|
| |
|
Incipit liber quintus prime partis dialogorum docens qui possunt pravitate heretica maculari. |
The fifth book of the first part of the Dialogues begins, teaching who can be defiled by heretical wickedness. |
Capitulum 1 |
Chapter 1 |
|
Discipulus Quia michi videtur quod qui non resistunt pravitati heretice cum possunt sunt pocius hereticorum fautores quam heretici nuncupandi de ipsis hic plus nolo inquirere, sed postea quando de fautoribus receptoribus et defensoribus hereticorum interrogabo quam plura de istis eciam investigare curabo. Nunc autem postquam quesivi quomodo potest quis convinci esse hereticus, indagare propono qui possunt pravitate heretica maculari. Et quia omnes christiani sentire videntur quod tota multitudo Christianorum hereticari non potest, quidam autem quod nec concilium generale, aliqui vero quod nec Romana ecclesia, nonnulli autem quod nec collegium cardinalium, alii vero quod nec eciam papa potest heretica pollui pravitate, ideo de istis quinque quid senciant Christiani cupio ut michi reveles. Primo autem dicas an omnes putent papam intrantem canonice hereticari non posse. |
Student: Because it seems to me that those who do not resist heretical wickedness when they can should be called favourers of heretics rather than heretics, I do not want to ask more about them here; but when I question you later about favourers, harbourers and defenders of heretics I will take care to find out more about them too. But having inquired about how someone can be convicted of being a heretic, I now propose to investigate who can be defiled by heretical wickedness. And because
I want you therefore to reveal to me what christians think about those five groups. Would you first tell me, however, whether everyone thinks that a pope who enters [office] canonically is unable to become a heretic. |
CAN A POPE BECOME A HERETIC? |
|
|
Magister De hoc sunt opiniones contrarie. Sunt enim quidam dicentes quod papa intrans canonice errare potest contra catholicam veritatem et pravitati heretice pertinaciter adherere. Alii autem dicunt quod papa intrans canonice contra fidem errare non potest. |
Master: There are opposing opinions about this. For some people say that a pope who enters [office] canonically can err against catholic truth and cling pertinaciously to heretical wickedness. Others say however that a pope who enters [office] canonically can not err against the faith. |
|
Discipulus Quomodo primi opinantes se muniunt non differas explicare. |
Student: Do not put off explaining how those who maintain the former opinion support [their position]. |
That a pope can become a heretic |
|
|
Magister Assercionem predictam auctoritatibus et exemplis ac eciam racionibus fulcire nituntur. Primo autem hoc auctoritate beati Pauli conantur ostendere. Nam ad Hebreos 5 sic legitur,"Omnis pontifex ex hominibus assumptus pro hominibus constituitur in hiis que sunt ad Deum ut offerat dona et sacrificia pro peccatis; qui condolere possit hiis qui ignorant et errant quoniam et ipse circumdatus est infirmitate." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod omnis pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, qualis est eciam summus pontifex, sicut condolere potest hiis qui ignorant et errant, ita eciam infirmitate, id est potencia ignorandi et errandi, circumdari dinoscitur. |
Master: They try to uphold that assertion by citing authorities and examples and also by reasoning. They try to show it first by the following text of blessed Paul. For we read as follows in Hebrews 5[:1-2]. "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins, who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err, becase he himself is compassed with infirmity." We gather from these words that just as every priest taken from among men - and the highest pontiff is also such a one - can have compassion on the ignorant and on them that err, so also they are known to be compassed with infirmity, that is with the capacity for ignorance and error. |
|
Item prima ad Corinthios decimo c. Apostolus generaliter ammonet omnes in gracia minime confirmatos dicens, "Qui se existimat stare videat ne cadat." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod omnis homo in gracia minime confirmatus potest cadere in peccatum et per consequens potest errare contra fidem. Papa igitur sicut et alii potest errare contra fidem. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 27.] Again, in 1 Corinthians 10[:12] the Apostle utters a general warning to everyone not confirmed in grace when he says, "Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall." We are given to understand by these words that every person not confirmed in grace can fall into sin, and consequently can err against the faith. Just like others, therefore, the pope can err against the faith. |
|
Item Apostolus ad Galatas c. 6 universitatem erudiens prelatorum quomodo debeant subditos suos astruere ait, "Si preoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto, vos qui spirituales estis instruite huismodi in spiritu lenitatis, considerans teipsum ne et tu tempteris." Ex quibus datur intelligi quod de omni delicto in quo preoccupatus fuerit subditus potest prelatus temptari et consimile delictum committere. Cum ergo a predicta admonicione Apostoli papa minime sit exceptus et subditi possunt errare contra fidem, considerare debet eciam summus pontifex ne de errore contra fidem temptatus in hereticam incidat pravitatem. |
Again, when the Apostle is teaching the whole body of prelates in Galatians 6[:1] how they ought to instruct their subjects he says, "If a man be overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." We are given to understand by this that a prelate can be tempted by the same fault by which his subject has been overtaken and can commit the same fault. Since therefore the pope has not been excepted from that warning of the Apostle, and his subjects can err against the faith, the highest pontiff too should take thought lest he be tempted by an error against faith and fall into heretical wickedness. |
|
Item hoc probant auctoritate Bonifacii martiris que habetur dist. 40, c. Si papa; qui loquens de papa ait, "Huius culpas redarguere presumit mortalium nullus; qui cunctos ipse iudicaturus a nemine est iudicandus nisi deprehendatur a fide devius." Ex quibus verbis evidenter colligitur quod papa potest deviare a fide catholica et hereticam incurrere pravitatem. Quod glossa ibidem asserit manifeste dicens super verbo 'a fide', "Quod intelligit Huguccio, cum papa non vult corrigi. Si enim paratus esset corrigi non posset accusari." Et infra: "Hic specialiter fit mencio de heresi, ideo quia etsi occulta esset heresis, de illa posset accusari." Et infra querit dicens, "Nunquid papa posset statuere quod non posset accusari de heresi?" Et respondet dicens: "Respondeo quod non, quia ex hoc periclitaretur tota ecclesia." Ex hiis verbis patenter habetur quod papa potest de heresi accusari et per consequens potest pravitate heretica irretiri. |
Again, they prove this by a text of Boniface the martyr which is found in dist. 40, c. Si papa [col.146]; speaking about the pope he says, "No mortal presumes to convict him of faults; he who is going to judge everyone else should be judged by no one unless he is discovered deviating from the faith." We gather evidently from these words that the pope can deviate from catholic faith and fall into heretical wickedness. The gloss on that text clearly affirms this when it says about the phrase 'from the faith' [col.195], " Huguccio understands this to mean when the pope refuses to be corrected. For if he were prepared to be corrected he could not be accused. ... Mention is especially made here of heresy because even if the heresy were secret he could still be accused of it." And he goes on to ask, "Would the pope be able to decree that he could not be accused of heresy?" In reply he says, "I answer no, because the whole church would be endangered by it." We clearly learn from these words that the pope can be accused of heresy and, as a consequence, can be ensnared by heretical wickedness. |
|
Item eandem assercionem auctoritate Urbani pape que ponitur 25, q. 1, c. Sunt quidam nituntur astruere. Ait enim Urbanus papa, "Sciendum summopere est quia inde novas leges potest condere, unde evangeliste aliquid nequaquam dixerunt. Ubi vero aperte Dominus vel eius apostoli aut eos sequentes sancti patres sentencialiter aliquid diffinierunt, ibi non novam legem Romanus pontifex dare sed pocius, quod predicatum est, usque ad animam et sanguinem confirmare debet. Si enim quod docuerunt apostoli et prophete destruere, quod absit, niteretur, non sentenciam dare sed magis errare convinceretur." Ex hiis insinuatur quod quamvis Romanus pontifex non debeat tamen potest errare contra apostolos et prophetas et ita potest heretica infici pravitate. Quod glosse multe super decreta sentencialiter et vocaliter asserunt et affirmant. Glossa enim 24, q. 1, c. 1 ait, "Hic", scilicet si quando quis incidit in heresim iam dampnatam, "est casus in quo papa papam ligare potest, in quo papa in canonem late sentencie incidit. Nec obstat illa regula quod par parem solvere vel ligare non potest, quia si papa hereticus est in eo quod hereticus est minor est quocumque catholico." |
Again, they try to add to the same assertion by a text of Pope Urban which is put in 25, q. 1, c. Sunt quidam [col,1008]. For Pope Urban says, "It should be known most diligently that the reason why in some cases he can establish new laws, is because in those cases the evangelists said nothing. But when the Lord or his apostles or the holy fathers who followed them have implicitly defined something the Roman pontiff should not give a new law but rather should confirm what has been proclaimed even with their soul and blood. For if he were to strive, may it not be so, to destroy what the apostles and prophets have taught he would be convicted not of giving an opinion but rather of making an error." This implies that although the Roman pontiff should not err against [the teaching of] the apostles and prophets, nevertheless he can do so, and so he can be corrupted by heretical wickedness. This is asserted and affirmed both implicitly and explicitly by many glosses on the decretals. For the gloss on 24, q. 1, c. 1 says [s. v. heresim; col.1382], "This is a case", that is when someone falls into an already condemned heresy, "in which a pope can bind a pope, in which the pope falls under the canon of published opinion. The rule that an equal can not release or bind an equal is not an objection because from the very fact that the pope is a heretic he is less than any catholic whatsoever." |
|
Item eadem causa et q. c. A recta: dicit glossa, "Quero, de qua ecclesia intelligas quod dicitur quod non possit errare? Non de ipso papa qui ecclesia dicitur, ut supra eodem Quodcumque et 4, q. 1, Scire debes, quia certum est quod papa potest errare, ut 19 dist. c. Anastasius. et 40 dist. c. Si papa." |
Again, the gloss on the chapter A recta in the same causa and quaestio says [s. v. novitatibus; col.1387], "I ask of which church you understand it to be said that it can not err; not of the pope himself who is called the church (the same place c. Quodcumque and 4, q. 1, c. Scire debes) because it is certain that the pope can err, as in dist. 19, c. Anastasius and dist. 40, c. Si papa." |
|
Item 25. q. 1. Que ad perpetuam dicit glossa, "Papa non potest contra generale statutum ecclesie dispensare nec contra articulos fidei. Nam etsi omnes assenciant ei, non valet statutum sed omnes heretici essent, ut 15. dist. Sicut sancti." |
Again, the gloss on 25, q. 1, c. Que ad perpetuam says [s. v. nulla commutatione, col.1438]: "The pope can not dispense against a general statute of the church nor against the articles of faith. For even if everyone were to agree to it, it could not be decreed, but all would be heretics, as in dist. 15, c. Sicut sancti." |
Capitulum 2 |
Chapter 2 |
|
Discipulus Iste auctoritates sufficiant pro assercione predicta; ideo adducas exempla. |
Student: Those authorities are enough for the said assertion. Would you therefore bring forward some examples? |
|
Magister Quod papa intrans canonice potest errare contra catholicam veritatem multis exemplis ostenditur. Est autem primum exemplum de apostolorum principe beato Petro quem ideo, ut videtur, divina providencia postquam fuit ad papatum assumptus errare permisit, ne successores eius ipso fide et constancia et sanctite longe inferiores se non posse errare putarent. Quod enim beatus Petrus contra evangelii veritatem erravit beatus Paulus ad Galatas 2. c. asserit manifeste dicens, "Cum autem venisset Cephas Anciochiam in faciem ei restiti quia reprehensibilis erat." Et quod reprehensibilis erat quia erravit contra evangelicam veritatem ostendit subdens, "Cum vidissem quod non recte ambularet ad veritatem evangelii dixi Cephe coram omnibus, 'Si tu cum Iudeus sis gentiliter vivis et non Iudaice, quomodo gentes cogis Iudaizare?'" Ex hiis verbis datur intelligi quod beatus Petrus a veritate evangelii deviavit. Unde quod a fide exorbitaverit habetur in decretis 2, q. 7, para. Ecce ubi Gracianus allegat quod subditi valent reprehendere prelatos per exemplum de Paulo qui reprehendit Beatum Petrum. Cui allegacioni respondet dicens quod hoc licet quando prelati a fide exorbitant quemadmodum exorbitavit beatus Petrus. Unde dicit ibidem in hec verba, "Paulus Petrum reprehendit qui princeps apostolorum erat. Unde datur intelligi quod subditi possunt reprehendere prelatos si fuerint reprehensibiles." Et isti allegacioni respondet dicens, "Sed hoc facile refellitur si unde sit reprehensus advertitur. Petrus cogebat gentes Iudaizare et a veritate evangelii recedere, cum Iudeis gregem faciens et a cibis gentilium latenter se subtrahens. Par autem est in se a fide exorbitare et alios exemplo vel verbo a fide deiicere. Ergo hoc exemplo non probantur prelati accusandi a subditis nisi forte a fide exorbitaverint vel alios exorbitare coegerint." Ex hiis verbis patet quod beatus Petrus erravit non recte ad veritatem Evangelii ambulando. |
Master: That a pope who enters [office] canonically can err against catholic truth is shown by many examples. Now the first example concerns blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, whom divine providence permitted to err after he was raised to the papacy for this reason, so it seems, namely so that his successors, far inferior to him in faith, constancy and holiness, would not think that they are unable to fall into error. For blessed Paul clearly asserts that blessed Peter erred against the truth of the gospel when he says in Galatians 2[:11]. "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.' And that he was to be blamed because he erred against gospel truth he shows when he adds below [Gal. 2:14], "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, 'If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'" We are given to understand by these words that blessed Peter deviated from the truth of the gospel. That he did turn away from the faith we find in the decretals at 2, q. 7, para. Ecce, where Gratian argues, from the example of Paul rebuking Peter, that subjects can rebuke their prelates. He responds to this argument by saying that this is permitted when prelates turn away from the faith as Peter turned away. Thus he says the following at that place, "Paul rebuked Peter who was the chief of the apostles. We are given to understand by this that subjects can rebuke prelates if they have been blamable." And to this argument he responds saying, "But this is easily rebutted if we attend to why he was rebuked. Peter was forcing the Gentiles to live as do the Jews and to fall back from the truth of the gospel and he made a party with the Jews, secretly refraining from Gentile foods. But it is the same whether one turns aside from the faith oneself or one drives others away from the faith by one's example or one's words. This example does not prove, therefore, that prelates should be accused by their subjects, unless they happen to have turned away from the faith or to have forced others to turn away." [col.495] It is clear from these words that blessed Peter fell into error by not walking rightly according to the truth of the gospel. |
|
Discipulus Nunquid doctores moderni tenent quod beatus Petrus erravit contra fidem? |
Student: Do modern doctors maintain that blessed Peter erred against the faith? |
|
Magister Thomas de Aquino hoc tenet aperte. Nam 2. 2. q. 33. art. 4. dicit in hec verba, "... in faciem resistere coram omnibus excedit modum fraterne correccionis. Et ideo sic Paulus Petrum non reprehendisset nisi aliquo modo esset par quantum ad fidei defensionem." Et subdit, "Sciendum tamen est quod ubi imminet periculum fidei eciam essent publice prelati a subditis arguendi. Unde et Paulus, qui erat subditus Petro, propter imminens periculum scandali circa fidem Petrum publice arguit. |
Master: Thomas Aquinas plainly maintains this. For he says the following at 2, 2, q. 33, article 4, "... to resist someone to their face in front of everyone exceeds the proper measure of fraternal correction. And therefore Paul would not have rebuked Peter in this way unless he were in some way his equal in respect to the defence of the faith. ... It should be known, nevertheless, that when danger threatens the faith prelates should be reproved by their subjects even publicly. For this reason, that there was imminent danger of a scandal, Paul, who was subject to Peter, publicly reproved him on a matter of faith." |
|
Discipulus Miror quomodo isti presumunt beatum Petrum inter hereticos numerare. |
Student: I marvel how they presume to number blessed Peter among the heretics. |
|
Magister Erras ipsis imponendo falsum quod minime dicunt. Non enim senciunt quod beatus Petrus fuerit hereticus licet erraverit, quia suo errori pertinaciter nequaquam adhesit. Nam ad correccionem beati Pauli statim se correxit et reprehensionem eiusdem libenter audivit; nec beatum Paulum predicantem veritatem in aliquo molestavit. |
Master: You are mistaken and are attributing to them a falsity that they do not say. For they do not think that blessed Peter was a heretic, even though he erred, because he did not cling to his error pertinaciously. For at blessed Paul's correction he immediately set himself right and willingly listened to his rebuke; nor did he in any way interfere with blessed Paul's preaching of the truth. |
|
Discipulus Ut video secundum istos si beatus Petrus suo errori pertinaciter adhesisset fuisset inter hereticos computandus. Ideo ad alia exempla te converte. |
Student: As I see it then, according to them if blessed Peter had clung pertinaciously to his error he would have been reckoned as among the heretics. So would you turn to other examples. |
|
Magister Secundum exemplum est de beato Marcellino papa qui contra fidem erravit idola adorando. De quo Nicolaus papa ut habetur dist. 21, c. Nunc autem ait, 'Tempore Diocleciani et Maximiani augustorum Marcellinus episcopus urbis Rome, qui postea insignis martyr effectus, est adeo compulsus est a paganis ut templum eorum ingressus grana thuris super prunas imponeret." Et in Legenda eius sic legitur, "Marcellinus ad sacrificandum ductus est ut thurificaret quod et fecit." Et in cronicis sic eciam habetur, "Hic compulsus a Diocleciano incensum posuit idolis." Et infra, 'Ad scelus', inquit, 'idolatrie iudico me deponendum et anathematizo eciam quicumque corpus meum tradiderit sepulture', et flens dixit, 'Heu me amarum et non possum in sacerdocio remanere.'" Ex hiis colligitur quod beatus Marcellinus papa contra fidem erravit scelus ydolatrie committendo. |
Master: The second example concerns blessed Pope Marcellin who erred against the faith by worshipping idols. As we find in dist. 21, c. Nunc autem [col.71], Pope Nicholas says about him, "In the time of the emperors Diocletian and Maximin, Marcellin, bishop of the city of Rome, who later became a noteworthy martyr, was put under such compulsion by pagans that he entered their temple and put grains of incense on the coals." And in his Legend we read as follows, "Marcellin was conducted to a place of sacrifice to burn incense and he did so." And we also find this in the Chronicles, "Being compelled by Diocletian he put in place incense for idols. ... 'I judge', he said, 'that I should be deposed for the crime of idolatry and I anathematise too whoever hands my body over to burial' and in tears he said, 'Alas how bitter I am that I can not remain in the priesthood.'" We gather from this that blessed Pope Marcellin erred against the faith by committing the crime of idolatry. |
|
Discipulus Per ista non probatur quod beatus Marcellinus erravit in mente contra fidem sed actum idolatrie solummodo commisit coactus. |
Student: That does not prove that blessed Marcellin erred against the faith in intention but only that when forced he committed an act of idolatry. |
|
Magister Verum est quod beatus Marcellinus non erravit in mente pravitati heretice adherendo; ex hoc tamen quod facto negavit Christum dum renuit confiteri se esse Christianum, infertur quod potuit errare in mente et quod potuit effici hereticus sicut idolatra fuit effectus. |
Master: It is true that blessed Marcellin did not err in intention by clinging to heretical wickedness, but from the fact that he denied Christ in refusing to confess that he was a Christian, we infer that he could have erred in intention and could have become a heretic just as he became an idolater. |
|
Discipulus Dic alia exempla. |
Student: Tell me some other examples. |
|
Magister Tercium exemplum ponitur de Liberio papa qui consensit perfidie Arriane, sicut in cronicis legitur manifeste. |
Master: A third example given concerns Pope Liberius who, as we clearly read in the chronicles, agreed with the perfidy of Arianism. |
|
Discipulus Non legitur quod Liberius existens verus papa Arrianis consenserit sed solummodo postquam renunciavit papatui. |
Student: We do not read that Liberius agreed with the Arians when he was a true pope, but only after he renounced the papacy. |
|
Magister Dicunt isti quod nullus papa manens papa potest errare pertinaciter contra fidem, quia eo ipso quod pertinaciter contra fidem errat est papatu privatus de iure, licet de facto gereret se pro papa, et ideo non intendunt isti quod papa potest fieri hereticus cum manet papa, sed quod verus papa primo postea potest hereticari. Quod contigit de Liberio supradicto qui primo fuit verus papa et postea hereticus est effectus. Quod autem primo renunciaverit papatui hoc accidit; poterat enim hereticari licet numquam renunciasset papatui. |
Master: They say that no pope can err pertinaciously against the faith while he remains pope because from the fact that he errs pertinaciously against the faith he is by right deprived of the papacy even if in fact he were behaving as pope; and they do not mean, therefore, that a pope can become a heretic while he remains pope but that he can be a true pope at first and later become a heretic. This happened to Liberius who was first a true pope and later became a heretic. It is inessential that he renounced the papacy first, for he could have become a heretic even if he had never renounced the papacy. |
|
Discipulus Suntne plura exempla? |
Student: Are there more examples? |
|
Magister Quartum exemplum ponitur de Anastasio II qui propter hereticam pravitatem fuit a Romana repudiatus ecclesia. De quo in decretis dist. 19, sic legitur, "Anastasius secundus nacione Romanus fuit temporibus Theodorici regis. Eodem tempore multi clerici se a communione ipsius abegerunt eo quod communicasset sine consilio episcoporum vel presbyterorum et cuncte ecclesie catholice dyacono ecclesie Thessalonicensi nomine Fotino qui communicaverat Achacio; et quia voluit occulte revocare Achacium et non potuit nutu Dei percussus est" quia, ut dicit glossa et accipitur a cronicis, "Dum assellaret, emisit intestina." Ex hiis patet quod iste Anastasius pravitate heretica extitit maculatus, propter quam clerici catholici se ab eius communione laudabiliter abegerunt. |
Master: A fourth example is cited concerning Anastasius II who was repudiated by the Roman church because of heretical wickedness. We read as follows about him in the decretals at dist. 19, [c.9; col.64], "Anastasius II, a Roman by birth, lived in the time of King Theodoric. At that time many clerics renounced communion with him because, without seeking advice from bishops or presbyters and the whole catholic church, he had had dealings with a deacon of the church at Thessalonica, named Fotinus, who had associated with Achacius, and because he secretly wanted to recall Achacius and could not do so he was struck down by God's command", because, as the gloss says [s. v. divino, col.87] (it is taken from the chronicles), "While he was at stool his intestines burst out." It is clear from this that Anastasius was defiled with heretical wickedness, on account of which catholic clerics laudably renounced communion with him. |
|
Discipulus Ex hiis non habetur quod Anastasius fuerit hereticus, sed quod communicavit heretico, scilicet Fotino. Multi autem communicant hereticis qui heretici minime sunt censendi. |
Student: We do not learn from this that Anastasius was a heretic but that he had dealings with a heretic, that is with Fotinus. But many people who have dealings with heretics should not be considered heretics. |
|
Magister Iste communicavit hereticis pertinaciter in crimine. Unde dicit glossa quod "Hic communicavit in maleficio", scilicet in heresi, et ideo fuit hereticus quia scienter communicavit in heresi per ecclesiam dampnata. Quod patet ex hoc quod Achacium quem scivit propter heresim iam dampnatam ab ecclesia condemnatum voluit revocare, et ita iste Anastasius inciderat scienter in assercionem quam scivit esse dampnatam; quare fuit hereticus reputandus. |
Master: He had dealings with heretics and was pertinacious in his crime. So the gloss says that "this man participated in wrong-doing", that is in heresy, and was therefore a heretic because he knowingly participated in a heresy condemned by the church. This is clear from the fact that he wanted to recall Achacius whom he knew to be condemned by the church for a heresy already condemned, and so Anastasius himself had knowingly agreed with an assertion which he knew was condemned; therefore he was to be regarded as a heretic. |
|
Discipulus Ex cronicis et glossis super decreta satis apparet Anastasium fuisse hereticum ideo aliud pone exemplum. |
Student: It is clear enough from the chronicles and the glosses on the decretals that Anastasius was a heretic, and so would you cite another example. |
|
Magister Quintum exemplum adducitur non ad probandum quod papa de facto erravit, sed ad monstrandum quod papa hereticari potest et de pravitate heretica accusari. Nam, sicut legitur in decretis 2, q. 7, para. Item cum Balaam, Romana synodus ordinavit quod Simachus papa accusancium obieccionibus responderet. Unde sic habetur ibidem, "Simachus papa in Romana synodo dignitate sua expoliatus prius statui suo reddi precipitur ut veniret ad causam et, si ita recte videretur, accusancium proposicionibus responderet. Digna res visa est maximo numero sacerdotum atque meretur effectum; et cum postmodum ordinaretur quomodo esset accusandus prefatus papa ut causam diceret occurrebat sed ab emulis est impeditus." Ex hiis verbis colligitur quod Simachus papa extitit accusatus et quod iudicio synodi poterat accusari. De quo autem crimine fuit accusatus explicat glossa dist. 17. para, Hinc eciam, dicens quod Simachus papa "primo fuit accusatus de heresi, sed cum appareret calumpnia accusantis fuit postea absolutus". Patet igitur ex hiis quod synodus reputavit Simachum papam posse de heresi accusari, et per consequens papa potest hereticari. |
Master: The fifth example is brought forward not to prove that a pope has in fact fallen into error, but to show that the pope can become a heretic and be accused of heretical wickedness. For, as we read in the decretals at 2, q. 7, c. Item cum Balaam [col.496], the Roman synod decreed that Pope Symachus should reply to the reproaches of his accusers. So we find the following at that place, "Having been deprived of [the regalia] of his dignity in the Roman synod, Pope Symachus is ordered to be returned to his former state that he might come to defend himself and, if it seemed properly done in this way, to reply to the representations of his accusers. The matter seemed worthy of the greatest number of priests and was deserving of this process; when it was later being arranged how he should be called to account the pope got up to plead his case, but was impeded by his rivals." We gather from these words that Pope Symachus was arraigned and was able to be arraigned on the judgement of the synod. The gloss on dist. 17, para. Hinc etiam explains on what charge he was arraigned when it says [s. v. immunia, col.72] that Pope Symachus "was first arraigned for heresy but when the false accusation of his accuser became clear he was later absolved." It is clear from this, therefore, that the synod reckoned that Pope Symachus was able to be accused of heresy; and consequently a pope can become a heretic. |
|
Sextum exemplum adducitur de Leone quem convicit beatus Hilarius episcopus Pictaviensis. De isto tamen sunt opiniones, quibusdam dicentibus quod numquam fuit verus papa sed papatus invasor, aliis dicentibus quod fuit verus papa antequam in heresim laberetur. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 28.] A sixth example is brought forth concerning Leo whom blessed Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, convicted of error. There are opinions about him, nevertheless, with some people saying that he was never a true pope but only a usurper of the papacy and others saying that he was a true pope before he slipped into heresy. |
|
Septimum exemplum ad probandum quod papa potest hereticari ponitur de Sylvestro II de quo legitur quod diabolo fecit homagium; quem eciam in papatu existens consuluit; ex quo arguunt quod potuit hereticari, quia omnis demonum invocator et cultor habensque cum demoniis societatem pestiferam potest hereticam incurrere pravitatem. |
A seventh example cited to prove that a pope can become a heretic concerns Sylvester II of whom we read that he did homage to the devil and also consulted him when he was actually pope; they affirm from this that hewas able to become a heretic because anyone who invokes or worships demons and keeps pestilential company with them is able to incur heretical wickedness. |
|
Octavum exemplum est de pluribus summis pontificibus tenentibus circa ea que fidei sunt asserciones contrarias, videlicet de Iohanne 22 ex parte una, et de Nicolao 3 aliisque quampluribus ex alia parte qui de paupertate Christi et apostolorum eius concordem sentenciam diffinierunt vel approbaverunt ab aliis diffinitam; quam sentenciam predictus Iohannes 22 reprobat manifeste. Ex quo infertur quod vel Iohannes 22 vel Nicolaus 3 ex quo alter eorum erravit in fide fuit hereticus reputandus. Nam ille eorum qui erravit suum errorem diffiniendo solenniter aliosque ad tenendum artando pertinaciter suo errori adhesit; ergo alter eorum est hereticus iudicandus. |
The eighth example concerns several highest pontiffs maintaining opposed assertions about matters concerning faith, that is John XXII on the one hand and Nicholas III and very many others on the other hand, who defined an agreed opinion on the poverty of Christ and his apostles or approved one defined by others, an opinion which the aforesaid John XXII clearly rejects. We infer from this that because one of them erred in the faith, either John XXII or Nicholas III should be regarded as a heretic. For whichever of them erred by defining his error solemnly and constraining others to hold it adhered to his error pertinaciously; therefore one of them should be adjudged a heretic. |
|
Item ponunt exemplum de Innocencio 3 et eodem Iohanne 22, quod alter eorum erravit in fide. Nam Innocencius 3, sicut legitur Extra, De celebracione missarum c. Cum Marthe, ponit et asserit manifeste quod sancti in celo sunt perfecte beati et quod omnia eis ad vota succedunt et per consequens vident Deum. Item in libro De contemptu mundi idem Innocencius dogmatizat quod anime reproborum sunt nunc in inferno ubi graviter puniuntur. Iohannes autem 22 docet et predicat quod anime sanctorum non vident Deum et quod anime reproborum non sunt in inferno nec ante diem generalis iudicii punientur. Cum ergo contradictorie simul esse vere non possint, constat quod alter istorum erravit et ita liquet aperte quod papa potest errare. |
Again, they cite the example of Innocent III and the same John XXII, one of whom erred in the faith. For as we read in Extra, De celebracione missarum, c. Cum Marthe [col.636], Innocent III states and asserts clearly that the saints in heaven are perfectly blessed, that everything prospers for them according to their wishes and that, as a consequence, they see God. Again, in his book, De contemptu mundi, Innocent propounds as dogma that the souls of the condemned are now in hell where they are being severely punished. John XXII teaches and preaches, however, that the souls of the saints do not see God and that the souls of the condemned are not in hell and will not be punished before the day of general judgement. Since contradictory propositions can not be true at the same time, it is therefore certain that one of them has erred, and so it is quite clear that a pope can err. |
|
Item ponitur exemplum de isto Iohanne 22 et de beato Gregorio. Nam, sicut ex libro Dialogorum beati Gregorii claret, ipse sensit quod anime sanctorum in celo vident Deum et quod anime reproborum puniuntur in inferno. Iohannes autem 22 negat utrunque; ergo alter eorum erravit. |
Next the example of John XXII and blessed Gregory is cited. For as is clear from his book, Dialogues, blessed Gregory believed that the souls of the saints in heaven see God and that the souls of the condemned are being punished in hell. Because John XXII denies both these [statements], one of them has erred. |
|
Item ponunt exemplum de eodem Iohanne 22 et multis aliis summis pontificibus qui sibi circa rerum contingenciam contradicunt. Nam Iohannes 22 dogmatizat et predicat quod omnia de necessitate eveniunt quia omnia preordinata sunt a Deo; ordinacio autem Dei impediri non potest. Unde et propter hoc in constitucione sua Quia vir reprobus tenet expresse quod Christus inquantum homo regno temporali et universali rerum dominio renunciare non potuit quia contra ordinacionem Patris fecisset. Propter hoc eciam distinccionem theologorum de potencia Dei absoluta et ordinata reprobat et impugnat. Propter hoc eciam dicit quod Deus necessario predestinavit electis vitam eternam et minime contingenter, et ita plane tenet quod omnia de necessitate eveniunt. Cui tamen plures summi pontifices contradicunt. Ait enim Iohannes papa 8, ut habetur dist. 86, c. Facientis, "Facientis proculdubio culpam habet qui quod potest corrigere negligit emendare." Ex quibus verbis colligitur evidenter quod quandoque aliquis non corrigit quos potest corrigere et ita potest corrigere et potest non corrigere; quare non omnia de necessitate eveniunt. |
Then they give the example of John XXII and many other highest pontiffs who disagree with each other about the contingency of events. For John XXII teaches as dogma and preaches that everything happens of necessity because everything has been preordained by God; but God's ordinance can not be prevented. Whence and for this reason he expressly maintains in his constitution, Quia vir reprobus, that Christ, as a man, could not have renounced a temporal kingdom and universal lordship of things because he would have acted against the Father's ordinance. For this reason too he rejects and opposes the theologians' distinction between God's absolute and ordinate power. For the same reason he also says that God has necessarily, and not contingently, predestined the elect to eternal life and so he plainly maintains that everything happens of necessity. Yet many highest pontiffs deny this. For as we find in dist. 86, c. Facientis [col.298], Pope John VIII says, "He who fails to amend what he is able to correct undoubtedly shares the blame of the one acting." We clearly gather from these words that sometimes someone does not correct those whom he should correct; and so he is able to correct and able not to correct; therefore not everything happens of necessity. |
|
Item Gregorius papa ut habetur dist. 83, c. Consentire ait: "Consentire videtur erranti qui ad resecanda que corrigi debent non occurrit." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod potest quis non corrigere que tamen debet, et per consequens potest corrigere et potest non corrigere. |
Again, as we find in dist. 83, c. Consentire [col.294], Pope Gregory says, "He who does not attend to the curtailing of those things which should be corrected seems to be in agreement with the one who errs." We are given to understand by these words that it is possible for someone not to correct what nevertheless he ought [to correct]; and as a consequence he is able to correct and he is able not to correct. |
|
Item Leo papa ut habetur Extra, De hereticis, c. Qui alios ait, "Qui alios cum potest ab errore non revocat", etc. |
Again, as we find in Extra, De hereticis, c. Qui alios [col.778], Pope Leo says, "He who does not call others back from error when he can do so", etc. |
|
Item Eleutherius papa ut habetur 2, q. 7, c. Negligere ait, "Negligere quippe cum possis perturbare perversos nichil aliud est quam fovere." |
Again, as we find in 2, q. 7, c. Negligere [col.501], Pope Eleutherius says, "To neglect to disturb the wicked when you can do so is indeed nothing other than to favour them." |
|
Item Innocencius 3 ut habetur Extra, De sentencia excommunicationis, c. Quante ait: "Facientes et consencientes pari pena plectendos catholica dampnat auctoritas, eos delinquentibus favere interpretans qui cum possint manifesto facinori desinunt obviare." |
Again, as we find in Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, c. Quante [col.909], Innocent III says, "Catholic authority condemns those who act and those who agree with them to be punished with the same penalty, inferring that those who fail to oppose manifest villainy when they can do so are favouring the villains." |
|
Item Innocencius papa, ut habetur dist. 83, c. Error, eadem verba ponit cum Eleutherio dicens, "Negligere quippe cum possis perturbare perversos", etc. |
Again, as we find in dist. 83, c. Error [col.293], Pope Innocent uses the same words as Eleutherius, saying, "To neglect to disturb the wicked when you can", etc. |
|
Item Simachus papa ut habetur eadem dist. para. 1. ait, "Mortem enim languentibus probatur infligere qui hanc cum possit non excludit." Ecce quod septem summi pontifices sentencialiter et vocaliter asserunt manifeste quod potest quis facere que non facit; quod sentencialiter multi alii pape in scriptis suis affirmant, et per consequens secundum eos non omnia de necessitate eveniunt sicut asserit Iohannes 22. Ergo vel iste erravit vel alii erraverunt, et constat quod hoc tangit fidem. Ergo aliquis summus pontifex contra fidem erravit. |
Again, as we find in the same dist. para. 1 [col.293], Pope Symachus says, "For he is proved to inflict death on the weak who does not prevent this when he can." See! Seven highest pontiffs implicitly and explicitly affirm clearly that someone is able to do something that he does not do. Many other popes assert this implicitly in their writings; and, as a consequence, according to them not everything happens of necessity, as John XXII affirms. Therefore, either he has erred or they have erred, and it is certain that this [question] touches on faith. Therefore some highest pontiff has erred against the faith. |
Capitulum 3 |
Chapter 3 |
|
Discipulus Illa que tangunt dominum Iohannem 22 volo usque ad tractatum de dogmatibus ipsius differre. Nunc vero raciones pro assercione predicta producas in medium. |
Student: I want to postpone until the treatise on the dogmatic teachings of the lord John XXII those matters which refer to him. So would you now bring forward for examination arguments for the above assertion. |
|
Magister Quod papa intrans canonice possit postea ante omnem renunciacionem spontaneam non solum errare sed eciam heretica pravitate fedari multis racionibus in scripturis fundatis autenticis assertores prefati probare conantur. Est autem prima racio talis. Omnis purus viator habens usum racionis non confirmatus in gracia potest contra fidem errare et eidem errori pertinaciter adherere, quia talis potest veritati que non est per se nota nec per experienciam certam accepta nec est sibi demonstrative probata, si voluerit, dissentire et eius contrariam opinari, quia secundum beatum Augustinum credere nullus potest nisi volens. Sed papa est purus viator et non comprehensor; si enim esset comprehensor errare non posset. Papa eciam est habens usum racionis, ut communiter. Si enim per infirmitatem vel senectutem vel aliquam aliam causam perderet usum racionis ex tunc quamdiu usu racionis careret hereticari non posset, quemadmodum pueri, amentes et eciam dormientes statu illo durante hereticari non possunt; papa insuper non est confirmatus in gracia cum possit peccare. Ergo papa talis potest veritati que non est per se nota nec per experienciam certam accepta nec est sibi demonstrative probata, si voluerit, dissentire. Multe autem sunt catholice veritates que nec sunt per se note nec per experienciam certam accepte nec sunt pape demonstrative probate, cum dicat beatus Gregorius quod fides non habet meritum cui humana racio prebet experimentum. Ergo huiusmodi veritatibus papa potest, si voluerit, dissentire et per consequens pravitate heretica poterit irretiri. |
Master: Those who assert it try to prove by many arguments based on authoritative writings that after entering [office] canonically a pope not only can err before any voluntary renunciation [of it] but can even be stained by heretical wickedness. Now their first argument is as follows. Any mere pilgrim who has the use of reason but has not been confirmed in grace can err against the faith and adhere pertinaciously to that same error, because such a one can, if he wishes, disagree with a truth which is not self-evident nor learnt by sure experience nor proved to him demonstratively and can opine its opposite, because according to blessed Augustine no one can believe except of his own will; but the pope is a mere pilgrim and not one who has apprehended, for if he were one who has apprehended he would not be able to err. A pope is also someone who has the use of reason, generally speaking, for if he were to lose the use of reason through sickness, old age, or some other reason he would for that reason not be able to become a heretic as long as he lacked the use of reason, just as children, those who are insane or even those merely sleeping can not become heretics as long as that state lasts; moreover the pope has not been confirmed in grace since he is able to sin. A pope like this, therefore, can, if he wants to, disagree with a truth that is not self-evident nor learnt by sure experience nor proved to him demonstratively. However, there are many catholic truths which are not self-evident, have not been learnt by sure experience and have not been proved demonstratively to the pope, since blessed Gregory says that faith for which human reason offers proof does not have merit. If he wishes, therefore, a pope can disagree with truths of this kind, and consequently he can be entangled in heretical wickedness. |
|
Secunda racio est hec. Constitutus in officio per quod necessario neque conferuntur neque augentur necessario gracia et virtutes potest labi in hereticam pravitatem, seu ante susceptum officium potuit heretica pravitate fedari. Hec est nota quia sine gracia vel virtute non potest aliquis viator a pravitate heretica preservari qui prius poterat eandem pravitatem incurrere nisi perderet usum racionis. Sed in suscepcione papalis officii non necessario conferuntur gracia et virtutes neque eciam necessario tunc augentur. Ergo cum papa ante susceptum papale officium potuerit pravitate heretica involvi sequitur quod post eciam susceptum officium dictum, si non perdiderit usum racionis, possit eadem labe fedari. |
A second argument is this. Someone appointed to an office through which grace and virtues are neither necessarily conferred nor necessarily increased can fall into heretical wickedness, or could have been stained with heretical wickedness before he obtained the office. This is well known, because without grace or virtue no pilgrim who could previously have incurred some heretical wickedness can be preserved from that wickedness unless he were to lose the use of reason. But grace and virtues are not necessarily conferred when the papal office is obtained nor also are they necessarily increased then. Therefore since the pope was able to be involved in heretical wickedness before obtaining the office of pope, it follows that also after obtaining that office he can be polluted by the same stain (if he does not lose the use of reason). |
|
Maior est manifesta, minor auctoritatibus et racione probatur. Racione quidem: quia suscipiens papatus officium poterit esse in peccato mortali; existenti autem in peccato mortali gracia et virtutes minime conferuntur nec eciam, stante peccato mortali, augentur in ipso; ergo potest contingere quod in assumpto ad papatum neque virtutes nec gracia augeantur neque tunc eidem conferantur. Quod eciam multis sanctorum testimoniis hoc videtur aperte probari. Beatus enim Gregorius ut habetur dist. 40, c. Non loca ait, "Non loca vel ordines creatori nostro nos proximos faciunt, sed nos aut merita bona ei coniungunt aut mala disiungunt." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod nulla dignitas ecclesiastica absque bonis meritis facit Deo proximos ad idem officium vel dignitatem assumptos. Ex quo manifeste concluditur quod in suscepcione papalis officii gracia et virtutes non necessario conferuntur neque de necessitate augentur, cum absque bonis meritis, immo cum meritis malis, possit quis ambiciosus avarus aut alio crimine irretitus ad officium papatus assumi. |
The major [premise] is manifest; the minor is proved by authorities and by reason. Certainly by reason, because someone who obtains the papal office can be in mortal sin; but grace and virtues are not conferred on anyone who is in mortal sin, nor are they increased in such a one while the mortal sin persists. It can happen, therefore, that neither virtues nor grace will be increased in someone raised to the papacy or will be conferred on him then. This also seems to be clearly provable from many writings of the saints. For, as we find in dist. 40, c. Non loca [col.146], blessed Gregory says, "It is not our position or our orders that bring us close to our creator but it is our good deserts that join us to him or our bad ones that separate us from him." By these words we are given to understand that without good deserts no ecclesiastical dignity brings closer to God those being raised to that office or dignity. From this we clearly conclude that grace and virtues are not conferred necessarily nor by necessity increased with the obtaining of the office of pope, since without good deserts - in fact with bad deserts - it is possible for someone ambitious, greedy or involved in some other wrong to be appointed to the office of the papacy. |
|
Hinc eciam idem Gregorius ut habetur dist. predicta c. Nos qui ait, "Nos qui presumus non ex locorum vel generis dignitate sed morum nobilitate innotescere debemus nec urbium claritate sed fidei puritate"; et beatus Ambrosius ut habetur eadem dist. c. Illud ait, "Illud adverte quod extra paradisum vir factus est mulier intra paradisum ut advertas quod non loci non generis nobilitate sed virtute unusquisque sibi comparat." Et beatus Hieronimus ut habetur dist. prefata c. Non est facile ait, "Non est facile stare in loco Petri et Pauli, scilicet tenere cathedram cum Christo regnancium, quia hinc dicitur non sanctorum filii sunt qui tenent loca sanctorum sed qui exercent opera eorum.' Et Iohannes Chrysostomus ut legitur eadem dist. c. Multi ait, "Non facit cathedra sacerdotem sed sacerdos cathedram, non locus sanctificat hominem sed homo locum." Et idem prout recitatur eadem dist. c. ult. ait, "Non qui maior fuerit in honore ille est iustior, sed qui fuerit iustior ille est maior." Ex hiis patet aperte quod in suscepcione ecclesiastice dignitatis neque gracia et virtutes necessario conferuntur neque ipsas necesse est augeri. Quod eciam per Scripturam Divinam probari videtur quia, ut habetur 2 Mach. 5. c., "Non propter locum gentem sed propter gentem locum Dominus elegit." Ex quo concluditur quod non propter dignitatem prelatum sed propter merita prelatorum Dominus approbat dignitatem, et ideo in suscepcione dignitatis non est necesse graciam et virtutes infundi vel augeri. |
So as we find in c. Nos qui of the same distinction [col.145], Gregory also says, "We who are in charge should be known not for the dignity of our position or our family but for the nobility of our way of life, not for the fame of our cities but for the purity of our faith." And in c. Illud of the same distinction blessed Ambrose says[col.147], "So that you might notice that anyone at all judges themselves not by the nobility of their position or of their family but by their virtue, take note of the fact that man was made outside paradise but woman within." And as we find in the same distinction c. Non est facile, blessed Jerome says [col.145], "It is not easy to stand in the place of Peter and Paul, that is to hold the see of those reigning with Christ; for this reason it is said that the children of the saints are not those who hold those places [founded by] the saints but those who do works like theirs." And as we read in c. Multi of the same distinction John Chrysostom says [col.147], "It is not the see that makes the priest but the priest the see, not the place that sanctifies the man but the man that sanctifies the place." As the last chapter of the same distinction records, the same man also says [col.147], "It is not he who is greater in honour who is more just, but it is the one who is more just who is greater." It is quite clear from these [texts] that grace and virtues neither are necessarily conferred on the obtaining of an ecclesiastical dignity nor are they necessarily increased. This also seems provable through divine Scripture because, as we find in 2 Mach. 5[:19], "The Lord did not choose the people for the place's sake, but the place for the people's sake." We conclude from this that the Lord does not approve of a prelate on account of his dignity but approves of a dignity on account of the merits of its prelates. And so it is not necessary for grace and virtues to be infused or increased on the obtaining of a dignity. |
|
Discipulus Ex ista racione sequi videtur quod in suscepcione ordinum gracia non confertur nec augetur. |
Student: It seems to follow from that argument that grace is neither conferred nor increased on the obtaining of orders. |
|
Magister Ex ista racione non sequitur quod in collacione ordinum gracia non conferatur nec augeatur, sed sequitur quod sicut in collacione baptismi et aliorum sacramentorum propter indisposicionem baptizati, puta si in peccato mortali persistit, potest contingere quod gracia non conferatur nec eciam augeatur, ita potest hoc accidere in ordinum et cuiuscumque dignitatis ecclesiastice suscepcione. |
Master: It does not follow from that argument that grace is neither conferred nor increased when orders are conferred, but it does follow that, just as it can happen in the conferring of baptism and other sacraments that grace is not conferred or also increased because of the inadequacy of the one to be baptised, if he persists in mortal sin, for instance, so this can happen in the obtaining of orders and any ecclesiastical dignity whatever. |
|
Discipulus Alias raciones adducas? |
Student: Would you bring forward other arguments? |
|
Magister Tercia racio est hec: qui non est confirmatus in fide, si usum habeat racionis, potest errare contra fidem, sed papa non est confirmatus in fide quia si esset confirmatus in fide per aliquod donum supernaturale confirmaretur in fide; sed nullum supernaturale donum apparet collatum pape per quod confirmetur in fide. Inter omnia enim dona supernaturalia que de communi lege puris viatoribus conferuntur precipua et maxime stabiliencia recipientem in fide sunt gracia et virtutes theologice, scilicet fides spes et caritas et dona Spiritus Sancti. Sed per ista purus viator minime confirmatur in fide, cum ista perfecciora et maiora sepe inveniantur in aliis quam in papa qui tamen per ipsa minime confirmantur in fide. Ergo papa per ista minime confirmatur in fide, et ideo nullum donum supernaturale collatum ipsum confirmat in fide quare contra fidem potest errare. |
Master: A third argument is this. Whoever has not been confirmed in faith and has the use of reason can err against the faith; but the pope has not been confirmed in faith because if he were confirmed in faith he would be confirmed in faith by some supernatural gift, but no supernatural gift by which he is confirmed in the faith appears to have been conferred on the pope. For among all the supernatural gifts which are conferred as a normal right on mere pilgrims those which particularly and especially make the recipient strong in faith are grace and the theological virtues, namely, faith, hope and charity and the gifts of the holy spirit. But a mere pilgrim is not confirmed in faith by these since they are often found to be more perfect and greater in others, who nevertheless are not confirmed in faith by them, than in the pope; therefore the pope is not confirmed in faith by them; and therefore no conferred supernatural gift confirms him in faith; therefore he can err against the faith. |
|
Discipulus Ista racio non concludit quia probaretur per ipsam quod concilium generale, ymmo tota congregacio fidelium, posset errare contra fidem, quia nullum donum supernaturale apparet collatum concilio generali vel congregacioni fidelium per quod confirmetur in fide, cum gracia et virtutes et dona Spiritus Sancti viatores non confirment in fide; que tamen inter omnia dona supernaturalia collata concilio generali et congregacioni fidelium noscuntur esse precipua. |
Student: That argument is not conclusive because it would be proved by it that a general council, indeed the whole congregation of the faithful, could err against the faith because no supernatural gift appears to have been conferred on a general council or on the congregation of the faithful by which it is confirmed in faith, since grace and virtues and the gifts of the holy spirit do not confirm pilgrims in the faith; yet among all the supernatural gifts it is chiefly these that are known to have been conferred on a general council and the congregation of the faithful. |
|
Magister Assertores predicti concedunt quod racio ista sic nude sumpta non concludit, quia possibile est apud Deum non solum congregacionem fidelium sed eciam papam et quemlibet alium viatorem absque dono supernaturali animam informante ab errore et heresi preservare; per quem congregacio fidelium usque ad consummacionem seculi absque omni heresi permanebit immunis. Hoc tamen non debet neque de persona neque de collegio affirmari nisi de qua vel quo Deus revelavit quod numquam errabit contra fidem. Deus autem hoc revelavit de congregacione fidelium et non de papa, quare temerarium est dicere quod papa intrans canonice numquam errabit contra fidem. |
Master: Those who make that assertion grant that this argument, taken barely like this, is not conclusive, because it is possible for God to preserve from error and heresy not only the congregation of the faithful but also the pope and any other pilgrim at all without a supernatural gift informing their soul; through him the congregation of the faithful will remain immune from every heresy until the end of the world. Nevertheless this should not be affirmed of a person or college unless God has revealed of the one or the other that he or it will never err against the faith. God has revealed this about the congregation of the faithful, however, and not about the pope. It is therefore rash to say that a pope entering [office] canonically will never err against the faith. |
|
Discipulus Alias raciones allega. |
Student: Bring forward other arguments. |
|
Magister Quarta racio eorum est hec: non minoris efficacie et virtutis respectu actus fidei sunt ecclesiastica sacramenta quam quecumque dignitas ecclesiastica; sed per suscepcionem baptismi, qui vocatur fidei sacramentum (Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu), nullus confirmatur in fide quin postea possit errare contra fidem; ergo per suscepcionem cuiuscumque dignitatis ecclesiastice eciam papalis nullus confirmatur in fide. |
Master: Their fourth argument is this. Ecclesiastical sacraments are not of less efficacy and power with respect to an act of faith than is any ecclesiastical dignity at all; but by the receiving of baptism, which is called a sacrament of faith (Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu [col.664]), no one is confirmed in faith so that he can not afterwards err against the faith; no one is confirmed in the faith, therefore, by the obtaining of any ecclesiastical dignity at all, even the papacy. |
|
Quinta racio talis est: non minus repugnat errori fides et gracia quam quecumque dignitas ecclesiastica; ergo non magis confirmatur quis per dignitatem ecclesiasticam contra errorem et heresim quam per fidem et graciam; sed nullus purus viator confirmatur in fide per fidem et graciam quin postea possit errare et heretica infici pravitate; ergo nullus per ecclesiasticam dignitatem eciam papalem confirmatur in fide quin postea possit heretica pravitate fedari. |
A fifth argument is this. Faith and grace are not less inconsistent with error than any ecclesiastical dignity at all; someone is not more confirmed against error and heresy by an ecclesiastical dignity, therefore, than by faith and grace; but no mere pilgrim is confirmed in faith by faith and grace, so that after [receiving these] he can not err and be corrupted by heretical wickedness. No one is confirmed in faith, therefore, by an ecclesiastical dignity, even by the papacy; indeed, afterwards he can be stained by heretical wickedness. |
|
Sexta racio est hec: tam papa iuste depositus quam papa qui sponte renunciasset papatui potest errare contra fidem; ergo papa eciam ante deposicionem et renunciacionem spontaneam potest errare contra fidem. Antecedens patet quia si papa depositus et qui renunciavit papatui non posset errare contra fidem sequeretur quod aliquis purus viator multis involutus peccatis alius a papa non posset contra fidem errare. Consequencia probatur: quia per actum meritorium non acquiritur viatori potestas errandi contra fidem; sed tam deposicio pape quam renunciacio spontanea potest esse meritoria. Si enim papa dignus deponi suam deposicionem acceptat vel propter Deum sustinet pacienter in hoc meretur. Unde si Iohannes 12 quando deponebatur de papatu ex amore Dei pacienter tollerasset apud Deum meritum habuisset. Probabile est eciam quod tam Symachus papa, qui renuncians papatui adhesit undecim milibus virginum, quam Celestinus V renunciando papatui merebatur coram Deo. Non ergo per deposicionem nec per renunciacionem huiusmodi acquiritur potestas errandi contra fidem, et ita papa ante deposicionem et renunciacionem habet potestatem errandi contra fidem sicut et post. |
A sixth argument is this. Both a justly deposed pope and a pope who had renounced the papacy of his own free will can err against the faith; therefore a pope can also err against the faith before his deposition and voluntary renunciation. The antecedent is clear because if a deposed pope and one who has renounced the papacy could not err against the faith it would follow that some mere pilgrim entangled in many sins, besides the pope, would not be able to err against the faith. The consequence is proved because a pilgrim does not acquire the power of erring against the faith by a meritorious act; but both the deposition of a pope and [a pope's] voluntary renunciation can be meritorious. For if a pope who deserves to be deposed accepts his deposition or patiently endures it for God's sake he acquires merit. So if from love of God John XII had endured it patiently when he was deposed from the papacy he would have acquired merit with God. It is probable too that both Pope Symachus, who renounced the papacy and adhered to 11000 virgins , and Celestine V, who renounced the papacy, acquired merit before God. So the power of erring against the faith is not acquired by such a deposition or renunciation and so a pope has the power to err against the faith before his deposition or renunciation just as he does after it. |
|
Discipulus Ista racio videtur unam assercionem falsam accipere, quod papa scilicet ante deposicionem possit contra fidem errare. Nam videtur secundum iura quod quam cito papa erraret contra fidem tam cito esset depositus. |
Student: That argument seems to accept one false assertion, namely that a pope can err against the faith before he is deposed. For according to law it seems that as soon as a pope were to err against the faith he would be deposed. |
|
Magister Ad istam instanciam nonnulli respondent dicentes quod est deposicio duplex, scilicet ab homine et a iure. Ante deposicionem ab homine potest papa errare contra fidem et hereticam incurrere pravitatem, et de ista deposicione procedit racio supradicta quia primo papa factus hereticus et postea, conversus et satisfaciens Deo, posset deponi ab homine quam deposicionem posset meritorie acceptare. Ante deposicionem autem a iure potest papa ex simplicitate vel ignorancia contra fidem errare sed non numero hereticorum aggregari, quia, licet a fide ex ignorancia vel simplicitate deviaverit, si tamen paratus est corrigi non est papatu privatus, sed si pertinaciter errori contra fidem adheserit est ipso facto depositus de papatu et de iure omni auctoritate nudatus non ab homine sed a iure. |
Master: Some people reply to this objection by saying that there are two senses of 'deposition', namely by man and by law. A pope can err against the faith and incur heretical wickedness before being deposed by man and the above argument is effective about that deposition because the pope first becomes a heretic and later, having changed and become satisfactory to God, he could be deposed by man and could accept that deposition meritoriously. Before deposition by law, however, a pope can err against the faith out of simplicity or ignorance but not be added to the number of heretics because even if he has deviated from the faith out of ignorance or simplicity yet if he is prepared to be corrected he is not deprived of the papacy; but if he clings pertinaciously to his error against the faith he is by that very fact deposed from the papacy and as a matter of law stripped of all authority, not by man but by law. |
|
Discipulus Adde alias raciones. |
Student: Add other arguments. |
|
Magister Septima racio eorum est hec: nullus per dignitatem acceptam indigne, illegitime et inique confirmatur in fide; sed contingit aliquem indignum ad papatum ascendere illicite et inique, quia per ambicionem et simoniam et per vias alias multas impias et iniquas; ergo talis per papatum in fide nullatenus confirmatur. |
Master: Their seventh argument is this. No one is confirmed in faith by a dignity which is received unworthily, illegitimately and wrongly; but it is possible for someone unworthy to ascend illicitly and wrongly to the papacy, namely out of ambition, by simony or in many other wicked and wrong ways; such a person, therefore, is not confirmed in faith by the papacy. |
|
Octava racio eorum est hec. Ille status per quem assumens ipsum confirmatur in fide et in quo nullus potest errare non est fugiendus a viris perfectis sed toto desiderio appetendus, quia talis status vel est omnino ab omni periculo spirituali securus vel est minus periculosus statu in quo non est quis confirmatus in fide, eo quod propter defectum fidei et imperfeccior sit quis et ad peccandum proclivior; sed papatus non est appetendus sed fugiendus, nec est minus periculosus quam alii status in quibus contingit errare contra fidem; propter quod et beatus Clemens recusavit fieri papa; ergo per papatum nemo confirmatur in fide. |
Their eighth argument is this. That state through which the one assuming it is confirmed in faith and in which no one can err should not be shunned by perfect men but should be sought with all their desire, because such a state either is completely safe from any spiritual danger or is less dangerous than a state in which no one is confirmed in faith, since on account of a defect of faith someone is both more imperfect and more inclined to sin; but the papacy should not be sought but should be shunned and it is not less dangerous than other states in which it is possible to err against the faith; it is for this reason that blessed Clement refused to become pope; therefore no one is confirmed in faith by the papacy. |
|
Nona racio est hec: ille qui contra fidem errare non potest ad diffiniendum et determinandum dubia que circa fidem emergunt non indiget aliorum constitutorum in hac vita mortali pericia, sicut qui in geometria vel alia facultate errare non posset ad diffiniendum dubia in eadem aliorum consilio minime indigeret. Sic eciam quia congregacio fidelium contra fidem errare non potest aliorum quam Christianorum sapienciam non requirit ad diffiniendum illa que sunt consona catholice veritati. Sed papa ad multa dubia que circa fidem emergunt catholicam declaranda et diffinienda indiget aliorum pericia; aliter enim pro dubiis declarandis et heresibus extirpandis frustra fuissent generalia concilia congregata; frustra eciam consuleret in sacra pagina eruditos. Ergo papa potest contra fidem errare. |
A ninth argument is this. That one who can not err against faith does not need knowledge of the constitutions of others in this mortal life in order to define and determine doubts that emerge about faith, just as he who was not able to err in geometry or some other branch of study would not need the advice of others in order to explain doubts in that branch. In the same way too, because the congregation of the faithful can not err against faith it does not need the wisdom of others besides Christians to define those things that are in harmony with catholic truth. But the pope does need the knowledge of others in order to make clear and explain the many doubts that emerge about catholic faith. For otherwise general councils would have been assembled in vain to make doubts clear and to eradicate heresies. It would also be vain to consult experts on the sacred page. Therefore, the pope can err against faith. |
|
Decima racio eorum est hec: omnis purus viator qui potest actuale peccatum et mortale contra legem dei committere potest hereticam incurrere pravitatem, quia talis potest dampnabiliter excecari, cum, ut habetur Sapien. 2, malicia peccatorum eosdem excecat de impiis. Enim ibi scribitur, "Excecavit illos malicia eorum." Et ita deduci in tantam poterunt cecitatem ut catholicam abnegent veritatem. Sed papa potest actuale et mortale peccatum committere, secundum quod Bonifacius martyr, prout legitur dist. 40, c. Si papa, et Simachus papa, ut habetur 9, q. 3, c. Aliorum testantur aperte. Quod eciam ecclesia catholica insinuat evidenter cum pro ipsius spirituali salute preces ad Deum fundere non desistit. Ergo papa potest hereticam incurrere pravitatem. |
Their tenth argument is this. Every mere pilgrim who can commit an actual mortal sin against the law of God can incur heretical wickedness, because such a person can be culpably blinded, since the malice of sinners blinds them, as we find in Wisdom 2[:21]. For it is written about the ungodly there, "For their own malice blinded them." And so they could be led into such great blindness that they deny catholic truth. But the pope can commit an actual mortal sin according to the clear testimony of the martyr Boniface, as we read in dist. 40, c. Si papa [col.146], and Pope Symachus, as we find in 9, q. 3, c. Aliorum [col.610]. The catholic church manifestly implies this too when it does not cease pouring out prayers to God for the pope's [ipsius] spiritual salvation. Therefore the pope can incur heretical wickedness. |
|
Undecima racio eorum est hec: illi qui in exponendis Scripturis sunt preferendi pape possunt errare contra fidem; ergo multo magis papa potest errare contra fidem. Consequencia patet, tum quia tenet per locum a minor, tum quia ille qui non potest errare contra fidem preferendus est in exposicione Scripturarum Divinarum illi qui potest errare, tum quia, sicut mendax est veraci nullatenus preferendus, ita qui circa ea que fidei sunt potest mentiri nullo modo preponendus est illi qui mentiri non potest. Antecedens autem probatur aperte. Nam sicut allegatum est prius, secundum quod habetur in decretis dist. 20, para. 1, tractatores Scripturarum divinarum in exposicione Scripture sunt summis pontificibus preferendi. Dicti autem tractatores possunt errare contra fidem secundum quod prius de beatis Cypriano Augustino et Ieronimo probatum extitit. Origenes eciam tractator Divine Scripture non minus erravit aperte et in hereticam incidit pravitatem. Ergo multo magis summi pontifices, qui sepe sunt illiterati et scelerati Divinarum Scripturarum ignari, possunt in hereticam incidere pravitatem. |
Their eleventh argument is this. Those who are to be preferred to the pope in the exposition of the Scriptures can err against the faith; it is, therefore, much more the case that the pope can err against the faith. The consequence is obvious (i) because it holds through the argument from the lesser, (ii) because that one who can not err against the faith should be preferred in exposition of the divine Scriptures to that one who can err and (iii) because, just as a liar should not be preferred to a truth teller, so he who can lie about matters of faith should by no means be preferred to that one who can not lie. The antecedent is plainly proved. For, as was argued above, according to what we find in dist. 20, para. 1 of the decretals, commentators on the divine Scriptures should be preferred to highest pontiffs in the exposition of Scripture. These commentators, however, can err against faith according to what was proved before about blessed Cyprian, Augustine and Jerome. The commentator on divine Scripture, Origen, also erred not less clearly and fell into heretical wickedness. It is much more the case, therefore, that highest pontiffs, who are often unlearned, wicked and ignorant of the divine Scriptures, can fall into heretical wickedness. |
|
Duodecima racio est hec: qui potest de heresi accusari et pro heresi condemnari potest contra fidem errare catholicam et pravitate heretica maculari. Hoc patens est de se quia de crimine quod quis non valet committere nulla est accusacio. Papa autem potest de heresi accusari et pro heresi condemnari, secundum quod ex superioribus probatur aperte. Ergo papa potest hereticari. |
A twelfth argument is this. Whoever can be accused of heresy and condemned for heresy can err against catholic faith and be stained with heretical wickedness. This is self-evident because there is no accusation of a crime that a person can not commit. However, a pope can be accused of heresy and condemned for heresy, as is clearly proved above. Therefore, a pope can become a heretic. |
|
Tredecima racio eorum est hec: qui potest actum hereticalem committere potest hereticari. Papa autem potest actum hereticalem committere; patet per exemplum de beato Marcellino et de Silvestro secundo; ergo papa potest hereticari. |
Their thirteenth argument is this. Whoever can commit a heretical act can become a heretic. That a pope can commit a heretical act, however, is clear from the examples of blessed Marcellin and of Sylvester II. Therefore, a pope can become a heretic. |
|
Quartadecima racio eorum est hec: de nulla persona est licitum affirmare ipsam non posse errare contra fidem de qua ipsam non posse errare neque per Scripturam Sacram neque per doctrinam ecclesie vel sanctorum neque per racionem in dicta doctrina fundatam potest ostendi; sed quod papa non possit errrare contra fidem nullo predictorum modorum potest ostendi. Si enim posset ostendi potissime probaretur per illas auctoritates Salvatoris, "Vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummacionem seculi." (Matthei ultimo), "Simon ecce Sathanas expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticum ego autem rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos"; sed per istas auctoritates non potest ostendi quod papa non possit errare contra fidem: non per primam, quia illa auctoritas non potest intelligi de papa, cum vacante sede nullus sit papa, et ita non dixit Christus pro papa sed pro ecclesia militante, "Vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummacionem seculi." |
Their fourteenth argument is this. It is not licit to assert about any person that he can not err against faith unless it can be shown by sacred Scripture, by teaching of the church or the saints, or by argument based on that teaching that he can not err. But it can not be shown in any of those ways that a pope can not err against faith. For if it could be shown it would be proved most of all by those texts of the Saviour, "I am with you always to the end of the age" (end of Matthew [28:20]) and "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" ([Luke 22:31-2]). But it can not be shown by those texts that the pope can not err against the faith. Not by the first, because that text can not be understood of the pope, since when his see is vacant there is no pope, and so Christ did not say about the pope but about the church militant, "I am with you always to the end of the age." |
|
Item Christus non solum intellexit se permansurum cum ecclesia militante usque ad consummacionem seculi per fidem solummodo, sed eciam per caritatem et bonam vitam. Constat autem quod Christus sepe non est cum papa per caritatem et bonam vitam, cum sepe papa sit vir nepharius extra caritatem existens. Ergo de papa non debent predicta verba intelligi. |
Again Christ did not mean that he would remain with the church militant to the end of the age only through faith but also through love and a good life. It is certain, however, that Christ is often not with the pope in love and a good life since the pope is often a wicked man without love. The above words, therefore, should not be understood of the pope. |
|
Nec secunda auctoritas de papa debet intelligi ut Christus rogaverit quod fides pape non deficeret, tum quia sepe sedes apostolica vacat et tamen tunc non deficit fides pro qua Christus rogavit, tum quia papa potest renunciare papatui vel deponi et postea contra fidem errare, et tamen nullo tempore deficiet fides pro qua Christus rogavit. Verba ergo predicta dixit Christus beato Petro pro persona ipsius Petri, quia finaliter fides Petri non defecit, licet ad tempus defecerit, propter quod dixit sibi Christus, "Et tu aliquando conversus", postquam scilicet fides tua defecerit et tu ad fidem redieris, "confirma fratres tuos." Eadem eciam verba, scilicet, "Ego pro te rogavi ut non deficiat fides tua" dixit Christus Petro pro congregacione fidelium, quia fides Petri fuit et est in congregacione fidelium absque interrupcione usque ad finem seculi duratura. Nam fides quam beatus Petrus tenuit, predicavit et docuit nequaquam deficiet, sed in aliquibus Christianis, clericis vel laicis, viris vel mulieribus, usque ad finem seculi permanebit. |
Nor should the second text be understood of the pope as though Christ asked that the pope's faith should not fail. This is firstly because the apostolic see is often vacant and yet the faith for which Christ asked does not then fail, and secondly because a pope can renounce the papacy or be deposed and afterwards err against faith, and yet at no time will the faith for which Christ asked fail. Christ said the aforesaid words to blessed Peter, therefore, in reference to Peter himself, because in the end Peter's faith did not fail, although it did fail for a time, which is why Christ said to him, "And thou, being once converted", that is, after your faith has failed and you have turned back to the faith, "confirm thy brethren." Christ also said those words, that is, "But I have prayed for the that thy faith fail not", to Peter representing the congregation of the faithful, because Peter's faith did and will endure without interruption in the congregation of the faithful to the end of the age. For the faith that blessed Peter held, preached and taught will not fail but will persist in some Christians, cleric or lay, men or women, to the end of the age. |
|
Decimaquinta racio eorum est hec: qui potest hereticorum et heresis fautor et defensor existere potest heretica pravitate fedari, ymmo talis heresiarcha est censendus, teste Urbano papa qui ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Qui aliorum ait, "Qui aliorum errorem defendit multo dampnabilior est illis qui errant, quia non solum ille errat sed eciam aliis offendicula erroris preparat et confirmat. Unde quia magister erroris est non tantum hereticus sed eciam heresiarcha dicendus est." Sed papa potest hereticorum et pravitatis heretice fautor et defensor existere, secundum quod per duo exempla probatur. Primum est de Anastasio secundo, qui fuit fautor Fotini et Achacii hereticorum, secundum quod habetur dist. 19, c. Anastasius. Secundum exemplum ponunt aliqui de Iohanne 22, qui Nicolai Tercii et decretalis sue que incipit, Exiit qui seminat, necnon et Clementis V et decretalis sue que incipit, Exivi de Paradiso, fautor fuit aliquando et defensor; et tamen in dictis decretalibus Exiit et Exivi plures hereses de paupertate Christi et apostolorum eius necnon et de voto abdicacionis proprietatis omnium temporalium in speciali et etiam in communi liquido continentur, ut nonnulli dicunt et scribunt. |
Their fifteenth argument is this. Whoever can be a supporter and defender of heretics and heresy can be stained with heretical wickedness. Indeed, such a person should be considered a heresiarch according to the testimony of Pope Urban, who says, as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Qui aliorum [col.999], "Whoever defends an error of others is more culpable than those who err because not only does he err himself but he also prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of error for others. So because he is a teacher of error he should be called not only a heretic but also a heresiarch." But a pope can be a supporter and defender of heretics and heretical wickedness, as is proved by two examples. The first concerns Anastasius II who was a supporter of the heretics Fotinus and Achacius, as we find in dist. 19, c. Anastasius [col.64]. Some people give as a second example John XXII who was at one time a supporter and defender of Nicholas III and his decretal Exiit qui seminat and also of Clement V and his decretal Exivi de paradiso; and yet some people say and write that in those decretals Exiit and Exivi there are clearly contained many errors about the poverty of Christ and his apostles and also about a vow to renounce ownership of all temporal goods individually and even in common. |
|
Discipulus Isti maliciose contra Iohannem 22 procedunt. Nituntur enim concludere quod vel fuit vel est modo hereticus. |
Student: They are showing that they are malicious towards John XXII for they are trying to conclude that he was or is now a heretic. |
|
Magister Volo te scire quod nonnulli putant quod non maliciose sed veraciter et insolubiliter demonstratur quod Iohannes 22 vel fuit vel est modo hereticus, quia, ut asserunt, nulla potest tergiversacione negari quin doctrina sua de paupertate Christi et apostolorum eius et de abdicacione proprietatis omnium temporalium in speciali et eciam in communi et de paupertate evangelica doctrine Nicolai Tercii et aliorum summorum pontificum adversetur. Cum ergo omnia predicta ad fidem pertineant vel ad bonos mores necesse est quod altera istarum doctrinarum contineatur sub heretica pravitate. Aut ergo doctrina Iohannis 22 est heretica aut doctrina Nicolai Tercii et aliorum summorum pontificum cum eo concordancium circa predicta est heretica. Si doctrina Iohannis 22 est heretica, cum eam diffinierit solenniter esse tenendam, sequitur quod ipse pertinax et hereticus est censendus. Si autem doctrina Nicolai Tercii et aliorum summorum pontificum est heretica, ergo Iohannes 22, quando eam per decretalem suam que incipit Quorundam exigit solenniter approbavit et multipliciter commendavit, fuit hereticus reputandus, quia pravitatis heretice defensor et fautor |
Master: I want you to know that some people think it is not shown maliciously but truly and incontestably that John XXII either was or is now a heretic. For they affirm that it can not by any subterfuge be denied that his teaching about the poverty of Christ and his apostles, about the renunciation of ownership of all temporal goods, both individually and also in common, and about gospel poverty is opposed to the teaching of Nicholas III and other highest pontiffs. Since all the above issues pertain to faith or to good morals it is therefore necessary that one or the other of those teachings contains heretical wickedness. Either the teaching of John XXII is heretical, therefore, or the teaching of Nicholas III and the other highest pontiffs who agree with him on the above issues is heretical. If John XXII's teaching is heretical it follows from the fact that he solemnly declared that it had to be held that he himself should be considered pertinacious and a heretic. However, if the teaching of Nicholas III and the other highest pontiffs is heretical then when John XXII solemnly approved and in many ways commended it in his decretal beginning Quorundam exigit he should have been regarded as a heretic because he was a defender and supporter of heretical wickedness. |
|
Unde nonnulli ex predictis formant sextamdecimam racionem sic. Qui circa ea que fidei sunt est sibiipsi contrarius potest errare contra fidem; papa autem potest circa ea que fidei sunt esse sibiipsi contrarius. Hanc probant per exemplum de Iohanne 22 qui sibiipsi contrarius invenitur cum prius approbaverit doctrinam Nicolai Tercii de paupertate Christi et apostolorum eius et de abdicacione proprietatis omnium temporalium in speciali et eciam in communi et postea contradixit eidem. |
Now from the above some people fashion a sixteenth argument as follows. Whoever contradicts himself about matters of faith can err against faith. However, a pope can contradict himself about matters of faith. They prove this by the example of John XXII who is found to have contradicted himself since he first approved Nicholas III's teaching about the poverty of Christ and his apostles and about the renunciation of the ownership of all temporal goods, both individually and also in common, and later rejected it. |
Capitulum 4 |
Chapter 4 |
|
Discipulus Quamvis raciones que impugnare videntur Johannem 22 non putem concludere, licet sint difficiles ad solvendum, de quarum solucione sollicite cogitabo, tamen quedam alie efficaces apparent. Unde et probabile michi videtur quod non est impossibile quod papa primo intret canonice et postea efficiatur hereticus. Verum, quia veritas exagitata magis splendescit in lucem, peto ut in contrarium allegare nitaris. |
Student: Although I do not think that the arguments which seem to impugn John XXII are conclusive even though they are difficult to refute - I will think carefully about their refutation - yet there are some others that do seem powerful. So it does indeed seem probable to me that it is not impossible for a pope who enters [office] canonically later to become a heretic. Now because truth that has been criticised shines more brightly in the sight of all, I beg you to try to argue the opposite case. |
That a pope can not become a heretic |
|
|
Magister Pro assercione contraria quam tenet, ut dicitur, Iohannes 22 et etiam frater G., ut fertur, multis modis arguitur. Primo sic. In illa communitate non potest esse iudicium certum absque vacillacione de dubiis que emergunt circa que dubia et fundamenta eorum quilibet in illa communitate existens potest errare. Sed in ecclesia militante est iudicium certum absque vacillacione de dubiis que circa fidem emergunt. Aliter enim nulli determinacioni seu diffinicioni vel declaracioni ecclesie militantis circa ea que fidei sunt esset firmiter adherendum, quia illi qui potest errare non est indubitata fide credendum. Ergo non quilibet in ecclesia militante potest errare; ergo aliquis est in ecclesia militante qui errare non potest et non alius quam papa. Ergo papa circa ea que fidei sunt errare non potest. |
Master: There are many arguments for the opposite assertion, which, as is said, John XXII and also, it is reported, brother G[erald] maintain. The first is as follows. There can be no sure judgement without vacillation about doubts which arise in that community in which everyone can err about these doubts and their bases. But in the church militant there is sure judgement without vacillation about doubts that arise concerning the faith. For otherwise it would not be necessary to adhere firmly to any determination, definition or declaration of the church militant about matters of faith because whoever can err should not be trusted with undoubted faith. Therefore not everyone in the church militant can err; therefore there is someone in the church militant who can not err; and this is no one but the pope. Therefore a pope can not err about matters of faith. |
|
Secundo sic arguitur. Ille ad quem sunt omnes cause fidei deferende et per quem sunt omnes cause fidei diffiniende non potest contra fidem errare nec hereticam incurrere pravitatem, quia si quis erraverit contra fidem de hiis que fidei sunt recte diffinire non poterit; sed ad summum Pontificem sunt omnes cause fidei deferende et diffiniende per ipsum 24, q. 1, c. Quociens, Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, c. Maiores. Ergo papa non potest errare contra fidem. |
The second argument is as follows. That one to whom all questions of faith should be brought and by whom all questions of faith should be defined can not err against faith or incur heretical wickedness because if someone erred against faith he could not rightly make a definition about matters of faith. But all questions of faith should be brought to the highest pontiff and defined by him (24, q. 1, c. Quociens [col.970], Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, c. Maiores [col.644]). Therefore a pope can not err against faith. |
|
Tercio sic. Ille cuius scripture inter scripturas canonicas computantur contra fidem errare non potest, quia qui potest contra fidem errare potest a fidelibus reprobari; auctore autem reprobato eciam reprobantur scripta eius (Extra, De hereticis c. Cum Celestinus). Scripture autem que reprobari possunt non sunt inter scripturas canonicas numerande. Ille igitur cuius scripture sunt censende canonice contra fidem errare non potest; scripture autem pape et decretales eius inter scripturas canonicas computantur, teste Augustino qui in lib. 2. De doctrina Christiana, prout habetur dist. 19, c. In canonicis, ait, "In canonicis scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quamplurimum Divinarum Scripturarum solertissimus indagator auctoritatem sequatur; inter quas sane ille sint quas apostolicas sedes habere et alii ab ea accipere meruerunt epistolas." Cui eciam concordat Agatho papa qui, ut habetur eadem dist. c. Sic omnes, ait, "Sic omnes apostolice sedis sancciones accipiende sunt tanquam ipsius divina voce Petri firmate." Ergo papa cuius scripta sunt tamquam autentica contra fidem errare non potest. |
A third [argument] is as follows. That one whose writings are counted among the canonical writings can not err against faith because whoever can err against faith can be rejected by believers. If an author is rejected, however, his writings are also rejected (Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum Celestinus). Writings that can be rejected, however, should not be numbered among the canonical writings. That one whose writings should be considered canonical, therefore, can not err against faith. The writings and decretals of a pope, however, are counted among the canonical Scriptures, as Augustine attests. In book 2 of his De doctrina christiana, found in dist. 19, c. In canonicis [col.61], he says, "The most expert investigator of the divine Scriptures should follow the authority of the greater number of catholic churches on the question of canonical writings. Among these are those [which] have deserved to have apostolic seats and others which have deserved to receive letters from them." Pope Agatho agrees with this too. As we find in the same dist. c. Sic omnes [col.60], he says, "In the same way all the decrees of the apostolic see should be accepted as supported by the divine voice of Peter himself." Therefore a pope whose writings are [taken] as authentic can not err against faith. |
|
Quarto sic. Non minoris auctoritatis, dignitatis, sanctitatis, firmitatis fidei est putandus summus pontifex in nova lege quam fuerit summus sacerdos vel iudex in veteri lege; sed summus sacerdos vel iudex in veteri lege tante fuit firmitatis et auctoritatis habendus quod nulli licebat de eius diffinicione aut iudicio in quacumque causa ardua dubitare vel ei aliqualiter contraire, teste ipso Deo qui, ut habetur Deuteronomii 17 c., dixit populo universo, "Si difficile et ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris [...] et iudicium intra portas tuas videris verba variari, surge et ascende ad locum quem elegerit Dominus Deus tuus. Veniesque ad sacerdotes Levitici generis et ad iudicem qui fuerit illo tempore, queresque ab eis qui indicabunt tibi iudicii veritatem. Et facies quodcumque dixerint qui presunt loco quem elegerit Dominus Deus tuus et docuerint te iuxta legem eius. Sequerisque sentenciam eorum, nec declinabis ad dextram vel ad sinistram. Qui autem superbierit, nolens obedire sacerdotis imperio qui eo tempore ministrat Domino Deo tuo, et decreto iudicis, morietur homo ille et auferes malum de Israel. Cunctusque populus audiens timebit ut nullus deinceps intumescat superbia." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod in veteri lege dignus erat morte qui in quacumque questione difficili et ambigua sacerdotis et iudicis imperio minime obedisset. Ex quo sequitur quod nulli licebat dubitare an sacerdos et iudex recte diffinisset. Ergo multo magis in nova lege, que perfecciores noscitur habere ministros, nulli licet dubitare catholico an papa in questione fidei recte diffiniat. Quod non esset verum si papa contra fidem posset errare. |
A fourth [argument is] as follows. The highest pontiff under the new law should not be thought of as of less authority, dignity, sanctity or strength of faith than was the highest priest or judge under the old law; but the highest priest or judge under the old law was to be considered of such strength and authority that on any difficult question no one was permitted to doubt his definition or judgement or to oppose it in any way. God himself testified to this, as we find in Deuteronomy 17 [:8-13], when he said to all the people, "If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgement ... and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary, arise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose,. And thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race and to the judge that shall be at that time, and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall show thee the truth of the judgement. And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say that preside in the place, which the Lord your God shall choose, and what they shall teach thee according to his law; and thou shalt follow their sentence; neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand. But he that will be proud and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God and the decree of the judge, that man shall die and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel. And all the people hearing it shall fear, that no one afterwards swell with pride." We gather from these words that under the old law anyone who did not obey the command of the priest and judge about any difficult or doubtful question at all was worthy of death. It follows from this that no one was permitted to doubt whether a priest and judge had made a correct determination. It is much more the case, therefore, under the new law, which is known to have more perfect ministers, that no catholic is permitted to doubt whether the pope makes a correct determination on a question of faith. This would not be true if the pope were able to err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Auctoritas Deuteronomii allegata non videtur esse ad propositum quia illa non loquitur de causa fidei sed de causis aliis civilibus et criminalibus. |
Student: The text from Deuteronomy that you have brought forward does not seem to be to the point because it does not speak about a question of faith but about other civil and criminal questions. |
|
Magister Hoc non impedit racionem, quia ille de cuius iudicio in causis civilibus et criminalibus non est aliqualiter dubitandum de eius eciam iudicio in causa fidei est nullatenus trepitandum. Nam qui in huiusmodi causis non potest errare eciam in causa fidei errare non poterit, eo quod omnis qui contra fidem potest errare et in aliis poterit deviare, cum errantibus in fide etiam in aliis minime sit credendum, quia, sicut sacri canones protestantur, infideles et heretici nec iudicare nec testimonium ferre in causis fidelium valent quoquo modo. |
Master: This does not hinder the argument because there should be no anxiety about the judgement in a question of faith of that one whose judgement should not in any way be doubted in civil and criminal questions. For whoever can not err in questions of this kind also will not be able to err in a question of faith because anyone who can err against faith will also be able to go astray in other [questions], since those who err in faith should also not be believed on other [questions] because, as the sacred canons testify, unbelievers and heretics can in no way at all make a judgement or offer testimony in cases concerning believers. |
|
Discipulus De hoc postea tecum collocucionem habebo; ideo transi ad alias raciones. |
Student: I will have a conversation about this with you later, so would you pass on to other arguments. |
|
Magister Quinto sic arguitur. Constitutus in dignitate que habenti confert innocencie sanctitatem hereticari non potest; sed papatus confert pape innocencie sanctitatem, teste Symacho papa qui, ut habetur dist. 40, c. Non nos ait, "Quis sanctum dubitet esse quem apex tante dignitatis attollit? In quo, si desint bona acquisita per meritum, sufficiunt que a loci predecessore testantur; aut enim claros ad hec fastigia erigit aut qui eriguntur illustrat" Ex hiis verbis colligitur quod quem dignitas papatus attollit, eciam si malus prius extiterit, sanctitate illustrat. Quare nisi renunciaverit papatui hereticari non potest. |
Master: A fifth argument is as follows. Someone appointed to a dignity which confers the sanctity of innocence on the one holding it can not become a heretic. But the papacy confers the sanctity of innocence on the pope, as Pope Symachus attests. As we find in dist. 40, c. Non nos [col.145], he says, "Who will doubt that he whom the crown of so great a dignity raises up is holy? If he lacks any good which is acquired by merit, that which was shown by his predecessor in the position suffices. For it either raises the famous to these heights or it makes shine those who are raised." We gather from these words that him whom the dignity of the papacy raises up it makes shine with holiness even if he were bad before. So he can not become a heretic unless he renounces the papacy. |
|
Sexto sic: si papa contra fidem posset errare et heretica infici pravitate, eadem racione et multo forcius quilibet Christianus poterit heresi dampnari. Ubi autem quilibet de collegio aliquo potest hereticari, eciam totum collegium hereticari valebit. Quare sequeretur quod tota congregacio Christianorum posset hereticam incurrere pravitatem, quod doctrine evangelice adversatur aperte. |
[It is argued] sixth as follows. If a pope could err against the faith and be infected with heretical wickedness, by the same argument and more convincingly can any Christian at all be condemned for heresy. But when anyone at all from some college can become a heretic the whole college too will be capable of becoming heretical. From this it would follow that the whole congregation of Christians could incur heretical wickedness. This is clearly opposed to gospel teaching. |
|
Septimo sic: qui potest errare contra fidem potest contra divina precepta aliquid imperare; ei autem qui potest contra divina precepta iubere aliquid non est necesse in omnibus obedire, quia, secundum sentenciam beati Petri Actuum 5, pocius obediendum est Deo quam contra Deum iubenti. Si ergo papa potest contra fidem errare non est necesse pape in omnibus obedire, quod sacris canonibus obviare videtur. Gregorius enim, ut habetur dist. 19, c. Nulli, ait, "Nulli fas est vel velle vel posse transgredi apostolice sedis precepta"; et idem Gregorius, ut habetur dist. 12, c. Preceptis, ait, "Preceptis apostolicis non dura superbia resistatur sed per obedienciam que a sancta Romana ecclesia et apostolica auctoritate iussa sunt salutifere impleantur." Ex hiis patet quod preceptis pape est in omnibus obediendum; et per consequens errare non potest. |
A seventh [argument is] as follows. Whoever can err against faith can command something against divine precepts. It is not necessary, however, to obey in all matters him who can order something against divine precepts because, in accord with blessed Peter's opinion in Acts 5[:29], we should obey God rather than someone ordering something against God. So if a pope can err against faith it is not necessary to obey the pope in all matters. But this seems to oppose the sacred canons for, as we find in dist. 19, c. Nulli [col.61], Gregory says, "It is not lawful for anyone to want or be able to transgress the precepts of the apostolic see." As we find in dist. 12, c. Preceptis [col.27], the same Gregory also says, "Let not the apostolic precepts be resisted with obstinate pride but let those things which have been commanded by the holy Roman church and its apostolic authority be discharged in a healing way.' It is clear from these that the precepts of a pope should be obeyed in all matters; and as a consequence he can not err. |
|
Octavo sic: si papa posset hereticari, posset ab homine iudicari; sed papa non potest ab homine iudicari, sicut sacri canones attestantur; ergo papa hereticari non potest. |
An eighth [argument is] as follows. If a pope could become a heretic he could be judged by man; but a pope can not be judged by man, as the sacred canons attest; therefore, a pope can not become a heretic. |
Capitulum 5 |
Chapter 5 |
|
Discipulus Quamvis iste raciones videantur michi difficiles tamen conclusioni nescio assentire. Unde qualiter respondetur ad eas enarra. |
Student: Although those arguments seem difficult to me I can not agree with their conclusion. So would you tell me how they may be replied to. |
Replies to arguments that a pope cannot become a heretic |
|
|
Magister Ad primam earum respondetur quod in illa communitate que non est sibiipsi relicta sed est preservata ab illo qui errare non potest, potest esse iudicium certum de dubiis, licet quilibet de illa communitate sigillatim possit errare, et hoc quia nullus eorum specialiter preservatur quin possit errare sicut communitas preservatur. Sic est de ecclesia militante, quia quilibet in ecclesia militante in manu consilii sui relinquitur ut secundum sue voluntatis arbitrium manere possit in fide, gracia assistente divina, vel a fide catholica deviare. Communitas autem Christianorum sic preservatur a Deo quod si unus exorbitaverit a fide alius firmus in fide divino munere permanebit. Unde si papa contra fidem erraverit, alius Christianus, vir vel mulier, minime a fide recedet. |
Master: The reply to the first of them is that there can be sure judgement about doubtful matters in that community which has not been left to itself but has been kept safe by someone who can not err, even if any member at all of that community singly can err - and that because none of them individually is kept safe from being able to err as the community is kept safe. It is thus with the church militant, because any individual in the church militant is left to the power of his own counsel, so that he can with the help of divine grace remain in the faith or he can turn away from the catholic faith, according to the judgement of his own will. The community of Christians is kept safe in such a way by God, however, that if one of them turns away from faith another will by divine gift remain strong in the faith. So if the pope errs against faith there will be another Christian, man or woman, who will not withdraw from faith. |
|
Discipulus Nonne talis modus arguendi valet? Quilibet Christianus potest errare contra fidem; ergo tota Christianorum communitas potest errare contra fidem. |
Student: Is such a mode of arguing valid? Any Christian can err against faith; therefore the whole community of Christians can err against faith. |
|
Magister Talis modus arguendi, ut multi dicunt, non valet sed est fallacia figure diccionis, quia sepe a nomine quod non est collectivum ad nomen collectivum est fallacia figure diccionis, sicut hic: quilibet de populo potest sustentari uno pane in die, ergo populus potest sustentari uno pane in die; et sicut hic: utraque pars contradiccionis potest esse vera, ergo contradiccio potest esse vera. |
Master: Many people say that such a mode of arguing is not valid but is a fallacy of a figure of speech, because it is a common fallacy of a figure of speech [to move] from a noun which is not collective to a collective noun. One example is this: any one of the people can be sustained by one piece of bread a day, so the people can be sustained by one piece of bread a day; and another is this: either part of a contradiction can be true, so the contradiction can be true. |
|
Discipulus Non placet michi quod circa racionalem scienciam te diffundas, ideo refer quomodo ad raciones alias respondetur. |
Student: I am not happy that you are branching out to the science of reasoning, so would you report how reply can be made to the other arguments. |
|
Magister Ad secundam racionem respondetur quod quamvis cause fidei ad hereticum sint minime deferende, ad illum tamen qui potest hereticus fieri, antequam efficiatur hereticus, sunt cause fidei deferende. Et ideo licet papa possit in pravitatem labi hereticam antequam labatur sunt cause fidei deferende ad ipsum; sed si hereticam incurrerit pravitatem extunc non est ad ipsum questio fidei deferenda. Non ergo ad istum qui errat sed qui potest errare contra fidem est causa fidei deferenda. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 29.] Master: The reply to the second argument is that although questions of faith should not be brought to a heretic, they should nevertheless be brought to someone who can become a heretic before he becomes a heretic. And therefore although a pope can fall into heretical wickedness, questions of faith should be brought to him before he so falls; but if he has incurred heretical wickedness there should from then on be no question of faith brought to him. Therefore, a question of faith should be brought not to him who does err but to him who can err against faith. |
|
Ad terciam racionem dicitur quod ille scripture et decretales pape inter scripturas canonicas, hoc est autenticas et veneracione dignas, sunt recipiende que Scripture Divine et sacris dogmatibus sanctorum patrum non inveniuntur adverse; et de huiusmodi sanccionibus scripturis et epistolis pape loquuntur Augustinus et Agatho papa et alii sancti patres. Scripture autem et epistole pape que sacre pagine aut sacris dogmatibus contradicunt sunt a cunctis fidelibus respuende, teste Graciano qui dist. 19, para. Hoc autem ait, "Hoc autem", scilicet quod decretales sunt paris auctoritatis cum canonibus, "intelligendum est de illis sanccionibus vel decretalibus epistolis in quibus nec precedencium patrum decretis nec evangelicis preceptis aliquid contrarium invenitur. Et idem para. Quia ergo ait, "Quia ergo illicite et non canonice sed contra decreta predecessorum et successorum suorum hec rescripta dedit," scilicet Anastasius secundus, "ut probat Felix et Gelasius, qui Achacium ante Anastasium excommunicaverunt, et Hormisda, qui ab ipso Anastasio tercius eundem Achacium postea dampnavit, ideo a Romana ecclesia repudiatur et a Deo percussus fuisse legitur." Ex hiis verbis colligitur quod papa potest scribere decretales que non sunt a catholicis acceptande, quod quidem exemplo probare conantur. Nam decretales seu rescripta Iohannis 22 decretalibus et rescriptis Gregorii 9, Innocencii 4, Alexandri 4, Nicolai 3 et Clementis 5 ac quorundam aliorum summorum pontificum, quantum ad ea que ad dogmata fidei spectant, obviant et repugnant. Contraria autem non sunt a catholicis recipienda; ergo vel scripta Iohannis 22 vel predictorum summorum pontificum sunt a catholicis respuenda. |
It is said to the third argument that those papal writings and decretals which are not found to be opposed to divine Scripture and to the sacred teachings of the holy fathers should be accepted as canonical writings, that is as authoritative and worthy of veneration. And it is about papal decrees, writings and letters of this kind that Augustine, Pope Agatho and other holy fathers speak. Papal writings and letters, however, that contradict the sacred page or sacred teachings should be rejected by all believers. Gratian attests to this at dist. 19, para. Hoc autem where he says [col.62], "But this,' namely that decretals are of equal authority with the canons, 'should be understood of those decrees or decretal letters in which nothing is found which is opposed to the decrees of earlier fathers or to gospel teachings." And in the same distinction at para. Quia ergo he says [col.64], '"Therefore because he," that is Anastasius II, "issued these rescripts impermissibly and not canonically but against decrees of his predecessors and successors - as Felix and Gelasius, who excommunicated Achacius before Anastasius, and Hormisda, third in line after Anastasius, who later condemned the same Achacius, prove - he was as a result repudiated by the Roman church and, as we read, was slain by God." We gather from these words that a pope can write decretals which should not be accepted by catholics. Indeed they try to prove this by an example. For on matters pertaining to the teachings of faith the decretals or rescripts of John XXII oppose and are contrary to decretals and rescripts of Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, Nicholas III, Clement V and some other highest pontiffs. However, contraries should not be accepted by catholics. Either the writings of John XXII, therefore, or the writings of the aforesaid highest pontiffs should be rejected by catholics. |
|
Ad quartam racionem respondetur quod summo sacerdoti in veteri lege et iudici oportebat omnes in causis difficilibus et ambiguis obedire, quando iuxta legem divinam veritatem iudicii indicabat. Si autem contra legem divinam aliquid precepisset, non fuisset obediendum eidem, sicut ex libro Deuteronomii c. 13 et 17 colligitur evidenter. Quod autem summi sacerdotes veteris legis et eciam iudices principales poterant contra legem Dei iubere et contra fidei veritatem errare constat ex hoc quod plures eorum a veritate iudicii et fidei deviarunt, sicut per exempla plura posset ostendi, quia plures summi sacerdotes circa tempora Machabeorum legem Domini reliquerunt. Urias eciam sacerdos obediens regi Achax contra legem extruxit altare, sicut habetur 4 Regum 16 c. Summi eciam sacerdotes tempore Christi in multis contra legem erraverunt; iudices eciam Hebreorum nonnulli post Iosue contra legem egerunt, et omnes reges preter David, Ezechiam et Iosiam idolatriam commiserunt. Quare et summi sacerdotes et iudices supremi in veteri lege contra legem potuerunt iubere, in quo casu non erat obediendum eisdem. Et consimiliter est de summo pontifice senciendum quod errare potest contra legem divinam; si tamen non erraverit eius est standum sentencie. |
The reply to the fourth argument is that under the old law it was proper for everyone to obey the highest priest and judge in difficult and doubtful questions when he was declaring the truth of his judgement according to divine law. If he had ordered something against divine law, however, he ought not to have been obeyed, as we evidently gather from chapters 13 and 17 of Deuteronomy. However, that the highest priests under the old law and also the chief judges could make orders against the law of God and err against the truth of faith is certain from the fact that many of them turned aside from the truth of judgement and faith, as could be shown by many examples, because many highest priests around the time of the Maccabees abandoned the law of the Lord. Indeed the priest Urias in obedience to King Achaz erected an altar against the law, as we find in 4 Kings 16. The highest priests in the time of Christ also erred against the law in many ways. Some of the judges of the Hebrews after Joshua also acted against the law and all the kings except for David, Hezechiah and Josiah committed idolatry. So even the highest priests and supreme judges under the old law could make an order against the law and in that case they should not have been obeyed. And similarly we should deem that the highest pontiff can err against divine law. Yet if he does not err we should abide by his judgement. |
|
Ad quintam racionem respondetur quod papatus officium non necessario confert suscipienti innocencie sanctitatem. Plures enim summi pontifices in officio existentes flagicia enormia commiserunt. Beatus enim Marcellinus idolatravit. Anastasius secundus heresim et fautoriam hereticorum incurrit. Stephanus 6 Formosum papam defunctum inique persequebatur omnes ordinaciones eius irritas decernendo. Qui eciam corpus Formosi, in concilio positum et papali veste exutum, laicali habitu indui et, duobus digitis dextere eius abscisis manus eius in Tiberim iactari precepit. Sergius 4 Formosum papam de sepulchro extractum et in sede pontificali sacerdotaliter indutum impie decollari precepit et in Tiberim iactari et omnes per Formosum papam ordinatos inique deordinavit. Iohannes 12 venator et lubricus feminas publice tenuit; Iohanni Diacono Cardinali nasum et cuidam subdiacono manum amputari precepit; tandem extitit papatu privatus. Benedictus 7 depredata primum ecclesia sancti Petri Iohanni diacono cardinali oculos eruit. Sylvester 2 demones in papatu consuluit. Liquet igitur quod papatus non confert innocencie sanctitatem. |
The reply to the fifth argument is that the office of the papacy does not necessarily confer the sanctity of innocence on the one receiving it. For many highest pontiffs committed enormous crimes while they were in office. For blessed Marcellin committed idolatry. Anastasius II fell into heresy and the supporting of heretics. Stephen VI wickedly persecuted Pope Formosus when he was dead by pronouncing that all his decrees were invalid. He even ordered that the body of Formosus, laid out in council and stripped of its papal vestments, be dressed in lay clothing and that his hands be cast into the Tiber after two fingers of his right hand were cut off. Sergius IV ordered that Pope Formosus be dragged out of his tomb, dressed in priestly garb in the pontifical see, impiously decapitated and cast into the Tiber, and he wickedly defrocked all those who had been ordained by him. John XII was a hunter and was lewd, publicly embracing women. He ordered that the nose of John, a cardinal deacon, and the hand of a certain sub-deacon be cut off. He was at length deprived of the papacy. Benedict VII tore out the eyes of the cardinal deacon John after he had first plundered the church of St. Peter. Sylvester II consulted demons while he was pope. It is clear, therefore, that the papacy does not confer the sanctity of innocence. [Cf. Nicolas Minorita: Chronica (ed. Gál and Flood, St Bonaventure, 1996), pp. 953-4.] |
|
Ad decretum autem Symachi respondetur quod nequaquam Symachus papa intendit astruere quod nemo potest esse papa nisi sanctus, cum constet multos sceleratissimos viros fuisse in summo pontificio residentes, sed vult asserere Symachus papa quod ad papatus sublimatus officium presumendus est esse sanctus, eciam licet prius fuisset malus, nisi contrarium evidenter appareat, et ideo non dicit 'ipsum esse sanctum' sed 'quis sanctum esse dubitet', quasi diceret nemo debet dubitare male suspicando sed presumere quod assumptus ad papatum sit sanctus, nisi contrarium constiterit evidenter. Et sic exponit glossa ibidem dicens, "Et si quandoque forte apostolici non essent boni, semper presumuntur esse boni;" et obiiciens in contrarium ait, "Nonne est contrarium 19, dist. Anastasius et 21, dist. Nunc autem?" Ad quam obieccionem respondens ait, Sed non dicitur hic quod sancti sint sed quod sancti presumuntur donec contrarium constet;" et infra, "quod hic dicitur 'semper benefacere' intelligitur de hiis que possunt eque retorqueri ad bonum et malum, quia semper in dubio pro ipsius facto presumitur, sed certe hoc idem est in quolibet sacerdote, ut 11, q. 3, Absit et 41 dist. c. 1 et 16, q. 1, Si clericatus. Respondeo: hoc verum est sed tamen hoc magis presumitur pro papa, ut 93 dist. c. 2. Unde sacrilegii instar esset disputare de facto suo, ut 19, q. 4, para. Qui autem." |
The reply to the decree of Symachus, however, is that Pope Symachus did not intend to argue that no one can be pope unless he is holy, since it is certain that many very wicked men have remained in the highest pontificate, but Pope Symachus wants to affirm that it should be presumed of someone raised to the office of the papacy that he is holy, even if he had been bad before, unless the contrary is clearly apparent. And so he does not say that 'he is holy' but 'who will doubt that he is holy?', as if to say that no one should doubt him by making evil conjectures but should presume that someone raised to the papacy is holy, unless the contrary is clearly the case. This is how the gloss on this point expounds it. It says [s. v. quis enim, col.193], "And if sometimes popes were perhaps not good, they are always presumed to be good;" and arguing to the contrary it says, "Are not dist. 19, Anastasius and dist. 21, Nunc autem opposed?" It says in reply to this objection, "But it is not said here that they are holy but that they are presumed to be holy until the opposite is certain ... when it is said here 'always to act well' it is understood of those things that can equally be twisted to good and to evil because always when ther is doubt a presumption is made in favour of his action, but certainly the same thing is so for any priest at all, as in 11, q. 3, Absit, dist. 41, c. 1 and 16, q. 1, Si clericatus. I reply that this is true but yet it is presumed more in the case of the pope, as in dist. 93, c. [1]. So it would be a kind of sacrilege to dispute about his deed, as in [17], q. 4, para. Qui autem." |
|
Ad sextam racionem respondetur, sicut ad primam, quod non est universaliter verum quod si quilibet de collegio potest errare totum collegium potest errare, quia quandoque collegium specialiter preservatur et tamen nulla singularis persona tali modo specialiter preservatur. Sic eciam dominus aliquis temporalis posset aliquod monasterium conservare impediendo omnes simul occidi preter unum, quamvis nullam unam singularem personam quamdiu essent multi vellet defendere; sed si contingeret omnes simul occidi preter unum illum defenderet quousque sibi alius in eodem monasterio iungeretur et ex tunc illum sibiipsi relinqueret. Talis dominus monasterium conservaret et tamen nullum de monasterio conservaret, nisi in casu ad tempus. |
The reply to the sixth argument is, as to the first, that it is not universally true that if anyone at all from a college can err the whole college can err, because sometimes a college is specifically kept safe without any particular individual being specifically kept safe in such a way. In this way too some temporal lord could preserve some monastery by preventing everyone there except for one person from being killed at the same time, even if he were unwilling, as long as there were many of them, to defend any one particular person. But if it were to happen that all of them except one were killed at the same time he would defend that one until he was joined by someone else in the same monastery and from then on he would leave him to himself. Such a lord would be preserving the monastery and yet he would not be preserving anyone from the monastery, except in a certain situation for a while. |
|
Ad septimam racionem respondetur quod non est obediendum pape si aliquid precipiat contra legem Dei vel bonos mores. Si enim preciperet fornicari aut idolis immolare vel demones invocare aut fidem Christi negare vel aliquid de se malum, non esset sibi obediendum. Sacri autem canones loquuntur in casu in quo precipit papa aliquid licitum ad suum spectans officium. |
The reply to the seventh argument is that the pope should not be obeyed if he orders anything against the law of God or against good morals. For if he were to order someone to fornicate, to sacrifice to idols, to invoke demons, to deny faith in Christ or to do something wrong in itself he should not be obeyed. The sacred canons, however, speak of the case in which the pope orders something permissible and pertaining to his office. |
|
Ad ultimum respondetur quod in casu papa potest iudicari ab homine. |
The reply to the last is that in a certain situation the pope can be judged by man. |
Continued...