt catholica et vera".

Master This is explained as follows. Just as it is possible to know something in a universal [statement] and not know it in particular (according to the opinion of the wise man), which is simply to know the universal proposition and not know one of its singulars (for example, I can know that every man is rational, not knowing the singular, "This is rational", when some man is pointed out whom I see from a distance and do not know whether he is a man or a brute animal), so it is possible to know some universal and think that one of its singulars is false (for example, I can know that every man is capable of laughter, and yet, when some man is pointed out whom I see from a distance and think to be an ass or some other animal, as often happens, I can believe that he is not capable of laughter, because I think that he is not a man) -- so it is possible for someone to believe the universal statement, "All things contained in divine scripture are Catholic and true", and yet believe it to be false that "Blessed Andrew was an apostle of Christ", because he does not know that the truth "Blessed Andrew was an apostle of Christ" is contained in or can be inferred from divine scripture. Assuming that this is so, if he adheres pertinaciously, for whatever reason, to the statement that "Blessed Andrew was not an apostle of Christ", he must be judged not a Catholic but a heretic, however firmly he may hold the universal statement, "All things that divine scripture teaches are Catholic and true".

Capitulum 2

Chapter 2

Discipulus Nunc magis quam ante perpendo quod ad cognoscendum quis est censendus catholicus oportet scire quis sit inter hereticos computandus, et ideo de haereticis volo aliqua perscrutari. Ne tamen per aequivocationem decipiar, dic primo si hoc nomen haereticus habeat significationem unam vel plures.

Disciple Now more than ever I consider that to know who should be considered a Catholic one must know who should be counted among the heretics, and therefore I wish to examine some points concerning heretics. But lest I be deceived through equivocation, say first if the word heretic has one meaning or several.

Who should be regarded as a heretic?

Magister Istius nominis haereticus plures significationes assignantur. Uno enim modo omnis excommunicatus vocatur haereticus. Unde 4, q. 1, c. 2, dicit Nicolaus papa: "'Haereticos autem' inquiunt 'dicimus tam eos qui ab ecclesia olim proiecti sunt quam qui post hoc a nobis anathematizati sunt'". Et in eodem capitulo notat glossa dicens: "Nota quod omnis excommunicatus dicitur haereticus." Et hoc idem notat glossa, 24, q. 1, para. Quia vero.

Master Several meanings of this word heretic are assigned. In one way every excommunicate is called a heretic. Thus in 4, q. 1, c. 2 [col. 537], Pope Nicholas says: "'And we call heretics', they say, ' both those who have formerly been expelled by the Church, and also those who after this have been anathematized by us'". And in the same chapter the gloss comments: "Note that every excommunicate is called a heretic". And the gloss notes the same on 24, q. 1, para. Quia vero.

Secundo modo dicitur haereticus perversor sacramentorum. Et sic simoniacus dicitur haereticus. Unde Gregorius, ut habetur 1, q. 1, c. Quisquis, ait: "Quisquis per pecuniam ordinatur ad hoc quod fiat haereticus promovetur".

In a second way a pervertor of the sacraments is called a heretic. And thus a simoniac is called a heretic. Thus Gregory (as we read in 1, q. 1, c. Quisquis) says: "Anyone who is ordained through money is promoted to this, that he may become a heretic".

Tertio modo dicitur haereticus quicunque dubitat vel putat fidem Christianam esse falsam vel fictam. Et sic omnes Iudaei, Sarraceni et Pagani sunt censendi haeretici. Hinc dicit glossa, 24, q. 3, para. Quia vero: "Quandoque large dicitur haereticus omnis qui non tenet articulos fidei". Et secundum hoc Iudaeus et Gentilis sunt haeretici, et secundum hoc non omnis haereticus est excommunicatus. Isto etiam modo dubii in fide sunt haeretici, quia sunt infideles, ut habetur Extra, De haereticis, c. 1 [col. 778: "Dubius in fide infidelis est"]. Sic etiam qui primo sunt Catholici et postea reputant fidem christianam esse falsam sunt haeretici, et sic qui apostotant ore et mente a fide sunt censendi haeretici. Si quis autem apostotaret ore tantummodo non esset apud Deum haereticus, quamvis ecclesia ipsum deberet haereticum reputare nisi constaret eum apostatasse timore mortis.

In a third way, whoever doubts or thinks that the Christian faith is false or an invention is called a heretic. And in this way all Jews, Saracens and pagans should be considered heretics. Hence the gloss says, 24, q. 3, para. Quia vero[col. 1427], "Sometimes anyone who does not hold the articles of faith is, in a broad sense, called a heretic". And according to this the Jew and the Gentile are heretics, and according to this not every heretic is excommunicate. In this way also those doubtful in faith are heretics, because they are unbelievers, as we read in Extra, De haeretics, c. 1. Thus also those who are at first Catholics and afterwards think that the Christian faith is false are heretics, and thus those who apostatize from the faith by mouth and mind are to be considered heretics. (But if anyone apostatized only by mouth, he would not be a heretic before God, though the Church would have to regard him as a heretic unless it were certain that he apostatized from fear of death.)

Quarto modo dicitur haereticus omnis Christianus, vel qui putat aut qui putaverit se Christianum, errans pertinaciter contra Catholicam veritatem.

In a fourth way, every Christian, or one who thinks or thought himself to be a Christian, who errs pertinaciously against Catholic truth is said to be a heretic.

Discipulus Quare dicitur "qui putat aut putaverit" se fuisse Christianum?

Disciple Why is it said "who thinks or thought himself" to have been a Christian?

Magister Dicitur propter illos qui extra formam ecclesiae baptizantur, qui Christiani non sunt sed putaverunt vel putant se esse Christianos; et tamen sunt haeretici aliter quam Iudaei vel Pagani, et aliter sunt puniendi.

Master It is said on account of those who are baptized outside the Church's form, who are not Christians but thought or think themselves Christians; and yet they are heretics otherwise than Jews or pagans are, and should be punished in another way.

Discipulus Dic si habet alias significationes hoc nomen haereticus.

Disciple Say if this word heretic has other meanings.

Magister Quinto modo dicitur haereticus omnis pertinaciter adhaerens errori qui sapit haereticam pravitatem.

Master In a fifth way everyone who adheres pertinaciously to an error which smacks of heretical wickedness is called a heretic.

Capitulum 3

Chapter 3

Discipulus Clare intueor plures significationes huius nominis haereticus; in quibusdam tamen earum raro accipitur, licet saepe de haereticis mentio fiat. Dic ergo si audisti vel vidisti descriptionem huius nominis haereticus in illa significatione in qua communius accipitur.

Disciple I see clearly several meanings of this word heretic, but in some of them it is seldom used, though heretics are often mentioned. Say, therefore, if you have heard or seen a description of this word heretic in the meaning in which it is more commonly used.

Magister Forte tu intendis loqui de haeretico qui est excommunicatus et, si fuerit convictus legitime et non se correxerit secundum formam ecclesiae, est tradendus curie seculari.

Master Perhaps you mean to speak of the heretic who is excommunicate, and, if he has been lawfully convicted and has not corrected himself according to the Church's form, should be handed over to a secular court.

Discipulus Illum describe si potes.

Disciple Describe him, if you can.

Definition (description) of a heretic

Magister Quidam describunt sic dicentes: Haereticus est serio baptizatus, vel pro baptizato se gerens, pertinaciter dubitans vel errans contra Catholicam veritatem.

Master Some describe [him] saying this: A heretic is someone seriously baptized, or behaving as someone baptized, who pertinaciously doubts or errs against Catholic truth.

Discipulus Declara particulas, et expone quas personas intendunt includere et quas excludere.

Disciple Clarify the elements [of this description], and explain which persons they intend to include and which to exclude.

Magister Per primam particulam, cum dicunt "serio baptizatus", excludunt baptizatos iocose, qui pro non baptizatis censentur. Comprehendunt autem per illam eandem particulam non solum Christianos a Catholicis baptizatos sed etiam baptizatos ab haereticis in forma ecclesiae, et extra formam ecclesiae (qui sacramentum baptismi nec quo ad gratiam nec quo ad characterem quoquomodo suscipiunt). Per eandem etiam particulam excludunt Iudaeos, Sarracenos et paganos qui nunquam baptizati fuerunt nec pro baptizatis se gesserunt, qui poena haereticorum de quibus loqueris sunt minime feriendi.

Master By the first element, when they say "seriously baptized", they exclude those baptized in jest who are considered as not baptized. And they include by the same element not only Christians baptized by Catholics, but also those baptized by heretics in the Church's form -- and outside the Church's form (who in no way receive the sacrament of baptismi n respect of either grace or character). By the same element they exclude Jews, Saracens and pagans who have never been baptized and have not behaved as baptized persons, who should not at all be punished by the penalty of the heretics of whom you were speaking.

Per secundam autem particulam, cum dicitur "pro baptizato se gerens", comprehendunt illos qui putant vel fingunt se baptizatos et tanquam baptizati inter Christianos conversantur, qui, si a fide recesserint, ac si fuissent vere baptizati sunt plectendi.

And by the second element, when it is said "behaving as someone baptized", they include those who think or pretend that they have been baptized and live among Christians as if baptized. If these withdraw from the faith they should be punished as if they had truly been baptized.

Per tertiam vero particulam, cum dicitur "pertinaciter dubitans vel errans contra Catholicam veritatem", excluduntur omnes qui ex simplicitate vel ignorantia sola, absque omni pertinacia, vel dubitant vel errant contra fidem. Tales enim non sunt censendi haeretici, sed sunt de fide cum diligentia informandi; qui si postea pertinaciter dubitaverint vel erraverint sunt haeretici iudicandi.

By the third element, when it is said, "who errs or doubts pertinaciously against Catholic truth", are excluded all those who either doubt or err against the faith from simplicity or ignorance alone, without any pertinacity. For such persons should not be considered heretics, but should be diligently informed about the faith, and if afterwards they doubt or err pertinaciously they should be condemned as heretics.

Capitulum 4

Chapter 4

Discipulus Ut materiam de haereticis magis intelligam, contra praedictam descriptionem multis modis obiciam. Prima enim particula, quae ponitur loco generis, cum dicitur "serio baptizatus", non videtur convenienter poni. Quia multi sunt serio baptizati extra formam ecclesiae qui, quantumcunque erraverint pertinaciter, non sunt haeretici iudicandi secundum quod nunc loquimur de haereticis, quia nunc solummodo loquimur de haereticis qui sunt de foro ecclesiae et per ecclesiam iudicandi. Illi autem qui sunt extra ecclesiam et nunquam fuerunt de ecclesia nec unquam fuerunt Christiani non sunt per ecclesiam iudicandi, teste Apostolo, qui 1 ad Corinthios, 5 c., ait: "Quid enim mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare?" Sed baptizati extra formam ecclesiae semper fuerunt foris et nunquam fuerunt Christiani; ergo non sunt per ecclesiam iudicandi, et per consequens non sunt haeretici reputandi.

Disciple So as to understand better the material about heretics I will object against the above description in many ways. For the first element, which is put in place of a genus, when it is said "seriously baptized", does not seem suitably laid down. For many are seriously baptized outside the Church's form, who, however much they may err pertinaciously, should not be judged heretics as we are now speaking of heretics, because we are speaking now only about heretics who belong to the forum of the Church and are to be judged by the Church. But those who are outside the Church and never were of the Church and never were Christians should not be judged by the Church, as the Apostle testifies. In 1 Corinthians 5, he says, "For what business is it of mine to judge those outside?" But those baptized outside the Church's form have always been outside and never have been Christians. Therefore they should not be judged by the Church and consequently should not be regarded as heretics.

Magister Obiectio tua in aequivocatione fundatur, nam variis modis aliqui dicuntur esse foris. Quidam enim sunt foris quia nunquam, neque vero neque falso baptismo, baptizati fuerunt nec pro baptizatis qualitercunque se gesserunt, et de his intendit Apostolus. Quia isti, quantumcunque pertinaciter erraverint contra Catholicam veritatem, non sunt per ecclesiam, sicut haeretici baptizati, plectendi.

Master Your objection is based on an equivocation, for people are said to be "outside" in various ways. For some are outside because they have never been baptized, by either true or false baptism, and have not in any way behaved as baptized persons, and the Apostle means these. However much they err pertinaciously against Catholic truth, they are not to be punished by the Church, as baptized heretics are.

Alii sunt foris qui nunquam verum baptismum acceperunt; habuerunt tamen falsum baptismum, vel se pro baptizatis gesserunt, et isti, sicut illi qui fuerunt intus, iudicio ecclesiae sunt subiecti.

Others are outside who never received true baptism; however, they have received false baptism, or have behaved as baptized persons; and these, like those who have been within, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Church.

Alii sunt foris qui aliquando intus fuerunt sed per censuram ecclesiae sunt ab eadem ecclesia separati; et tamen aliquando manent intus. Et sic omnes excommunicati dicuntur foris. Hinc Hieronymus, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Si quis, ait: "Fit interdum ut ille qui foris mittitur intus sit, et ille foris qui intus videtur retineri" [c. 4, col. 990]. Isti etiam, quantumcunque sint foris, a iudicio ecclesiae minime sunt exempti.

Others are outside who have at some time been inside but are separated from the Church by the Church's censure; and nevertheless sometimes they remain within. And in this way all excommunicates are said to be outside. Thus Jerome, as we read in 24, q. 3, c. Si quis, says: "It happens sometimes that he who is sent outside is inside, and he is outside who seems to be retained within". Those also, however much they are outside, are not at all exempt from the Church's jurisdiction.

Discipulus Ista obiectio probabiliter videtur soluta, sed adhuc alia mihi occurrit. Quia amentes, dormientes et penitus contradicentes, quamvis baptizentur, si postea pertinaciter erraverint vel in errore pertinaci permanserint, non videntur haeretici reputandi, quia nec ad iurisdictionem ecclesiasticam pertinebunt.

Disciple That objection seems probably answered, but still another occurs to me. For people who are [baptised while] insane, asleep, and altogether contradicting it, even if they are baptized, if they afterwards err pertinaciously or remain in pertinacious error, do not seem to be regarded as heretics, because they will not belong to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Magister Dicunt isti describentes praedicto modo haereticum quod taliter baptizati, si in contradictione persistunt, nec vero baptismo nec falso intelliguntur baptizari: non falso constat; nec vero, quia quicunque baptizatur vero baptismo characterem suscipit sacramenti.

Master Those who describe the heretic in the above way say that if people thus baptized persist in contradiction, they are understood not to be baptized by either true or false baptism. Certainly not by false; nor by true, because whoever is baptized by true baptism receives the character of the sacrament.

Discipulus Quid dicunt de catechumenis et exprimentibus se habere propositum baptizandi, si antequam baptizentur inciderint in haereticam pravitatem vel ad ritum priorem redierint?

Disciple What do they say about catechumens and those who express an intention to be baptised, if before they are baptized they fall into heretical wickedness or return to their previous rite?

Magister Dicunt quidam eorum quod tales sunt velut haeretici puniendi pro eo quod se pro Catholicis habuerunt, quare si postea pertinaciter erraverint pro haereticis sunt habendi. Item, omnes adulti catechumeni, et asserentes se habere propositum baptizandi, pro baptizatis baptismo flaminis se gerunt; ergo tanquam baptizati iudicio ecclesiae sunt subiecti, et per consequens, si ad vomitum redierint vel in errorem pertinacem inciderint, sunt per ecclesiam poena debita percellendi. Alii autem dicunt quod tales antequam baptizentur ad ecclesiasticam iurisdictionem non pertinent, quare absque metu poenae ecclesiae et ad priorem possunt reverti ritum et in aliis pertinaciter errare.

Master Some of them say that such people should be punished as heretics because they regard themselves as Catholics, so if they afterwards err they should be regarded as heretics. Also, all adult catechumens, and those who assert that they intend to be baptized, act as persons baptized by the baptism of the spirit; therefore they are subject, as baptized people, to the judgment of the Church, and consequently, if they return to their vomit or fall into pertinacious error, they should be struck by the Church with due penalty. Others, however, say that before they are baptized such people do not belong to the jurisdiction of the Church; therefore they can, without fear of the Church's punishment, return to their previous rite and in other ways err pertinaciously.

Capitulum 5

Chapter 5.

Discipulus Licet de ista materia possem quaerere plura, quia tamen modo pauci vel nulli inveniuntur catechumeni et non baptizati se pro baptizatis gerentes et praesens opus volui fieri principaliter ut melius controversias inter Christianos nostris temporibus ventilatas intelligerem, ad ultimam particulam descriptionis praemissae me transfero. Videtur enim quod superflue sit positum "pertinaciter", eo quod omnis Christianus si simpliciter dubitat vel errat contra Catholicam veritatem est haereticorum numero aggregandus.

Disciple Though I could ask many questions about this matter, nevertheless, because few or no catechumens are now found, or unbaptised persons behaving as baptized, and I have wanted the present work to be made mainly so that I would better understand the controversies ventilated among the Christians of our times, I turn to the last element of the description given above. It seems superfluous to put "pertinaciously", since every Christian should be added to the number of the heretics if he simply doubts or errs against Catholic truth.

To be a heretic is it essential to be pertinacious?

Quod primo videtur posse probari auctoritate Innocentii III, qui, ut habetur Extra, De verborum significatione, c. Super quibusdam, scribens Comiti Tholosano, ait: "Tua devotio postulavit a nobis qui sint dicendi haeretici manifesti. Super quo tibi duximus respondendum illos intelligendos manifestos esse haereticos qui contra Catholicam fidem publice praedicant aut profitentur seu defendunt errorem, vel qui coram praelatis suis sunt convicti vel confessi, vel ab eis sententialiter sunt condempnati super haeretica pravitate". In quibus verbis de pertinacia nulla fit mentio. Quicunque ergo praedicat publice contra fidem Catholicam, licet non pertinaciter erret, hereticus est censendus.

This seems provable, first, by a text of Innocent III. As we read in Extra, De verborum significatione, c. Super quibusdam [col.923], writing to the Count of Toulouse, he says: "Your devotion has asked of us who are to be called manifest heretics. Upon this we have decided that you should be given the answer that those should be understood to be manifest heretics who publicly preach against the Catholic faith or profess or defend an error, or who have been convicted or have confessed before their prelates, or have been condemned judicially by them on a charge of heretical wickedness". In these words there is no mention of pertinacity. Anyone, therefore, who preaches publicly against the Catholic faith, even if he does not err pertinaciously, must be considered a heretic.

Hoc idem Caelestinus Papa, ut recitat Nicolaus Papa, sentire videtur, qui, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Ait Caelestinus [c. 35, col. 980], ait: "Si quis ab episcopo Nestorio aut ab aliis qui eum sequuntur, ex quo talia praedicare coeperunt, vel excommunicatus vel exutus est seu antistitis seu clerici dignitate, hunc in nostra communione et durasse et durare manifestum est, nec iudicamus eum esse remotum, quia non poterat quemquam eius removere sententia qui iam se praebuerat ipse removendum". Ex his verbis datur intelligi quod quam cito aliquis incipit praedicare contra Catholicam veritatem, tam cito excommunicandi alios potestatem amittit. Ex quo sequitur quod talis est haereticus reputandus. Et tamen absque pertinacia potest aliqua praedicare contraria Catholicae veritati. Ergo ad hoc quod aliquis sit censendus haereticus non requiritur quod pertinaciter dubitet aut erret.

Pope Celestine, as Pope Nicholas reports, seems to think the same. As we read in 24, q. 1, c. Ait Celestinus, he says: "If anyone has been excommunicated or stripped of his office as bishop or cleric by Bishop Nestorius or by others who follow him (from when they began to preach such things), it is manifest that this man remains and has remained in our communion, and we do not judge him to have been removed; because it was not possible for anyone to remove another by his sentence if he had already shown that he himself should be removed". By these words we are given to understand that as soon as someone begins to preach against Catholic truth, he straightway loses the power to excommunicate others. From this it follows that such a person should be regarded as a heretic. And yet someone can preach things contrary to Catholic truth without pertinacity. Therefore for it to be the case that someone should be considered a heretic it is not required that he err or doubt pertinaciously.

Hoc etiam Beatus Hieronymus, ut habetur 24, q. 1, Haec est fides, testari videtur, cum ait, scribens papae: "Si autem haec nostra confessio Apostolatus tui iudicio comprobatur, quicunque me culpare voluerit se imperitum aut malivolum vel etiam non Catholicum sed haereticum comprobabit". Hic etiam de pertinacia nulla fit mentio. Ergo superflue ponitur "pertinaciter" in diffinitione praedicta.

Blessed Jerome also seems to testify to this. As we read in 24, q. 1, Haec est fides [col.970], he says, writing to a pope, "But if this confession of ours is approved by the judgment of your Apostleship, whoever wants to blame me will prove himself unskilled or malevolent or even not a Catholic but a heretic". Here also there is no mention of pertinacity. Therefore it is superfluous to put "pertinaciously" in the above definition.

Item, nullus nisi haereticus involvitur damnatione haereticorum. Sed teste Gelasio, 24, q. 1, c. 1 [col. 966], "Quicunque in haeresim semel damnatam labitur, eius damnatione seipsum involvit", ubi papa inter labentem pertinaciter vel non pertinaciter in haeresim semel damnatam non distinguit, et per consequens nec nos debemus distinguere. Ergo quicunque, sive pertinaciter sive non pertinaciter, labitur in haeresim semel damnatam haereticus est censendus.

Also, no one except a heretic is entangled in the condemnation of heretics. But, on the testimony of Gelasius, 24, q. 1, c. 1, "Whoever falls into a heresy at any time condemned entangles himself in its condemnation", where the pope does not distinguish between one who falls pertinaciously, or not pertinaciously, into a heresy at any time condemned, and, consequently, neither should we distinguish. Therefore, whoever falls, whether pertinaciously or not pertinaciously, into a heresy at any time condemned should be reckoned a heretic.

Hoc idem Gelasius, ut habetur in eisdem c. et q., c. Maiores, aperte videtur asserere, dicens: "Auctore cuiuslibet insanie ac pariter errore damnato sufficere iudicarunt, ut quisquis huiusmodi erroris aliquando communicator existeret principali sententia damnationis eius esset astrictus".

Gelasius also seems to assert this openly, as we read in the same causa and question, c. Maiores [col.966]. He says: "Once the author of any insanity, and likewise the error, has been condemned, they judged it to be enough that whoever should at any time share in this error would be bound by the original sentence of its condemnation".

Cui Felix papa, ut habetur eisdem c. et q., c. Achatius secundus, concordare videtur, dicens: "Itaque necesse est ut in illam iusta lance sententiam recideret quam cum suis successoribus per convenientiam synodalem susceperat auctor erroris". In his auctoritatibus inter incidentem in haeresim pertinaciter et non pertinaciter isti summi pontifices non distinguunt, et tamen indiffinite et universaliter dicunt sectatores haereticorum simili sententiae subiacere. Ergo superflue ponitur in diffinitione praedicta "pertinaciter".

Pope Felix seems to agree with him. As we read in the same causa and question, c. Achatius (ii) [col.966], he says: "It is therefore necessary that he fell into the sentence (if the scales are just) that the author of the error, together with his successors, had received by agreement of the synod". In these texts these supreme pontiffs do not distinguish between those who fall into heresy pertinaciously and not pertinaciously, and yet they say indefinitely and universally that the followers of heretics lie under a like sentence. Therefore "pertinaciously" is superfluous in the definition above.

Item, Hieronymus super Epistolam ad Galatas, et ponitur 24, q. 3, c. Haeresis, ait: "Quicunque igitur aliter scripturam intelligit quam sensus Spiritus Sancti flagitat (a quo scripta est), licet ab ecclesia non recesserit, tamen haereticus appellari potest, et de carnis operibus est eligens quae peiora sunt". Ex his verbis patet quod omnis intelligens, sive pertinaciter sive non pertinaciter, scripturam aliter quam sensus Spiritus Sancti flagitat est haereticus. Ergo "pertinaciter" inconvenienter ponitur in diffinitione praedicta.

Also, Jerome says, commenting upon the Epistle to the Galatians (included in 24, q. 3, c. Haeresis [col. 997]): "Therefore, whoever understands Scripture otherwise than as the sense of the Holy Spirit demands (by whom it is written), though he does not withdraw from the Church, can nevertheless be called a heretic, and he is choosing from among fleshly works those which are worse". From these words it is clear that everyone, whether pertinaciously or not pertinaciously, understanding otherwise than as the sense of the Holy Spirit demands is a heretic. Therefore "pertinaciously" is unsuitably put in the above definition.

Item, Stephanus papa, inter dubium pertinacem et non pertinacem non distinguens indiffinite dicit, ut habetur Extra, De haereticis, c. 1 [col. 778]: "Dubius in fide infidelis est". Ergo omnis dubitans de fide, sive pertinaciter sive non pertinaciter, infidelis, et per consequens haereticus, est censendus. Magis autem est errare quam dubitare. Ergo omnis errans contra fidem, sive pertinaciter sive non pertinaciter, hereticus est censendus.

Also, Pope Stephen, not distinguishing between pertinacious and not pertinacious doubt, says indefinitely, as we read in Extra, De hereticis, c. 1: "One who is doubtful in faith is unfaithful". Therefore everyone who doubts about the faith, whether pertinaciously or not pertinaciously, should be considered unfaithful and consequently a heretic. [See Significant Variants, para. 10.] But it is a bigger thing to err than to doubt; therefore everyone who errs against the faith, whether pertinaciously or not pertinaciously, should be considered a heretic.

Item, Nicholaus papa, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Aperte, indiffinite dicit, "Neminem deicere vel removere poterat qui, talia praedicans, in fide titubat". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod omnis titubans seu dubitans in fide omni potestate ecclesiastica est privatus, sed non nisi quia hereticus; ergo omnis talis titubans seu dubitans in fide, sive pertinaciter sive non pertinaciter, hereticus est censendus. Ex quo sequitur quod omnis errans contra fidem etiam non pertinaciter haereticus est censendus.

Also, Pope Nicholas, as we read in 24, q. 1, c. Aperte, says indefinitely: "He who, preaching such things, is unsteady in the faith was not able to depose or remove anyone". From these words we gather that everyone who is unsteady in faith is deprived of all ecclesiastical power. But this is only because he is a heretic. Therefore everyone who is unsteady or doubtful in faith, whether pertinaciously or not pertinaciously, should be considered a heretic. From this it follows that everyone who errs against the faith, even not pertinaciously, should be reckoned a heretic.

His concordat Gratianus 24, q. 1, para. His auctoritatibus, dicens: "His auctoritatibus perspicue monstratur quod, ex quo aliquis contra fidem ceperit aliqua docere, nec deiicere aliquem valet nec damnare"; et per consequens talis docens contra fidem, quamvis non fuerit convictus, est haereticus reputandus.

Gratian agrees with these. In 24, q. 1, para. His auctoritatibus [col.981], he says: "By these texts it is clearly shown that as soon as someone begins to teach something against the faith he cannot depose or condemn anyone", and consequently such a person teaching against the faith, even if not convicted, should be regarded as a heretic.

Item, fides quae non est firma non est vera fides. Hinc dicit concilium generale, ut habetur Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. 1, "Firmiter credimus", aperte insinuans quod omnis Catholicus firmiter credere debet. Hinc etiam in Symbolo Athanasii continetur: "Haec est fides Catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit salvus esse non poterit"; fides ergo debet esse firma. Sed dubitans in fide, quamvis non pertinaciter, non habet fidem firmam sed infirmam, teste Bernhardo, qui, libro quinto ad Eugenium papam, ait: "Fides si habet haesitationem infirma est". Ergo dubitans de fide non habet veram fidem, et per consequens non Catholicus sed haereticus est censendus.

Also, faith that is not firm is not true faith. Hence a general council says, as we read Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. 1 [col.5], "We firmly believe", obviously suggesting that every Catholic should believe firmly. Hence also in the Athanasian Creed it is contained: "This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved"; faith should therefore be firm. But one who doubts in faith, even if not pertinaciously, does not have firm faith, but unfirm, as Bernard testifies. In [De consideratione], addressed to Pope Eugenius, Book 5, he says: "Faith, if it hesitates, is unfirm". Therefore one who doubts about the faith does not have true faith, and consequently should be reckoned not a Catholic but a heretic.

Istae sunt obiectiones quae mentem meam pulsant contra descriptionem haeretici memoratam. Quia tamen praedicta descriptio videtur apparens, dic quomodo ad praedicta respondent haereticum taliter describentes.

These are the objections that strike my mind against the above description of a heretic. However, because that description seems plausible, say how those who thus describe the heretic answer the above.

Return to Table of Contents