Part 1, Book 7, chapters 42-51

Text and translation by George Knysh
July 2001 (revised May 2004)

Copyright (c) 2001, 2004 The British Academy


Capitulum 42

Chapter 42

Discipulus: Nunc videamus de doctoribus et magistris, an docentes et tenentes doctrinam hereticalem pape heretici sint fautores heretice pravitatis.

Student: Let us now see about doctors and masters, whether those who teach and hold the heretical doctrine of a heretic pope would be collaborators in heretical depravity.

Magister: Quos comprehendis sub nomine doctorum et magistrorum.

Master: Whom do you include in the expression 'doctors and masters'.

Discipulus: Per doctores et magistros intelligo omnes habentes officium predicandi vel legendi doctrinam catholicam.

Student: By 'doctors and masters' I understand all those who are charged with the duty of preaching or reading catholic doctrine.

Magister: Ergo inter doctores et magistros reputas numerandos non solum magistros theologie sed etiam omnes lectores et bachalarios theologie, et etiam decretistas qui legunt libros decretorum et decretalium, in quibus multa que ad doctrinam spectant catholicam continentur, ac etiam prelatos plebanos et eos qui auctoritate pape vel alterius prelati habent officium predicandi.

Master: Therefore you reckon that among doctors and masters should be included not only masters of theology but also all readers and bachelors of theology, and likewise canonists who read the books of decrees and decretals in which are contained many matters pertinent to catholic doctrine, and also parish priests and those who possess the office of preaching by authority of the pope or of another prelate.

Discipulus: Ita est. Omnes enim predicti docere habent catholicam veritatem. Quamobrem disseras an omnes predicti si docuerint publice vel tenuerint doctrinam hereticalem pape heretici sint fautores heretice pravitatis vel etiam inter hereticos computandi.

Student: Just so. For all the aforementioned have the task of teaching catholic truth. Wherefore proceed to discuss whether they would be collaborators in heretical wickedness or should even be numbered among the heretics if they were to publicly preach or hold the heretical doctrine of a heretic pope.

Magister: Dicitur distinguendo, quia aut doctrina pape erronea est talis quod predicti doctores et magistri tenentur explicite credere veritatem contrariam, aut est talis quod eam explicite credere non tenentur. Item, aut prius sciverunt doctrinam pape esse erroneam aut nesciverunt. Item, aut doctrina pape erronea est per ipsum solempniter diffinita seu determinata aut non est solempniter diffinita sed est solummodo pertinaciter predicata vel asserta.

Master: The discussion requires distinctions. For either the erroneous doctrine of the pope is such that the aforementioned doctors and masters are bound to believe explicitly the contrary truth, or it is such that they are not bound to explicitly believe the contrary truth. Again, either they previously knew that the pope's doctrine was wrong, or they did not know this. Further, either the pope's erroneous doctrine is solemnly defined or determined by him, or it is not solemnly defined but merely pertinaciously preached or asserted.

Si itaque doctrina pape heretica est talis quod doctores et magistri tenentur explicite credere veritatem contrariam, quia videlicet est apud omnes catholicos divulgata, vel si prius eam tanquam catholicam didicerunt nec sunt obliti doctores et magistri docentes publice qualitercunque vel occulte doctrinam talem erroneam pape heretici, sunt fautores heretice pravitatis et heretici reputandi, quia omnis docens vel tenens assertionem hereticam cuius contrariam veritatem tenetur explicite credere est hereticus iudicandus.

If accordingly the heretical doctrine of the pope is such that doctors and masters are obligated to explicitly believe the opposite truth, because it is common knowledge among all Catholics, or if they previously learned the opposite truth to be catholic truth, and the doctors and masters who teach this erroneous doctrine of a heretic pope publicly (in whatever fashion) or privately have not forgotten this prior learning, they are to be reckoned collaborators in heretical wickedness and heretics, because every one who teaches or maintains a heretical statement whose contrary truth he is bound to believe explicitly is to be considered a heretic.

Si autem doctrina pape erronea est talis quod doctores et magistri non tenentur explicite credere contrariam veritatem, nec est per papam solempniter diffinita seu determinata, docens eam aperte sive occulte non est ex hoc solo fautor heretice pravitatis nec hereticus iudicandus, sed est diligenter et sollicite examinandus an paratus sit corrigi, et siquidem paratus est corrigi ita quod nullo modo de pertinacia possit convinci, non est reus censendus; si vero non sit paratus corrigi sed pertinaciter in doctrina erronea pape heretici persistit, est fautor heretice pravitatis et hereticus reputandus.

But if the pope's erroneous doctrine is such that doctors and masters are not bound to explicitly believe the opposite truth, nor has the erroneous doctrine been solemnly defined or determined by the pope, one who teaches it publicly or privately is not by this single fact to be considered a collaborator in heretical wickedness or a heretic. He is rather to be diligently and scrupulously examined as to his readiness to be corrected. If on the one hand he is ready to be corrected, so that he can in no way be convicted of pertinacity, then he is not to be considered guilty. If on the other hand he is not ready to be corrected, but continues to pertinaciously hold the erroneous doctrine of a heretic pope, then he is to be reckoned a collaborator in heretical wickedness and a heretic.

Si autem doctores et magistri docent publice doctrinam pape erroneam quam sciunt per ipsum solempniter diffinitam, et docent quod huiusmodi diffinitio pape est tenenda, sunt fautores heretice pravitatis et etiam heretici reputandi, sive teneantur explicite credere veritatem contrariam sive non teneantur ipsam explicite credere. Huius ratio assignatur, quia quicunque pertinaciter adheret doctrine contra fidem est hereticus reputandus. Sed doctores et magistri docentes diffinitionem pape erroneam esse tenendam pertinaciter adherent doctrine erronee diffinite, quia qui asserit quod irrevocabiliter et in omnem eventum est adherendum doctrine erronee, ipse pertinaciter adherere eidem doctrine censetur, quare est pertinax reputandus et per consequens hereticus est censendus. Item, non minus peccat doctor vel magister qui publice docet diffinitionem pape hereticam esse tenendam quam si consensisset quod papa doctrinam huiusmodi solempniter diffiniret. Sed si doctor vel magister consensisset quod papa doctrinam huiusmodi diffiniret fuisset fautor heretice pravitatis. Ergo docendo quod diffinitio eius erronea est tenenda, est fautor heretice pravitatis reputandus.

If, finally, doctors and masters publicly teach a false doctrine of the pope which they know to have been solemnly defined by him, and if they teach that such a definition of the pope is obligatory, they are to be reckoned collaborators in heretical wickedness and also heretics, whether they are bound to explicitly believe the contrary truth or whether they are not bound to believe it explicitly. Here is the proof of this statement. Whoever pertinaciously supports a doctrine which is against the faith is to be reckoned a heretic. But doctors and masters who teach that a false definition of the pope is obligatory pertinaciously support a falsely defined doctrine, because he who asserts that one must support a false doctrine irrevocably and no matter what is to be considered as pertinaciously supporting this doctrine, and therefore is to be thought pertinacious, and consequently is to be reckoned a heretic. Again, a doctor or master who publicly teaches that a heretical definition of the pope is obligatory sins no less than if he had consented that the pope should solemnly define such a doctrine. But if a doctor or master had consented that the pope should define such a doctrine, he would have been a collaborator in heretical wickedness. Therefore by teaching that the pope's false definition is obligatory he is to be reckoned a collaborator in heretical wickedness.

Capitulum 43

Chapter 43

Discipulus: Quia dubito quod, si unquam aliquis papa potens cui faveant reges et principes erit hereticus, spiritus mendax erit in ore omnium vel plurium prophetarum, id est doctorum, qui, secundum beatum Gregorium, ut legitur dis. 43 c. Sit rector, per prophetas in sacro eloquio designantur, idcirco de doctoribus qui forte erunt tempore pape heretici plura interrogare propono, ad que tu breviter studeas respondere. Disseras autem in primis an doctores et magistri, si papa fuerit hereticus, teneantur contra doctrinam eius erroneam predicare et eam efficaciter reprobare.

Student: I am uncertain, should some powerful pope favoured by kings and princes ever become a heretic, that "a lying spirit" will be "in the mouth of all prophets" [2 Chronicles 18:21], or of many prophets, i.e. of doctors who, according to blessed Gregory (one reads this in dis. 43 c. Sit rector)[col. 153] are termed 'prophets' in Holy Writ. For that reason I intend to ask many questions (to which you will endeavour to respond briefly) about the doctors who will perhaps exist at the time of a heretic pope. First of all, however, discuss whether, should the pope be a heretic, doctors and masters would be obligated to preach against his false doctrine and effectively reject it.

Magister: Respondetur quod pro loco et tempore, debitis circumstantiis observatis, omnes doctores sive fuerint magistri sive in alio gradu docendi officium habentes exercere in theologica facultate, sive fuerint habentes tantummodo officium predicandi ad populum, de necessitate salutis tenentur doctrinam pape erroneam (presertim si apud illos inter quos predicta exercent officia divulgatur, docetur, et tenetur) efficaciter reprobare, et contrariam veritatem firmiter asserere. Hoc videtur pluribus modis posse probari. Primo quidem sic. In omni certamine corporali et spirituali laus precipua bellatorum in hoc videtur consistere quod, suo duci indissolubiliter adherendo, hostes eius quanto fuerint fortiores et periculosiores et perniciosores tanto magis expugnare conantur. Sed in catholicorum exercitu contra agmina hereticorum primum locum vel saltem non infimum bellatorum doctores obtinere videntur, cum secundum Innocentium tertium , ut habetur Extra, De hereticis, Cum ex iniuncto: "doctorum ordo sit quasi precipuus in ecclesia", et Honorius tertius, ut habetur Extra, Ne clerici vel monachi secularibus negotiis se immisceant, Super specula, predicatores bellatores appellat dicens: "quia vero theologie studium cupimus ampliari, ut dilatato sui tentorii loco et funiculos suos faciat longiores, ut sit fides catholica circumcincta muro inexpugnabili bellatorum, quibus resistere valeat adscendentibus ex adverso etc.", ubi dicit glossa super verbo "bellatorum": "id est predicatorum, qui possunt hereticis resistere auctoritate divine scripture, qui contra nos surgunt, et ex adverso impugnant nos". Ergo predicatores et doctores, quanto heretici fuerint fortiores et periculosiores ac perniciosores, tanto magis debent satagere ut eis resistant ac eos expugnent, eorum doctrinam auctoritatibus sacris et rationibus efficacibus reprobando. Nullus autem hereticus potest esse periculosior vel perniciosior exercitui catholicorum quam papa hereticus. Nullus enim alius tantam poterit habere audaciam et sequelam tantam quantam papa hereticus, ergo contra ipsum debent predicatores et doctores et magistri precipue et toto posse insurgere, eum aperte et per insidias ac omnibus modis congruentibus impugnando.

Master: The answer is that, depending on time and place, and taking into account appropriate circumstances, all doctors, whether they are masters or hold a different teaching appointment in the faculty of theology, or whether they are simply charged with the function of preaching to the people, are bound by necessity of salvation to effectively reject the pope's erroneous doctrine (especially if this doctrine is popularized, taught and maintained in the presence of those among whom the doctors exercise the aforementioned functions), and to assert solidly the contrary truth. It appears that one can prove this in many ways. First indeed in this manner. In every physical and spiritual conflict paramount praise seems afforded to fighters who, indissolubly supporting their leader, endeavour to destroy his stronger, more dangerous, and deadlier enemies with proportionally commensurate energy. But in the army of Catholics opposing the heretic multitudes, doctors seem to be granted the leading role or at least not the most humble. According to Innocent III (we have it in Extra, De hereticis, Cum ex iniuncto)[col. 786] "the order of doctors is paramount, as it were, in the church". And Honorius III (we have it in Extra, Ne clerici vel monachi secularibus negotiis se immisceant, Super specula)[col. 660] describes preachers as 'fighters', saying: "but since we wish to magnify the study of theology, so that by expanding the location of its tents it might make its cords correspondingly longer, so that the catholic faith is protected by an unbreachable wall of fighters using them to successfully resist those who adversely confront it etc.", where the gloss comments on the word 'fighters': "i.e. preachers, who by the authority of Holy Writ can resist heretics arising against us and attacking us adversely".[cols. 1416-1417] Therefore the stronger, more dangerous, and deadlier should heretics prove to be, the more intensely should preachers and doctors endeavour to resist them and destroy them, attacking their doctrine by sacred authorities and effective arguments. But no heretic can be more dangerous or deadlier to the army of Catholics than a heretic pope. Indeed no other heretic could emulate the boldness or possess the following comparable to that of a heretic pope. Therefore doctors and masters must rise against the latter with particular zeal and with all their strength, attacking him openly and by ambushes, as well as by all appropriate methods.

Discipulus: Ista ratio non videtur probare intentum, quia nunquam bellatorum est bellum indicere, quia secundum beatum Augustinum, ut legitur 23 q. 1 c. Quid culpatur: "suscipiendi belli auctoritas atque consilium penes principes est", ubi dicit glossa: "nullus ergo bellare potest sine auctoritate principis". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod licet omnes bellatores parati debeant esse ad prelium quando princeps iubet, sine tamen auctoritate principis nulli bellare licet. Licet ergo, si papa fiat hereticus, doctores et magistri teneantur esse parati quando auctoritate principis bellum contra papam hereticum indicetur, auctoritate tamen propria ipsum impugnare non debent. Quamdiu enim ab ecclesia toleratur doctores et magistri tacere debent.

Student: This argument does not appear to prove the point, for it is never the task of fighters to open hostilities, since according to blessed Augustine (we read this in 23 q. 1 c. Quid culpatur)[col. 893]: "the authority and competence to wage war resides in the rulers", where the gloss comments: "therefore no one may go to war without the authority of the ruler". [col. 1288] One gathers from these words that although all fighters must be ready for combat when the ruler orders it, no one, for all that, is allowed to go to war without the ruler's authority. Therefore even if (should the pope become a heretic) doctors and masters are bound to be ready for combat when war is proclaimed against the heretic pope by authority of the ruler, they must not, for all that, attack him on their own authority. Indeed, so long as the church tolerates him, doctors and masters must remain silent.

Magister: Ista responsio a nonnullis frivola reputatur quantum ad tria que videtur innuere. Primum est quod contra papam hereticum non eo ipso quod sit hereticus sed ex edicto principis bellum geritur spirituale. Secundum est quod papa hereticus quamdiu ab ecclesia toleratur est nullatenus expugnandus. Tertium est quod in nullo casu absque auctoritate principis licet alicui bellum sive generale sive particulare contra hostem suscipere. Ista enim tria quidam reputant omnino falsa.

Master: Some deem this response to be worthless with respect to three points, which it seems to imply. The first is that spiritual war is not waged against a heretic pope by the very fact that he is a heretic but only as a consequence of the ruler's command. The second is that a heretic pope is in no way to be eliminated so long as the church tolerates him. The third is that under no circumstance is someone permitted to wage public or private war against an enemy without the ruler's authority. Some people naturally consider these three points to be utterly false.

Quod enim primum sit falsum ostenditur, quia contra papam hereticum tam a principe principum, scilicet a Domino nostro Iesu Christo, quam ab apostolis vicariis eius iam est bellum indictum. Quod enim Christus bellare spiritualiter contra papam si fiat hereticus aperte mandaverit, apparet per illud Mat. 10 cum dicit: "non veni pacem mittere sed gladium". Per 'gladium' potestas bellandi datur intelligi. Christus igitur omnes catholicos in bello spirituali constituit. Precipuum autem bellum catholicorum contra hereticos esse videtur. Nullus autem hereticus perniciosior vel periculosior est papa heretico. Ergo contra papam hereticum precipue est bellandum spiritualiter, nec expectandum est edictum principis, quia iam edictum a Christo principe est egressum. Hoc etiam edictum auctoritate Christi beatus Paulus scribens ad Ephesios promulgavit. Ait enim cap. 6: "accipite armaturam Dei ut possitis resistere in die malo", et post: "calciati pedes in preparatione evangelii pacis, in omnibus sumentes scutum fidei in quo possitis omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere, et galeam salutis assumite, et gladium spiritus quod est verbum Dei". Quod edictum licet omnibus quantum ad aliqua dirigatur, tamen quantum ad quedam specialiter predicatores et doctores videtur respicere. Dies enim mala, imo pessima erit, si unquam papa potens regum et principum favore munitus in hereticam incidet pravitatem. Putant enim nonnulli probabile quod tunc erit tribulatio catholicorum qualis non fuit ab initio christianitatis usque modo, et tamen forte strages corporalis christianorum pro fide nulla vel parvissima erit. Multitudo enim christianorum, licet pro temporalibus forsitan tempore pape heretici sit prelia innumera perpessura, pro fide tamen persecutionem nullam penitus sustinebit, quia absque coactione et violentia, voluntate spontanea, pape heretico adherebit, et forte paucissimi eidem resistere conabuntur, et tamen omnes monet Apostolus armaturam Dei accipere ut in die mala pape heretico possint resistere. Predicatores autem et doctores specialiter exhortatur ut ad resistendum se preparent cum dicit: "calciati pedes in preparationem evangelii pacis," ubi dicit glossa: "id est ut sitis parati ad predicandum evangelium," et quomodo se debeant preparare declarat cum asserit: "assumendum gladium spiritus quod est verbum Dei". Hoc enim ad predicatores et magistros specialiter spectare dinoscitur, quorum est per verbum Dei tanquam per gladium acutissimum omnes hereticos et specialiter papam hereticum iugulare, et ita edictum de bello gerendo contra papam hereticum quod a Christo exierat cum dixit "non veni pacem mittere sed gladium" hic Paulus publice promulgavit cum gladium spiritus quod est verbum Dei ad expugnandum hereticos asseruit assumendum. Unde et glossa ibi dicit: "de hoc gladio Dominus ait 'non veni pacem mittere sed gladium'". De eodem ergo gladio loquuntur discipulus et magister, quare sequitur quod edictum de bello gerendo contra hereticos et specialiter contra papam hereticum a Christo principe iam exivit.

That indeed the first one is false is shown in this manner. Against a heretic pope war has already been declared, both by the ruler of rulers, namely by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his vicars the apostles. Indeed that Christ has clearly commanded spiritual war against a pope if the latter becomes a heretic appears from the following text of Matthew 10[: 34] where Christ states: "I came not to send peace but a sword". By 'sword' is meant the power to wage war. Therefore Christ granted the right to wage spiritual war to all Catholics. But the paramount war of Catholics seems to be against heretics, and no heretic is deadlier or more dangerous than a heretic pope, therefore spiritual war is to be waged above all against a heretic pope, nor must one await the ruler's command, since the command has already been issued by the ruler, Christ. And blessed Paul promulgated this command by Christ's authority, writing to the Ephesians, for he states in chapter 6: "take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day"[Ephesians 6:13], and afterwards: "your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God". [Ephesians 6:15-17] Although this command is addressed to all persons with respect to some matters, it appears nevertheless to specifically reference preachers and doctors as to particular activities. For it will be an evil day, indeed the worst of days, should a powerful pope favoured by kings and princes ever lapse into heretical wickedness. And many think it probable that at that time there would be such a threshing of Catholics as was not ever experienced since the beginning of Christianity, and yet the physical destruction of Christians for their faith would perhaps be nonexistent or insignificant. For although the multitude of Christians would perhaps undergo countless conflicts for the sake of worldly goods at the time of a heretic pope, it would nevertheless suffer no persecution whatsoever for the faith, because the multitude would support the heretic pope willfully, spontaneously, and without being pressured or coerced, with perhaps very few people attempting to resist him, despite the fact that the Apostle warns everyone to take the armour of God so that in the evil day they might be able to resist a heretic pope. On the other hand, Paul specifically admonishes preachers and doctors to prepare themselves for resistance when he states: "your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace" [Ephesians 6:15] (here the gloss says: "i.e. that you may be ready to preach the gospel"[Glossa ordinaria to the Bible], and Paul declares how they ought to prepare when he states: "take the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God"[Ephesians 6:17]. This is known as particularly relevant to preachers and masters. It is their task to destroy all heretics, and especially a heretic pope, by the word of God wielded as the sharpest of swords. And thus the command to wage war against a heretic pope which had issued from Christ when he said " I came not to send peace but a sword", Paul publicly promulgated here when he asserted that "the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God" was to be taken up for the utter defeat of heretics. Whence the gloss also states in this context: "concerning this sword the Lord said 'I came not to send peace but a sword'"[Glossa ordinaria to the Bible]. Therefore both the master (Christ) and the disciple (Paul) speak of the identical sword, and hence it follows that the command to wage war against heretics and especially against a heretic pope has already been issued by the ruler, Christ.

Discipulus: Absque magna persecutione alias auctoritates allega ex quibus ostenditur quod edictum de bello spirituali gerendo contra papam hereticum a principe iam exivit.

Student: Provide other authorities, but without extensive discussion, whereby one proves that the command to wage spiritual war against a heretic pope has already been issued by the ruler.

Magister: Hoc ex verbis Christi colligitur cum dicit Mat. 16: "intuemini et cavete a fermento phariseorum et saduceorum". Quod apostoli primo intelligentes de panibus postea per informationem Christi "intellexerunt quia non dixerit cavendum a fermento panum sed a doctrina phariseorum et saduceorum". Sed non est cavendum a doctrina phariseorum et saduceorum nisi quia est contraria catholice veritati. Ergo si doctrina pape heretici fuerit contraria catholice veritati ab ea penitus est cavendum. Hoc autem non facient predicatores sine certamine spirituali, ergo edictum de bello gerendo contra papam hereticum in simili a Christo iam exivit. Hoc etiam Christus insinuavit cum dixit Mat. 10: "ecce ego mitto vos sicut oves in medio luporum. Estote ergo prudentes sicut serpentes" ne scilicet doctrina pape heretici vos seducat. Item, Mat. 24 ait: "videte ne quis vos seducat". Quibus verbis Christus omnes catholicos reddit cautos ne doctrina erronea cuiuscunque sive pape sive alterius seducantur, et ut se contra eam expugnandam animosius attingant. Item, beatus Petrus prima canonica sua c. 5 ait: "vigilate quia adversarius vester diabolus tanquam etc." (usque ad "fortes in fide"). Si autem diabolo est per fidem resistendum, etiam pape heretico qui est de ducibus principalibus diaboli oportet resistere orthodoxos.

Master: This may be gathered from the words of Christ when he states in Matthew 16: "take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees"[Matthew 16:6]. At first the apostles thought this referred to breads, but afterwards through Christ's explanation "they understood how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees"[Matthew 16:12]. But one must beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees only because it is contrary to catholic truth. Therefore if the doctrine of a heretic pope were contrary to catholic truth one would need to beware of it heartily. But preachers could not perform this warning task without spiritual combat, therefore a relevant command to wage war against a heretic pope has already been issued by Christ. Christ also conveyed this command when he stated in Matthew 10: "behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents"[Matthew 10:16] so that, to be sure, the doctrine of a heretic pope does not deceive you. Again, in Matthew 24[:4] he states: "take heed that no man deceive you". By these words Christ cautions all Catholics not to be deceived by anyone's false doctrine, whether he is a pope or someone else, and to unite boldly for the purpose of destroying it. Again, blessed Peter in chapter 5 of his First epistle states: "be vigilant, because your adversary the devil etc." (up to "steadfast in the faith")[1 Peter 5:8-9]. But if one must resist the devil by faith, then it is also proper for true believers to resist a heretic pope, who is one of the devil's main generals.

Discipulus: Quamvis iste et alie auctoritates quamplurime innuere videantur quod oportet orthodoxos contra papam hereticum bellum assumere, tamen non probant specialiter quod predicatores et doctores ac magistri debeant contra papam hereticum predicare et docere ac doctrinam eius publice reprobare.

Student: Although these and other most numerous authorities seem to imply that it is proper for true believers to wage war against a heretic pope, they do not for all that specifically prove that preachers, doctors, and masters must preach and teach against a heretic pope and publicly reject his doctrine.

Magister: Conceditur quod auctoritates superius allegate et quamplures alie generales sunt, omnibus catholicis bellum spirituale contra papam hereticum indicentes. Quia enim papa hereticus fidem impugnat, et secundum Apostolum "una est fides", ideo omnes catholici contra papam hereticum bellum debent assumere tanquam pro causa communi que una est omnium. Verumptamen sicut in exercitu se ad bellum corporale preparante, non omnes idem habent officium, nec omnes corporaliter preliantur (clerici enim quamvis preliari non debeant possunt tamen iusto prelio interesse ut hortentur et consulant quod expedit ad salutem; multi etiam servitores bellatorum ad preliandum minime sunt apti), nec etiam omnes bellatores eodem modo hostes impugnant (equites enim et pedites diversimode hostes invadunt), sic in exercitu catholicorum contra papam hereticum non omnes idem habent officium. Quidam namque ignorant doctrinam pape erroneam per sacras scripturas efficaciter impugnare, et ideo ad eos non pertinet ipsam predicando vel docendo per scripturarum testimonia reprobare. Alii vero officium predicandi et docendi veritatem catholicam et expugnandi pravitatem hereticam susceperunt, et ideo ad illos tanquam ad precipuos bellatores spectat doctrinam pape erroneam fortius expugnare. Quare ex hoc ipso quod omnibus orthodoxis indicitur bellum contra papam hereticum, predicatoribus et doctoribus specialiter iniungi dinoscitur ut, suum officium exercentes, predicando et docendo contra papam hereticum et doctrinam eius insurgant. Alii vero qui scripturas ignorant, bellatores spirituales corporaliter defensare, nutrire et sustinere ac etiam eis favere in omnibus que ad eorum spectant officium contra papam hereticum astringuuntur.

Master: It is conceded that the authorities advanced earlier and very many others are general ones, imposing on all Catholics the duty of waging spiritual war against a heretic pope. For since a heretic pope attacks the faith, and according to the Apostle "the faith is one"[Ephesians 4:5], that is the reason why all Catholics must wage war against a heretic pope as a common cause which unites them all. However, just as in an army which is preparing itself for physical combat not all perform the identical task, nor are all involved in physical combat (for clerks, although they must not actually slash and cut, may nevertheless participate in a just war to encourage others and to advise what is expedient for security; and many attendants of the active fighters are hardly fit for physical combat themselves), nor even do all active fighters attack enemies in the same way (for horsemen and footmen attack enemies differently), so by analogy not all have the same task to perform in the army of Catholics opposing a heretic pope. Some indeed are incapable of effectively attacking the pope's false doctrine by relying on Holy Writ, and therefore to such does not belong the task of rejecting this doctrine by preaching or teaching on the basis of Biblical evidence. Others however have formally taken up the office of preaching and teaching catholic truth, and of destroying heretical wickedness, and therefore to such as to the paramount fighters they are pertains the task of destroying the pope's false doctrine with greater impact. Hence by the very fact that war against a heretic pope is urged upon all true believers, preachers and doctors are known to receive a special injunction that they must aggressively exercise their office by preaching and teaching against a heretic pope and his doctrine. While others, who are ignorant of scripture, are obligated to physically defend, nourish, and sustain the spiritual fighters, as well as to favour them in all matters relevant to their official activity against a heretic pope.

Discipulus: Aliter confirmatur predicta obiectio, quia in omnibus auctoritatibus preallegatis de papa heretico nulla fit mentio. Si ergo per auctoritates ostenditur quod predicatores et doctores debent doctrinam pape erroneam reprobare, eadem ratione debent doctrinam erroneam cuiuscunque heretici impugnare, ad quod tamen minime sunt astricti, quia nullus predicator aut doctor posset omnes doctrinas erroneas hereticorum extirpare.

Student: My stated objection can be confirmed otherwise, since in all the authorities previously advanced no mention is made of a heretic pope. Therefore if these authorities show that preachers and doctors must reject the pope's false doctrine, by the same token they must attack the false doctrine of any heretic. But they are hardly bound to do this, because no preacher or doctor can possibly root out all the false doctrines of heretics.

Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis in auctoritatibus allegatis mentio verbalis non fiat de papa heretico, et ideo de omnibus hereticis, imo de omnibus malis, debent intelligi, principaliter tamen debent intelligi de papa heretico pro eo quod ipse esset magis nocivus quam alii heretici minoris potentie et minorem sequelam habentes. Si enim contra malos et seductores oportet bellum spirituale assumere, contra magis malos et qui levius ac citius possunt decipere orthodoxos est fortius resistendum. Quare cum papa hereticus valeat plures facilius et citius seducere quam alii heretici minores, contra ipsum virilissime spiritualiter est pugnandum.

Master: The answer is that even though there is no verbal mention of a heretic pope in the argued authorities, and therefore they must be understood of all heretics, and indeed of all wicked individuals, they must nevertheless be primarily applied to a heretic pope, because he would be more harmful than other heretics of lesser power who possessed a smaller contingent of followers. For if it is proper to wage spiritual war against such as are wicked and deceitful, then one must resist more strongly against those who are wicked to a higher degree, and who can more easily and expeditiously deceive the true believers. Therefore since a heretic pope has the power to deceive many people with greater ease and alacrity than other less significant heretics, he must be spiritually attacked with the utmost vigour.

Capitulum 44

Chapter 44

Discipulus: In responsione mea ad rationem principalem dixisti innui tria que quibusdam falsa videntur. Tractasti autem de primo illorum, nunc dissere de secundo.

Student: You have said that in my response to the principal argument I proposed three points, which appeared false to some, and in fact you have dealt with the first of these. Now discuss the second.

Magister: Secundum quod tua responsio videbatur innuere est quod papa hereticus quamdiu ab ecclesia toleratur est nullatenus expugnandus. Quod videbatur quibusdam falsum propter falsam implicationem. Quia si papa hereticus ab ecclesia toleratur, aut toleratur ab ecclesia catholica aut ab ecclesia heretica et schismatica. Si ab ecclesia heretica et schismatica, constat quod propter eius tolerantiam non est ab expugnatione pape heretici desistendum. Si autem toleratur ab ecclesia catholica hoc non potest contingere nisi quia ecclesia catholica ignorat papam esse hereticum. Si enim sciret ipsum esse hereticum, eum nullatenus toleraret. Sed propter ignorantiam ecclesie catholice non est ab expugnatione pape heretici cessandum quando probari potest esse hereticus. Illi enim qui sciunt papam esse hereticum si possunt probare eum esse hereticum debent hoc ecclesie catholice nuntiare, que postquam quesierit sollicite et reperierit veritatem, papam hereticum nullatenus tolerabit. Qui autem debent perfidiam pape heretici ecclesie catholice nuntiare debent ipsum, si habent officium docendi, efficaciter reprobare. Ergo quamvis ab ecclesia catholica ignorante papa hereticus toleretur, non debent predicatores et doctores scientes eum esse hereticum ab eius impugnatione cessare, et ita quamvis papa hereticus ab ecclesia catholica hoc est a multitudine christiani populi toleretur, est tamen a scientibus eum esse hereticum viriliter expugnandus.

Master: The second point which your response seemed to suggest is that a heretic pope should in no way be destroyed so long as he is tolerated by the church. This appeared to some to be false because of an erroneous implication. For if a heretic pope is tolerated by the church, either he is tolerated by the catholic church or by a church which is heretic and schismatic. If by a church heretic and schismatic, it is manifest that on account of its toleration one must not forego the elimination of a heretic pope. If, on the other hand, the catholic church tolerates him, this can only happen because the catholic church is unaware that the pope is a heretic. For if it knew that he was a heretic it would in no way tolerate him. But because of the ignorance of the catholic church one must not desist from the destruction of a heretic pope when it can be demonstrated that he is a heretic. For those who know that the pope is a heretic must reveal this to the catholic church if they can prove him to be a heretic. After the church has diligently inquired and discovered the truth, it will in no way tolerate a heretic pope. And those who have the duty of announcing to the catholic church the treachery of a heretic pope must also condemn him with effect if they possess a teaching responsibility. Therefore even if an uninformed catholic church tolerates a heretic pope, the preachers and doctors who know that he is a heretic must not stop attacking him. And thus even if a heretic pope is tolerated by the catholic church, that is to say by the multitude of the Christian people, he must nevertheless be vigorously assaulted by those who know that he is a heretic.

Discipulus: Hic essent duo probanda, quorum primum est quod ecclesia catholica papam hereticum scienter nullatenus toleraret. Secundum est quod illi qui scirent papam esse hereticum deberent hoc ecclesie catholice nuntiare quando possent hoc probare. Unde ista duo coneris probare.

Student: Here two things would need to be proved. The first of which is that the catholic church would never knowingly tolerate a heretic pope. The second is that they who knew that the pope was a heretic would be obligated to reveal this to the catholic church when they could advance corroborative evidence. Attempt if you will to demonstrate both points.

Magister: Primum probatur sic. Licet ecclesia catholica quantum ad ea que facti sunt possit errare (unde et ecclesia universalis erravit quantum ad aliquid quod facti erat quando mulierem venerabatur pro papa, et sic etiam posset errare si aliquis non baptizatus qui crederetur esse baptizatus vel aliquis occultus hereticus eligeretur in papam et ab ecclesia universali pro papa haberetur), tamen quantum ad ea que iuris sunt divini et naturalis ecclesia universalis errare non potest. Sed si ecclesia universalis papam hereticum toleraret, erraret quantum ad ea que sunt iuris divini quia scienter haberet pro papa eum qui iure divino esset papatu privatus quod non esset sine errore iuris divini, quia reputare hereticum verum papam est contra sacram scripturam quia ex scriptura divina colligitur evidenter quod papa hereticus non est verus papa, ut ostensum est libro sexto capitulo 68. Ergo ecclesia catholica nunquam scienter papam hereticum tolerabit.

Master: The first is proved as follows. Although the catholic church may err as to matters of fact (whence the universal church did commit a factual error when it venerated a woman as pope ['Pope Joan': cf. Ockham OQ 1.17.22-24], and it might likewise err in this fashion if some unbaptized individual who was believed to be baptized or some secret heretic were to be elected pope and recognized as pope by the universal church), nevertheless the universal church cannot be in error as to matters which pertain to divine and natural law. But were the universal church to tolerate a heretic pope, it would err as to matters of divine law, because it would knowingly recognize as pope one who would have been deprived of the papacy by divine right, a recognition which would not avoid an error of divine law, since to reckon a heretic to be a true pope is against Holy Writ, in that one evidently concludes from Divine Scripture that a heretic pope is not a true pope, as was shown in the 68th chapter of Book Six [1 Dial. 6.68]. Therefore the catholic church will never knowingly tolerate a heretic pope.

Discipulus: Ista ratio non procedit, quia ecclesia catholica tolerando papam hereticum non erraret quantum ad ea que sunt iuris divini nisi papam hereticum reputaret verum papam. Sed ecclesia catholica posset tolerare papam hereticum licet non reputat ipsum verum papam, quia multa tolerantur que minime approbantur, teste Innocentio tertio qui, ut habetur Extra, De prebendis,Cum iam dudum, ait: "cum multa per patientiam tolerentur que si deducta fuerint in iudicium exigente iustitia non debeant tolerari". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod multa tolerantur que minime approbantur et ita absque errore potest ecclesia catholica papam hereticum tolerare.

Student: This is not an effective argument, because the catholic church by tolerating a heretic pope would not err as to matters of divine law unless it reckoned a heretic pope to be a true pope. But the catholic church might tolerate a heretic pope without reckoning him to be a true pope, because many things are tolerated which are hardly approved, witness Innocent III who states (as we find in Extra, De prebendis, Cum iam dudum)[col. 471]: " since many things are patiently tolerated which if taken to court a rigorous justice would not allow to be tolerated". From these words one gathers that many things are tolerated which are hardly approved, and thus the catholic church may tolerate a heretic pope without falling into error.

Magister: Respondetur quod sicut ecclesia universalis nunquam errabit quantum ad ea que iuris sunt divini, ita nunquam usque ad finem seculi ecclesia universalis iustitia et caritate carebit, iuxta illud Apostoli ad Eph. 5: "Christus dilexit nos" (ecclesiam) "et tradidit seipsum" pro ea, ut illam sanctificaret, mundans lavacro aque in verbo vite, ut exhiberet ipse sibi gloriosam ecclesiam non habentem maculam neque rugam aut aliquid huiusmodi sed ut sit sancta et immaculata. Non esset enim sancta et immaculata neque in caritate et iustitia radicata si scienter papam hereticum toleraret. Quare nunquam ecclesia universalis scienter papam hereticum tolerabit si eum punire potest. Et si eum corporaliter punire non poterit, saltem ipsum spiritualiter (verbaliter) reprobabit. Ad cuius evidentiam dicitur esse sciendum quod licet quedam mala ab ecclesia tolerantur quia minime puniuntur, tamen quedam sunt mala que ab ecclesia tolerari non debent si potest ea punire. Nam sicut secundum Gregorium habetur (dis. 28 c. Quia sunt) : "sunt culpe in quibus culpa est relaxare vindictam", ita sunt quedam culpe que minime sunt tolerande, nam publice utilitatis intersit ne crimina remaneant impunita (Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, Ut fame). Huiusmodi autem culpe sunt ille precipue que committuntur in Deum et in bonum commune (23 q. 4 c. Si is et c. Si ea). Perfidia autem heresis in papa heretico in Deum committitur et est in preiudicium fidei que communis est omnium, et ideo perfidiam heresis in papa heretico nunquam ecclesia universalis tolerabit, quia tolerando scienter pravitatem hereticam in papa efficeretur ecclesia schismatica, quia ecclesia que schismatico scienter adheret schismatica est. Ecclesia autem schismatica non est ecclesia catholica et universalis, ergo ecclesia universalis et catholica nunquam scienter perfidiam pape heretici (quia eo ipso quod est hereticus est etiam schismaticus) tolerabit, habendo ipsum pro vero papa. Licet forte multitudo christianorum papam hereticum tolerabit et veri catholici persecutionem ab eo gravissimam sustinebunt, sed ipsum minime tolerabunt sibi tanquam vero pape obediendo.

Master: The answer is that just as the universal church will never be in error as to matters of divine law, so will the universal church never lack for justice and love to the end of time, according to the statement of the Apostle in Ephesians 5: "Christ also hath loved us" (i.e. the church) "and hath given himself" [Ephesians 5:2] for her, that he might make her holy, cleaning her as a bath of water in the Word of life, that he might create for himself a glorious church, one holy and immaculate, having neither stain nor wrinkle nor anything of the sort. Yet the church would not be holy and stainless or founded in love and justice if it knowingly tolerated a heretic pope. Therefore never will the universal church knowingly tolerate a heretic pope if it has the power to punish him. And should it not be able to punish him physically it will at least condemn him spiritually, by words. As confirming proof of this, it must be known that while there are some evils which are tolerated by the church since they are hardly punished, there are nevertheless other evils which should not be tolerated by the church if it has the power to punish them. Indeed just as we have it from Gregory in dis. 28 c. Quia sunt [col. 103] that "there are some sins concerning which it is a sin to weaken retribution", so are there certain sins which must hardly be tolerated, since it is a matter of public interest that crimes not remain unpunished (Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, Ut fame)[col. 904]. Such sins however are above all those which are committed against God and against the common good (23 q. 4 c. Si is and c. Si ea)[col. 912]. But the treachery of heresy in a heretic pope is committed against god and in damage to the faith, which is common to all. Therefore the universal church will never tolerate the treachery of heresy in a heretic pope, since by knowingly tolerating heretical wickedness in the pope it would become a schismatic church, because a church, which knowingly supports a schismatic, is a schismatic church. But a schismatic church is not the catholic and universal church. And so the universal and catholic church will never knowingly tolerate the treachery of a heretic pope (for by the very fact that he is a heretic he is also a schismatic) by recognizing him as a true pope. Although the multitude of Christians will perhaps tolerate a heretic pope, and true Catholics will suffer the harshest persecution from him, the latter will even so hardly tolerate him by obeying him as they would a true pope.

Discipulus: Recitasti quomodo probatur quod ecclesia catholica nunquam scienter papam hereticum tolerabit. Nunc molire probare secundum, scilicet quod illi qui scirent papam esse hereticum deberent hoc ecclesie catholice nuntiare.

Student: You have recited how one proves that the catholic church would never knowingly tolerate a heretic pope. Now attempt to prove the corollary, namely that those knowing the pope to be a heretic would be obligated to reveal this to the catholic church.

Magister: Hoc videtur posse probari sic. Hoc debent catholici aliis catholicis nescientibus revelare seu nuntiare quod, celatum, vergeret in diminutionem divini honoris et fidelium commune et notabile detrimentum. Sed perfidia pape heretici molientis fidem corrumpere orthodoxorum vergeret in diminutionem divini honoris et fidelium commune et notabile detrimentum. Ergo catholici scientes papam esse hereticum debent hoc aliis revelare si possunt hoc ipsum probare.

Master: It appears this can be proved as follows. Catholics have the duty to reveal or to announce to other uninformed Catholics a matter, which, if concealed, would involve the diminution of God's honour as well as a common and conspicuous harm to believers. But the treachery of a heretic pope attempting to corrupt orthodox faith would involve the diminution of God's honour as well as a common and conspicuous harm to believers. Therefore Catholics who know that the pope is a heretic must reveal this to others if they can actually prove it.

Capitulum 45

Chapter 45

Discipulus: Dissere de tertio quod innuebat responsio mea ad rationem factam supra, capitulo 43, et dixisti a quibusdam putari contrariam veritati.

Student: Discuss the third point implied in my response to the argument made above in chapter 43, and you stated that it was held by some to be contrary to the truth.

Magister: Tertium quod innuebat tua responsio est quod in nullo casu absque auctoritate principis alicui licet bellum sive generale sive particulare suscipere, hoc est absque auctoritate principis nulli licet alium occidere. Quod non videtur verum. Nam publicum latronem cuilibet licet absque auctoritate principis occidere: Codice, Quando liceat unicuique sine iudice se vindicare, libro primo, et glossa notat 23 q. 3 c. Fortitudo, et q. 5 c. Cum homo, et Extra, De immunitate ecclesiarum, c. Inter alias. Item, absque auctoritate principis seu iudicis licitum est cuilibet vim vi repellere (dis. 1 Ius naturale). Sed aliquando vis repelli non potest nisi inferens occidatur, ergo in hoc casu licet absque auctoritate principis bellum saltem particulare suscipere. Item, non minus debet populus defendere patriam contra volentes ipsum occidere et patriam devastare quam privata persona teneatur se et res proprias defensare. Sed persone private licet se et res proprias absque auctoritate principis defensare et ne occidatur occidere, ergo multo magis toti populo in absentia principis licet se contra hostes defensare et, ne occidetur et patriam vastetur, bellum suscipere generale.

Master: The third point which your response implied is that under no circumstance is someone permitted to wage public or private war without the ruler's authority, in other words that it is not permitted to anyone to kill someone else without the ruler's authority. This does not appear to be true. For a highway robber may be killed by anyone without the ruler's authority (Codex, Quando liceat unicuique sine iudicio se vindicare, lib. primo)[rather: Book III, title 27], and the gloss notes this at 23 q. 3 c. Fortitudo [col. 1294] and at q. 5 c. Cum homo [col. 1344] and in Extra, De immunitate ecclesiarum, Inter alias [col. 1406]. Again, it is permitted to anyone to resist force with force without the authority of a ruler or judge (dis. 1 Ius naturale)[col. 2]. But sometimes force cannot be resisted unless the attacker is killed, therefore in that case it is permitted to wage at least a private war without the ruler's authority. Again, a people is duty bound to defend its country against those wishing to kill the people and devastate the country no less than a private person is bound to defend himself and his private possessions. But a private person is allowed to defend himself and his private possessions without the ruler's authority, and to kill lest he be killed. Therefore all the more is it permitted to the whole people to defend itself against enemies when the ruler is absent, and to wage a public war lest it be killed and the country ravaged.

Discipulus: Ad quid nituntur isti istud tertium reprobare.

Student: Why do these commentators strive to condemn this third point.

Magister: Hoc reprobant ut ex contraria veritate eliciant argumentum ad probandum quod licet predicatoribus et doctoribus seu magistris absque mandato cuiuscunque prelati publice predicare atque docere doctrinam pape heretici veritati catholice adversari.

Master: They condemn it so as to derive an argument from the contrary truth proving that it is permitted to preachers and doctors or masters to publicly preach and teach without mandate from any ecclesiastical superior that the doctrine of a heretic pope is inimical to catholic truth.

Discipulus: Quomodo.

Student: How is this proved.

Magister: Hoc modo. Bellum spiritualem contra hostem spiritualem nitentem non solum personam privatam sed etiam totam communitatem fidelium spiritualiter per hereticam pravitatem extinguere non est magis illicitum, etiam absque auctoritate principis mortalis inferioris Deo, quam sit bellum corporale contra volentem personam privatam vel aliquem populum neci tradere corporali. Sed licet absque auctoritate principis in casu tam bellum particulare quam generale corporale suscipere. Ergo multo magis licet predicatoribus et doctoribus seu magistris absque auctoritate principis mortalis contra papam hereticum cupientem totam multitudinem orthodoxorum spiritualiter heretica occidere pravitate bellum spirituale suscipere. Ergo licet eis doctrinam eius erroneam efficaciter reprobare et publice expugnare.

Master: In this fashion. A spiritual war against a spiritual enemy who is attempting to spiritually annihilate through heretical wickedness not just a private person but also the entire community of believers, is not more illegal (even without the authority of a mortal ruler inferior to God) than a physical war against one who wishes to physically destroy a private person or some population. But one is permitted to wage physical war both private and public without the ruler's authority. Therefore all the more is it permitted to preachers and doctors or masters to wage spiritual war without the authority of a mortal ruler against a heretic pope who intends to spiritually annihilate the entire multitude of true believers through heretical wickedness. Therefore they are allowed to effectively condemn his false doctrine and to overcome it publicly.

Discipulus: Quomodo respondetur ad auctoritates que sonare videntur quod absque auctoritate principis nulli licet bellum suscipere.

Student: How does one respond to the authorities which seem to say that no one is allowed to wage war without the ruler's mandate.

Magister: Ad omnes unica datur responsio, quia omnes intelligende sunt quando auctoritas principis potest convenienter haberi. Si autem principis auctoritas convenienter haberi non potest, vel propter eius absentiam vel propter eius imperitiam aut impotentiam seu propter eius malitiam, licet absque eius auctoritate ex iusta et rationabili causa bellum suscipere non solum particulare sed etiam generale.

Master: They all receive a single answer, in that they all must be understood as operating when the authority of the ruler is conveniently available. If however the ruler's authority is not conveniently available, either because of his absence or because of his lack of knowledge or power, or because of his wicked disposition, one is allowed, if the cause is just and reasonable, to wage not only private but also public war without his authority.

Discipulus: Ista responsio innuit quod in pluribus casibus vel propter diversas conditiones principis licet absque eius auctoritate bellum suscipere, unde predicta per exempla declara.

Student: This reply suggests that in many cases, or because of the ruler's different conditions, it is permitted to wage war without his authority. Explain the aforementioned cases by some examples.

Magister: Omnia per unum exemplum videntur quodammodo posse declarari. Ponatur enim quod aliquis rex potens vel populus aliquam civitatem invadat iniuste, satagens omnes cives extinguere et civitatem funditus dissipare. Si in hoc casu princeps civitatis est absens ita quod cives eius auctoritatem et consilium non possunt requirere, vel si princeps est alienatus a sensu vel alias infirmus, ita quod eis non potest consulere, vel si etiam ipsemet princeps malitiose conatur tradere civitatem, civitati licet pro se defendenda bellum suscipere principe minime annuente, imo ipso pro viribus resistente. Unde et per multa exempla posset ostendi quod plures populi et communitates sepius deposuerunt iuste suos reges et principes et postea sibi principes elegerunt. Ex quo patet quod etiam populus absque auctoritate principis potuit ex causa iusta et rationabili contra principem deponendum bellum movere.

Master: It somehow seems possible to explain everything by a single example. Let us indeed assume that some powerful king or people unjustly attacks a given city, fully intent on exterminating all the citizens and utterly destroying the city. If in this case the ruler of the city is absent, so that the citizens are unable to obtain his authority and directive, or if the ruler has lost his mind or is otherwise incapacitated so that he can give them no directive, or alternatively if the ruler himself wickedly attempts to betray the city, that city has the right to wage war in self-defence without the ruler's consent, even, to be sure, should he strongly resist this initiative. Whence it might be shown by copious examples that many peoples and communities frequently deposed their kings and rulers with justice, and afterwards elected rulers for themselves. From which it similarly appears that a people, if its cause was just and reasonable, could have waged war against a ruler who was to be deposed without the ruler's authority.

Capitulum 46

Chapter 46

Discipulus: Michi videtur ostensum aperte quod in pluribus casibus licet populo absque auctoritate principis bellum generale movere, ex quo concludi potest, ut apparet, quod licet predicatoribus et doctoribus contra papam hereticum absque auctoritate prelati cuiuscunque mortalis bellum spirituale suscipere, eius doctrinam erroneam reprobando. Nichilominus tamen peto ut ad eandem conclusionem aliquas alias rationes adducas.

Student: It seems clearly proved to me that in many cases a people may wage a public war without the ruler's authority. From this one may conclude, it appears, that preachers and doctors are permitted to wage spiritual war against a heretic pope, and condemn his false doctrine without the authority of any mortal prelate. But I ask nevertheless that you provide some further arguments in favour of this conclusion.

Magister: Quod non solum sit licitum sed etiam quod predicatores et doctores teneantur doctrinam pape erroneam reprobare, irrequisita auctoritate cuiuscunque prelati mortalis videtur posse probari secundo principaliter sic. Qui officium susceptum vel commissum negligit exercere est merito arguendus. Talis enim servo nequam qui abscondit talentum sibi commissum non immerito comparatur. Facit etiam contra preceptum Apostoli scribentis 2 ad Tim. 4: "ministerium tuum imple". Sed ad officium predicatorum et doctorum spectat veritatem catholicam affirmare, et pravitatem hereticam confutare, que duo sunt opera sapientis, scilicet non mentiri de quibus novit, et mentientem posse manifestare. Ergo ad predicatores et doctores spectat perfidiam pape heretici confutare.

Master: Here is the second main argument which it appears possible to advance to prove that it is not only legal for preachers and doctors to condemn the pope's false doctrine, but that they are obligated to act without asking for the authoritative sanction of any mortal prelate. He who neglects to perform an assumed or assigned official duty merits blame. Such a person may deservedly be compared to the bad servant who conceals the funds entrusted to him [Matthew 25:26; Luke 19:22]. This person also contradicts the command of the Apostle writing in 2 Timothy 4: "make full proof of thy ministry"[2 Timothy 4:5]. But it belongs to the office of preachers and doctors to confirm catholic truth and to refute heretical wickedness. These are surely the two qualities of the wise man: not to lie concerning what he knows, and to reveal the identity of a liar [Ockham, Expositio super libros Elenchorum, I, 1. par.5, in OPh III, 11, citing Aristotle]. Therefore it pertains to preachers and doctors to reject the treachery of a heretic pope.

Discipulus: Licet ad predicatores et doctores pertineat pravitatem hereticam confutare, non tamen spectat ad ipsos omnem pravitatem hereticam confutare, quia nullus posset hoc facere. Ergo per hanc rationem probari non potest quod ad eos spectat perfidiam pape heretici reprobare.

Student: Although it pertains to preachers and doctors to refute heretical wickedness, it is surely not their business to refute every single heretical wickedness since no one would have the stamina for this. Therefore this argument cannot prove that it is their task to condemn the treachery of a heretic pope.

Magister: Hec responsio non sufficit ut videtur multis quia, secundum beatum Gregorium, secundum qualitatem auditorum debet formari sermo doctorum, et videtur accepisse a beato Petro qui, ut legitur 8 q. 1 c. Oportet ait: "oportet eum qui docet et instruit animas rudes esse talem ut pro ingenio discentium semetipsum possit aptare et verbi ordinem pro audientis capacitate dirigere". Sic oportet predicatorem et doctorem secundum varietatem temporum doctrinam suam audientibus ministrare ut quando ab hereticis de aliquibus erroribus specialibus invaduntur, per doctrinam predicatorum et doctorum contra eosdem errores specialiter muniantur. Si ergo papa hereticus virus sue perfidie in fideles laborat transfundere oportet predicatores et doctores sue perfidie specialiter obviare et de veritate contraria auditores salubriter informare.

Master: It seems to many that this reply is unconvincing for the following reason. According to blessed Gregory the speech of doctors must conform to the quality of the audience [Moralia in Job, book 30, section 12 in PL 76 col. 530], and it seems that he borrowed this idea from blessed Peter who states (we read this in 8 q. 1 c. Oportet): "it is proper that he who teaches and instructs uncultured souls be able to adjust himself to the intelligence of the learners, and construct his verbal delivery according to the hearer's capacity"[col. 594]. In similar fashion it is proper for the preacher and doctor to present his doctrine to listeners in conjunction with the shifting requirements of the time, so that when heretics putting forth certain specific errors assault these listeners, they might be specifically protected against those very errors by the doctrine of preachers and doctors. Therefore if a heretic pope exerts himself to transfer the poison of his treachery unto believers, it is proper for preachers and doctors to specifically oppose his treachery and inform their audience with good effect of the contrary truth.

Discipulus: Puto quod hanc rationem intelligo, ideo alias non differas allegare.

Student: I think that I understand this one, therefore do not delay the presentation of other arguments.

Magister: Tertio principaliter videtur sic posse probari. Ille cui ex officio incumbit peccanti resistere, si non resistit peccanti, consentit, et simili modo cum eo iudicandus est culpabilis. Hec est enim ratio quare sepe taciturnitas et dissimulatio imputantur prelatis que tamen subditis minime imputantur, quia ad prelatos et potestatem habentes spectat sepe peccantibus obviare, quod tamen ad subditos minime spectat. Sed predicatoribus et doctoribus ex officio suscepto incumbit perfidie pape heretici fidem corrumpere satagentis resistere. Ideo enim, ut dictum est, officium predicatoris et doctoris debent suscipere ut doceant catholicam veritatem et confutent hereticam pravitatem. Ergo si non resistunt pape heretico cum possunt, eius perfidiam reprobando, eidem consentiunt et simili modo cum eo sunt culpabiles reputandi. Unde virtute istius medii omnes auctoritates supra capitulo 38 introducte (et alie que sonare videntur quod qui non resistit peccanti cum potest, consentit) ad predictam conclusionem possunt adduci.

Master: A third possible main argument appears to be this. He who is charged with the official duty of resisting the sinner consents to the latter's transgression if he fails to perform this duty, and must be judged to share the sinner's guilt. And this is the reason why silence and dissimulation are frequently held as proof against prelates and not against subjects, since it is frequently the duty of prelates and of such as wield power to move against sinners, which is a task hardly pertaining to subjects. And it is surely the assumed official duty of preachers and doctors to resist the treachery of a heretic pope attempting to corrupt the faith. And thus, as was mentioned, preachers and doctors must assume their offices in order to teach catholic truth and refute heretical wickedness [1 Dial. 7.42,43]. Therefore if they do not resist a heretic pope when they have the power to do so by condemning his treachery, they consent to his action and are to be reckoned as guilty as he is. Note that a consequence of this approach is that all the authorities introduced earlier in chapter 38 (as well as others which appear to denote that he who does not resist a sinner when he can, consents to the sinner's act) may be utilized to reach the same conclusion.

Quarto principaliter sic arguitur. Omnis perfidia inimicorum fidei odio est habenda, teste Psalmista qui ait: "iniquos odio habui," et alibi ait: "omnem viam iniquam odio habui," et rursus ait: "nonne qui oderunt te Domine oderam, et super inimicos tuos tabescebam. Perfecto odio oderam illos, inimici facti sunt michi." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod omnis nequitia et malitia odio est habenda, et quod inimici Dei in quantum sunt inimici Dei odio sunt habendi. Quod etiam ipse Salvator testatur Luc. 14: "si quis venit ad me et non odit patrem suum et matrem et uxorem et filios et fratres et sorores adhuc autem et animam suam, non potest esse meus discipulus". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod hoc est in omni homine odiendum quod est in eo Deo contrarium. Perfidia autem pape heretici est Deo contraria, ergo odio est habenda. Sed predicatores et doctores odio non habent perfidiam pape heretici nisi ipsam, debitis circumstantiis observatis, detestantur, persequuntur, et improbare nituntur. Ergo predicatores et doctores ipsam oportet perfidiam pape heretici reprobare. Maior videtur evidens. Minor aperte probatur. Quia sicut secundum beatum Gregorium probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis, ita etiam probatio odii exhibitio est operis. Et secundum eundem Gregorium amor non est otiosus sed multa operatur si est. Ita etiam odium non est otiosum sed multa operatur si est. Amor enim et odium sunt cause distincte distinctos effectus habentes, et ideo sicut ex amore, si est, multi sequuntur effectus, ita etiam ex odio plures effectus emanant. Quare ex odio si est verum respectu perfidie pape heretici in predicatoribus et doctoribus opera exteriora sequuntur. Persecutio autem est effectus odii, et similiter reprobatio et detestatio exterior. Quare si predicatores et doctores vere odiunt perfidiam et malitiam pape heretici, ipsam efficaciter persequuntur. Quod Augustinus, ut habetur 23 q. 4 c. Duo ista, insinuare videtur dicens: "duo ista nomina cum dicimus, homo peccator, non utique frustra dicuntur. Quia peccator est, corripe, et quia homo, miserere, nec omnino liberabis hominem, nisi cum persecutus fueris peccatorem. Huic officio nominis invigilet disciplina", et infra: "ita nulli homini claudenda est misericordia sicut nullo peccatori impunitas relaxanda". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod quilibet ex necessitate tenetur, quantum sibi licet pro gradu suo et officio, corripere et persequi peccatorem. Ergo predicatores et doctores oportet persequi modo congruenti sibi, scilicet reprobando perfidiam pape heretici.

The fourth main argument is this. Every treachery of the enemies of the faith must be hated, witness the Psalmist who states: "I hated the wicked" [Psalms 118:113], and elsewhere he states: "I have hated every evil way" [Psalms 118:128], and again he states: "do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against Thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies"[Psalms 138:21-22]. We gather from these words that every villainy and wickedness must be hated, and that the enemies of God must be hated in so far as they are enemies of god. And the Saviour himself attests to this in Luke 14: "if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"[Luke 14:26]. We gather from these words that we must hate in the person of every man what is in opposition to God. And the treachery of a heretic pope is opposed to God, therefore it must be hated. But preachers and doctors do not hate the treachery of a heretic pope unless, taking account of appropriate circumstances, they detest it, persecute it, and attempt to repudiate it. Therefore it is proper that preachers and doctors condemn this treachery of a heretic pope. The major premiss of the argument seems evident. The minor is patently proved. For just as, according to blessed Gregory, the proof of love is its active practice [Homilia 30 in Evangelia, ad Ioh. 14:23-31, in PL 76, col. 1220], so likewise the proof of hate is its active practice. And according to the same Gregory love is not idle but produces many effects if it exists [ibid., col. 1221]. And in similar fashion, hate is not idle but produces many effects if it exists. For love and hate are separate causes, which produce separate effects, and therefore just as many effects follow from love if it exists, so also do many effects follow from hate. Hence if the hate of a heretic pope's treachery be true in preachers and doctors, there will follow visible acts. But persecution is an effect of hate, and so is a visible condemnation and detestation. Hence if preachers and doctors truly hate the treachery and wickedness of a heretic pope, they will persecute it with effect. This is what Augustine seems to convey when he states (as we read in 23 q. 4 c. Duo ista): "when we utter these two words, 'sinner man', they are certainly not uttered in vain. Since he is a sinner, rebuke him, and because he is a man, show him mercy, nor will you ever liberate the man unless you will have persecuted the sinner. Verbal precision diligently secures such a process"[col. 915], and further on: "thus mercy is to be denied to no man, just as exemption from punishment is to be granted to no sinner"[col. 916]. We gather from these words that everyone is necessarily bound (to the extent that his office and estate allows) to rebuke and to persecute the sinner. Therefore it is proper that preachers and doctors should proceed with such persecution according to the method which corresponds to their function, namely by condemning the treachery of a heretic pope.

Discipulus: Ex hac ratione haberetur quod predicatores et doctores deberent omnium hereticorum doctrinam erroneam reprobare, imo omnem peccatorem persequi tenerentur, quod eis impossibile esse dinoscitur. Nullus autem ad impossibile obligatur.

Student: One might conclude from this argument that preachers and doctors would be obligated to condemn the false doctrine of each and every heretic, in fact that they would be bound to persecute every sinner, which is clearly an impossible task for them. And no one has the duty to perform the impossible.

Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod sicut debemus diligere omnes proximos (et ideo papam tam hereticum quam catholicum tenemur diligere), non tamen omnibus possumus actu in speciali beneficia exhibere, sed debemus esse parati tempore necessitatis pro posse omni indigenti succurrere. Ita omnes iniquos in quantum iniqui sunt odire tenemur, et secundum preparationem cordis omnes persequi astricti sumus. Illum tamen qui deterior est et magis perniciosus populo christiano fortiusque honorem Dei conatur minuere, omnes catholici fortius et melius persequi astringuntur. Et ideo cum papa hereticus sit deterior et magis nocivus populo christiano quam alii minus mali, illum singulariter persequi debent catholici universi, et ideo predicatores et doctores singulariter contra papam hereticum debent suum officium exercere, ipsum efficacissime et doctrinam suam erroneam reprobando.

Master: The answer to this is that just as we have the duty to love all our neighbours (and therefore we are bound to love a pope who is a heretic no less than a catholic one), and yet we cannot demonstrate goodness to everyone specifically, but must be prepared when necessary to assist everyone in need as best we can, so are we obligated to hate all the wicked in so far as they are wicked, and we are bound to persecute them all with potential readiness to act. But all Catholics are obligated to persecute more strongly and effectively someone who is more wicked and more destructive to the Christian people, and who attempts to lessen the honour of God with greater force. And therefore since a heretic pope is more wicked and more destructive to the Christian people than others of lesser wickedness, all Catholics without exception must specifically target him for persecution. Therefore preachers and doctors must exercise their office specifically against a heretic pope, condemning both him and his false doctrine with utmost effect.

Discipulus: Si rationes alias cogitasti, allega.

Student: If you have thought of further arguments, bring them forth.

Magister: Quinto principaliter arguitur sic. Sicut oculi corporis materialis qui sibi et aliis partibus corporis minime vident illa que sunt eis periculosa et nociva (puta foveas, laqueos, hostes, bestias, et alia que possunt inferre corpori lesionem) inutiles reputantur, sic oculi corporis spiritualis, puta ecclesie, qui sibi et ecclesie nequaquam monstrant pericula imminentia ecclesie universe inutiles sunt censendi. Oculi autem ecclesie sunt predicatores et doctores qui bona et mala, virtutes et vitia, periculosa et utilia, debent aliis et sibi videri ac monstrare. Maximum autem periculum imminet ecclesie Dei quando papa est hereticus. Ergo si predicatores et doctores non vident nec monstrant ecclesie periculum quod ex perfidie pape heretici ecclesie imminet orthodoxe inutiles sunt censendi.

Master: The fifth main argument is this. Just as the eyes of a material body are reckoned to be useless if they do not see, for their benefit and that of other parts of the body, those objects which are dangerous and harmful to all (for instance pits, snares, enemies, wild animals, and other objects which may cause injury to the body), so the eyes of a spiritual body such as the church are to be judged useless if they do not see and show for their benefit and that of the church the dangers which threaten the universal church. But preachers and doctors are the eyes of the church, and they must see and show to others and to themselves good and bad, virtues and vices, perils and opportunities. And when the pope is a heretic, the greatest of dangers threatens the church of God. Therefore if preachers and doctors neither see nor point out to the church the danger that threatens the church of true believers because of the treachery of a heretic pope, they must be judged useless.

Sexto sic. Sicut ad testem pertinet in iudicio perhibere testimonium veritati, sic ad predicatores et doctores spectat in suis sermonibus et lectionibus asserere veritatem et veritati testimonium perhibere, imo predicatores et doctores videntur testes veritatis. Unde quia apostoli predicaturi et docturi veritatem fuerunt, testes veritatis poterant merito appellari, iuxta illud Redemptoris Act. 1: "eritis michi testes in Hierusalem et in omni Iudea etc." Et ut legitur in eodem capitulo, beatus Petrus dixit: "oportet ergo ex his viris qui nobiscum congregati sunt in omni tempore quo intravit et exivit inter nos Dominus Iesus incipiens a baptismate Iohannis usque in diem qua adsumptus est a nobis testem resurrectionis eius nobiscum fieri unum ex istis". Predicatores ergo et doctores sunt testes veritatis. Sed testes cum in iudicio examinantur tenentur contra papam hereticum asserere veritatem. Ergo predicatores et doctores in sermonibus et lectionibus suis contra papam hereticum testimonium veritati perhibere tenentur.

Here is the sixth argument. Just as it is the business of a witness in court to testify to the truth, so does it pertain to preachers and doctors to proclaim the truth in their sermons and lectures, and bear witness to it. Indeed preachers and doctors are perceived as witnesses of the truth. Hence, because the apostles were to preach and teach the truth, they could deservedly be called witnesses of the Truth, according to the statement of the Redeemer in Acts 1: "ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea etc."[Acts 1:8] And as we read in the same chapter, blessed Peter stated: "wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection"[Acts 1:21-22]. Therefore preachers and doctors are witnesses of the truth. But when they are examined in court, witnesses are bound to state the truth against a heretic pope. Therefore preachers and doctors are bound to bear witness to the truth against a heretic pope in their sermons and lectures.

Discipulus: Ista ratio probare videtur quod tunc solummodo predicatores et doctores in suis sermonibus et lectionibus debeant contra papam hereticum asserere veritatem quando ad hoc a suis superioribus compelluntur, quemadmodum testes tunc solummodo contra papam hereticum perhibere testimonium veritati tenentur quando ad hoc per suos superiores artantur.

Student: This argument seems to prove that preachers and doctors are only bound to assert the truth against a heretic pope in their sermons and lectures when they are ordered to do this by their superiors, in the same manner in which witnesses are only obligated to testify to the truth against a heretic pope when they are bound to do so by their superiors.

Magister: Ista responsio vel obiectio nulla quibusdam apparet, nam non solummodo testis debet perhibere testimonium veritati quando a suo superiori compellitur, imo sepe ad hoc ex conscientia sine omni coactione per superiorem astringitur. Quia sicut caritatis affectio quam quilibet ad alium habere tenetur suggerit unicuique ut quod uni prodest et alteri non nocet illud nequaquam prohibeat, sic eadem caritatis affectio monet unumquemque ut quod alteri prodest et sibi si faciat minime nocet alteri faciat iuxta regulam Salvatoris qua unusquisque iubetur alii facere quod sibi vult fieri, que regula tunc videtur precipue locum habere quando facere alteri quod sibi vult fieri nulli nocet nec corporaliter nec spiritualiter. Sed sepe ferre testimonium veritati etiam coram non superiore suo sibi non nocet et alteri multum prodest, quia liberat eum a dampno vel periculo absque detrimento sui. Ergo tunc quamvis testis non fuerit a superiori compulsus tenetur perhibere testimonium veritati. Ergo consimiliter predicatores et doctores, quando possunt liberare auditores suos ne incidant in perfidiam pape heretici, de necessitate salutis tenentur suis auditoribus veritatem contra papam hereticum indicare.

Master: This reply or objection appears worthless to some. For a witness must not only testify to the truth when compelled by his superior, indeed he is frequently obligated to do so by his conscience without any coercion from a superior. Because just as the feeling of charity which everyone is bound to have towards another suggests to anyone that he should never forbid something which is useful to one party and does no harm to another, so the same feeling of charity warns anyone that he do to another what is beneficial to that person and if performed does him, the actor, no harm. In this he would be following the rule of our Saviour by which everyone is commanded to do to another what he wishes done to himself [Matthew 7:17]. This rule is especially appropriate when doing to another what the actor wishes done to himself harms no one either physically or spiritually. But frequently, testifying to the truth even before someone who is not his superior does no harm to the actor and is most useful to another, because it frees the latter from condemnation or danger without detriment to the actor. Therefore in such circumstances a witness is bound to testify to the truth even if a superior didn't coerce him. Therefore in a similar manner preachers and doctors when they can liberate their listeners from falling into the faithlessness of a heretic pope, are bound by necessity of salvation to reveal the truth to their audiences against a heretic pope.

Discipulus: Tenetne aliquis modernorum doctorum mutuo se reprobantium quod testis aliquando non compulsus a superiore tenetur perhibere testimonium veritati.

Student: Does any one of the mutually conflicting modern doctors hold that a witness must sometimes bear witness to the truth without being compelled to this by a superior.

Magister: Thomas de Aquino hoc videtur asserere 2a 2e, q.70, art. 1, dicens: "si vero requiratur eius testimonium non auctoritate superioris cui obedire tenetur tunc distinguendum est. Quia si testimonium requiratur ad liberandum hominem vel ab iniusta morte seu pena quacunque, vel a falsa infamia, vel etiam ab iniquo dampno, tunc tenetur homo ad testificandum. Et si eius testimonium non requiratur, tenetur facere quod in se est ut veritatem annunciet alicui qui ad hoc possit prodesse. Dicitur enim in Psalmo 81: 'eripite pauperem, et egenum de manu peccatoris liberate', et Prov. 24: 'erue eos qui ducuntur ad mortem', et Rom. 1 dicitur: 'digni sunt morte non solum qui faciunt sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus', ubi glossa dicit quod 'consentire est tacere cum possis redarguere'". Ex quibus patet quod testis tenetur testimonium perhibere veritati quandoque quamvis per superiorem minime compellatur, et per auctoritates quas iste adducit ostenditur quod predicatores et doctores in suis sermonibus et lectionibus tenentur si possunt auditores suos ne incidant in perfidiam pape heretici preservare, quia ad eundem spectat aliquem ab ingruente periculo liberare ad quem spectat alium a periculo in quod incidit si potest eripere.

Master: Thomas Aquinas appears to assert this in 2.2, q. 70, art. 1 [Summa Theologie] where he states: "if on the other hand his testimony is not required by authority of a superior he is bound to obey, then we must make a distinction. Because if the testimony is needed to liberate an individual either from an unjust death or from any punishment, or from a false defamation, or even from an inequitable fine, then a man is obligated to testify. And if his testimony is not requested, he is bound to do what he can to reveal the truth to someone who might be helpful in this. For it is said in Psalms 81: 'deliver the poor and needy, rid them out of the hand of the wicked' [Psalms 81:4], and in Proverbs 24: 'deliver them that are drawn unto death' [Proverbs 24:11], and in Romans 1 it is said: 'are worthy of death not only they who act but also they who consent to the actors' [Romans 1:32], where the gloss states that 'to consent is to remain silent when you can prove a statement untrue' [Glossa ordinaria to the Bible]". It is evident from this that sometimes a witness is bound to testify to the truth although not compelled to do so by a superior. And by the authorities which he (Aquinas) provides one shows that in their sermons and lectures preachers and doctors are obligated, if they can, to preserve their audiences from falling into the faithlessness of a heretical pope, because it pertains to the same person to liberate someone from a threatening danger, to whom it pertains if he can to rescue someone from a danger in which that individual has already fallen.

Discipulus: Adhuc alias rationes ad conclusionem principalem allega.

Student: Continue to present arguments in favour of the main conclusion.

Magister: Septimo probatur eadem conclusio sic. Sicut advocatus patrocinium cause iuste prestare tenetur ita predicatores et doctores veritatem catholicam docere et pravitatem hereticam reprobare tenentur. Sed advocatus cause catholicorum contra papam hereticum patrocinium prestare tenetur, quia advocatus patrocinium prestare tenetur cause pauperum. Hoc enim est opus misericordie ad quod pro loco et tempore et aliis circumstantiis debitis observatis quilibet obligatur. Ergo multo magis debet advocatus cause catholicorum contra papam hereticum patrocinium et defensionem impendere eo quod causa fidei est cause cuiuscunque pauperis preferenda. Ergo consimiliter predicatores et doctores in suis sermonibus et lectionibus debent prestando patrocinium cause fidei papam hereticum eiusque doctrinam erroneam confutare.

Master: The seventh proof for that conclusion is this. As a lawyer is bound to present a patron's (=defender's) plea on behalf of a just cause, so are preachers and doctors bound to teach catholic truth and to condemn heretical wickedness. But the advocate of the Catholics' cause against a heretic pope is obligated to plea as their legal patron. Note that a lawyer must plead as an unpaid patron in a cause involving the poor, since that is an act of compassion to which everyone is obligated depending on time and place, and taking account of appropriate circumstances. Therefore all the more must the advocate of the Catholics' cause against a heretic pope provide them defence and patronage, given that the cause of faith is more important than the cause of any poor individual. Similarly therefore preachers and doctors are obligated to refute a heretic pope and his false doctrine in their sermons and lectures by providing a patron's plea for the cause of faith.

Discipulus: Non videtur quod advocatus semper teneatur causis pauperum patrocinium impartiri, quia tunc oporteret ipsum omnia alia negotia sua et aliorum dimittere, et eadem ratione non semper tenentur predicatores et doctores perfidiam pape heretici reprobare.

Student: It is not apparent that a lawyer must always be available as a free patron in causes involving the poor, since it might then be demanded that he abandon all his other causes on behalf of other clients. For the same reason preachers and doctors are not always bound to condemn the treachery of a heretic pope.

Magister: Non intendunt isti quod semper advocatus causis pauperum patrocinium teneatur impendere, nec quod semper omnes predicatores et doctores papam hereticum debeant in suis lectionibus et predicationibus reprobare, sed intendunt quod sicut advocatus quando non apparet in promptu quod per alium modum quam per suum iuvamen potest causa pauperis sublevari, tunc de necessitate salutis ei tenetur patrocinium exhibere. Ita predicatores et doctores oportet viriliter pape heretico obviare quando non apparent alii in promptu qui causam fidei velint et valeant contra papam hereticum defensare.

Master: These commentators do not argue that a lawyer is bound at all times to provide a financially unrewarded defence to the causes of the poor, nor that preachers and doctors must at all times condemn a heretic pope in their lectures and sermons. Their point is that a lawyer is bound by necessity of salvation to provide a free defence to a poor individual when it is readily apparent that the cause of this poor person cannot be alleviated except through such assistance. In the same fashion it is proper for preachers and doctors to courageously confront a heretic pope when it is readily apparent that there are no others who are willing and able to defend the cause of faith against a heretic pope.

Discipulus: Adducas rationes alias si tibi occurrunt.

Student: Present additional arguments if they occur to you.

Magister: Octava ratio est hec. Sicut ad accusatorem spectat crimen perniciosum rei publice quod potest probare iudici accusare, ita ad predicatores et doctores spectat errores perniciosos contra fidem catholicam insurgentes reprobare. Sed sciens papam esse hereticum et conantem a fide avertere orthodoxos ipsum, si potest probare, accusare tenetur. Igitur predicatores et doctores scientes papam hereticum laborare fidem corrumpere orthodoxam doctrinam suam erroneam reprobare tenentur. Maior videtur aperta. Minor probatur auctoritate Gregorii qui, ut legitur 2 q. 7 c. Sicut, ait: "sicut laudabile discretumque est reverentiam et honorem exhibere prioribus, ita rectitudinis et Dei honoris est, si qua in eis sunt que indigent correctione, nulla dissimulatione postponere, ne totum (quod absit) corpus morbus invadat, si languor non fuerit curatus in capite". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod ad rectitudinem Deique timorem spectat accusare quemcunque prelatum qui totum corpus conatur inficere. Cum ergo papa hereticus totum corpus ecclesie heretica pravitate molitur inficere, papa hereticus est a scientibus et probare valentibus accusandus.

Master: The eighth argument is this. Just as it pertains to an accuser (who has adequate evidence) to lay out before the judge a crime fatal to the public weal, so is it the business of preachers and doctors to condemn deadly errors which arise against the catholic faith. But he who knows that the pope is a heretic attempting to turn true believers away from the faith must accuse this pope if he has adequate proof. Therefore preachers and doctors who know that a heretic pope is exerting himself to corrupt the true faith must condemn his false doctrine. The major premiss seems obvious. The minor is proved by the authority of Gregory who states (we read this in 2 q. 7 c. Sicut): "just as it is worthy of notice and praise to demonstrate respect and honour to priors, so is it a matter of right and of God's honour not to delay through postponement if there are aspects of their behaviour which require correction, lest (God forbid) the disease should invade the entire body if the head's illness be not cured"[col. 499]. We gather from these words that to accuse any prelate who is attempting to poison an entire body is a matter of right and fear of God. Therefore since a heretic pope is trying to infect the whole body of the church with heretical wickedness, those who know this and are able to prove it must accuse a heretic pope.

Capitulum 47

Chapter 47

Discipulus: Pro assertione predicta ad presens nolo plures rationes audire, quia satis videtur probabile quod predicatores et doctores si simul concordaverint debeant unanimiter doctrinam pape erroneam reprobare. Sed nunquid si multitudo predicatorum et doctorum seu magistrorum pape heretico consenserit, faverit, vel non restiterit, debent pauci doctrine pape erronee obviare.

Student: I do not wish at this time to hear further arguments in support of the stated position, since it seems probable enough that if preachers and doctors were of one mind they would be bound to unanimously condemn the false doctrine of the pope. But if the multitude of preachers and doctors or masters were to agree with a heretic pope, show him favour, or not resist him, is it really possible that a remaining few would be obligated to oppose the pope's erroneous doctrine.

Magister: Sunt quidam dicentes quod si pauci predicatores et doctores in doctrina permanserint orthodoxa, et tota alia multitudo pape heretico consensum et favorem prebuerit, illi pauci debent ei resistere modis congruis toto posse. Imo si unus solus remaneret fixus in fide, deberet intrepide doctrinam erroneam pape heretici improbare, exemplo Helie prophete qui, quamvis putasset se solum prophetam fidelem Dei fuisse relictum, a fide vera minime deviavit, sed hereticos et apostatas quando fuit opportunitas constantissime confutavit. Et per consequens multo magis, si aliquis prelatus cum paucis predicatoribus et doctoribus sibi subiectis pape heretico nullatenus consentiret, tota alia multitudine suis erroribus adherente, illi predicatores et doctores pauci una cum prelato suo debent doctrine pape erronee contraire. Deberetque prelatus dicere cum Mathatia illud 1 Mac. 2: "Et si omnes gentes regi Antiocho" (hoc est pape heretico) "obedient ut discedat unusquisque a servitute patrum suorum et consentiunt mandatis eius, ego et filii mei et fratres mei obediemus legi patrum nostrorum. Propitius sit nobis Deus. Non est nobis utile relinquere legem et iustitias Dei. Non audibimus verba regis Antiochi" (id est pape heretici) "nec sacrificabimus transgredientes legis nostre mandata ut eamus altera via".

Master: There are some who say that if a few preachers and doctors maintained their commitment to orthodox doctrine, while the entire remaining multitude provided consent and favour to a heretic pope, those few would have the duty to resist him by appropriate means with all their strength. Indeed if but a single doctor remained firm in the faith, he would be obligated to attack fearlessly the false doctrine of a heretic pope, following the example of the prophet Elijah, who, although he believed himself to be the sole remaining faithful prophet of God [1 Kings 18:22], did not swerve from the true faith, but spoke out against heretics and apostates with utmost consistency when he had the opportunity to do so. And consequently if some prelate with a few preachers and doctors subject to him had in no way given his consent to a heretic pope while the entire remaining multitude supported the heretic pope's errors, those few preachers and doctors along with their prelate should oppose all the more strongly the false doctrine of the pope. And this prelate should utter, along with Mathathias, the following words of 1 Maccabees 2: "even if all people should obey king Antiochus" (that is to say the heretic pope) "so that everyone would abandon the tradition of their fathers and consent to the orders of the king, I, and my sons, and my brothers, will continue to obey the law of our fathers. May God be favourable to us. We do not deem it useful for us to abandon the law and the justices of God. We will not listen to the words of king Antiochus" (i.e. of the heretic pope) "we will not offer sacrifice, and will not break the commands of our law so as to adopt another path"[1 Maccabees 2:19-22].

Discipulus: Videtur quod si pauci resisterent toti residue multitudini christianorum laborarent in vanum. Ergo hoc attemptare nullo modo deberent.

Student: It appears that if a few were to resist to the whole remaining multitude of Christians, they would be labouring in vain. Therefore they should in no way attempt to do this.

Magister: Respondetur quod pauci non deberent de victoria desperare. Imo unus solus de victoria sperare deberet, quia ut habetur 1 Mac. 3: "non est differentia in conspectus Dei celi liberare in multis et in paucis, quia non in multitudine exercitus victoria belli sed de celo fortitudo est". Et 1 Reg. 14 sic habetur: "non est Domino difficile salvare vel in multitudine vel in paucis". Et 2 Para. 14 sic habetur: "Domine non est apud te ulla distantia utrum in paucis auxilieris an in pluribus". Ex quibus patet quod si pauci contra papam hereticum bellum susciperent, tota alia multitudine sibi perperam adherente, de victoria desperare non debent, quia bellum tale non est bellum eorum sed bellum Domini, qui est Veritas que super omnes vincit in veritate. Ergo habentes fiduciam, pro eadem certent usque ad mortem, et Deus expugnabit pro eis inimicos eorum.

Master: The answer is that these few ought not to despair of gaining victory. Indeed even a single individual must hope to be victorious, because (we have this in 1 Maccabees 3): "there is no difference in the perspective of the God of heaven to effect liberation through many or through few, since victory in war does not depend on the army's numbers, and strength comes from heaven"[1 Maccabees 3:18-19]. And in 1 Kings 14 we have this: "for there is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few" [1 Samuel 14:6]. And in 2 Chronicles 14 we have this: "Lord it is nothing with Thee to help, whether with many or with them that have no power"[2 Chronicles 14:11]. It is evident from this that if a few wage war against a heretic pope while the whole remaining multitude wrongly supports him, they ought not to despair of victory, for such a war is not their war but the war of the Lord, and He is Truth whose truth defeats all. Therefore let them confidently struggle for truth unto death [Ecclesiasticus 4:33], and God will destroy their enemies for them.

Capitulum 48

Chapter 48

Discipulus: Auctoritates prescripte michi clare demonstrant quod unus solus catholicus posset secure bellum contra papam hereticum cum tota sua cohorte suscipere, nec deberet de victoria aliqualiter desperare. Dubito autem ut, si unquam aliquis papa futurus est hereticus pro multitudine christianorum poterit dici illud Salvatoris: "filius hominis veniens putas inveniet fidem in terra", quia reor quod paucissimi sibi resistent. Puto enim quod tunc adimplebitur prophetia beati Pauli dicentis 2 ad Tim. 4: "erit enim tempus cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes auribus et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur". Quia fabulas et errores pape heretici multitudo precipue magistrorum ambitiosorum et avarorum sequetur. Idcirco peto ut ostendas secundum aliquorum sententiam quid paucis in sacra pagina eruditis (sive fuerint magistri sive discipuli) esset agendum si papa efficeretur hereticus, et quid omnes predicatores et doctores haberent agere si omnes veritati fidei adhererent.

Student: The authorities just outlined clearly demonstrate to me that a single Catholic is capable of confidently waging war against a heretic pope and all his minions, nor should he in any way despair of victory. But if some future pope ever becomes a heretic I am uncertain whether the following statement of our Saviour might be uttered about the multitude of Christians: "nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"[Luke 18:8], because I fear that very few Christians will resist the heretic pope. Indeed I think that at that time will be fulfilled the prophecy of blessed Paul who states in 2 Timothy 4: "for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables"{2 Timothy 4:3-4]. Because it is particularly the host of ambitious and greedy masters which will follow the fables and errors of a heretic pope. I pray therefore that you will reveal by reference to the opinion of some, what ought to be done by those few learned persons (whether they be masters or students) should the pope become a heretic, and what would all preachers and doctors have to do if they all supported the truth of faith.

Magister: Respondetur quod si papa de doctrina diffamaretur erronea, omnes predicatores et doctores seu lectores vel magistri, imo etiam omnes literati quantum uniuscuiusque ingenio et scientie conveniret deberent doctrinam pape erroneam videre, studere, examinare et discutere diligenter, exemplo illorum de quibus dicitur Act.17: "cotidie scrutantes scripturas si hec ita se haberent".

Master: Here is the answer. If the pope were defamed of spreading erroneous doctrine, all preachers and doctors or lecturers or masters, indeed even all the learned to the extent that this would apply to anyone's intellect and knowledge, would have the duty to see, to study, to examine and to discuss the pope's false theory, following the example of those about whom it is said in Acts 17 that they "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" [Acts 17:11].

Discipulus: Hoc dicitur de illis qui scrutantur cotidie veritatem, non de scrutantibus doctrinas erroneas.

Student: This is said of those who search for the truth daily, not of those who scrutinize false doctrines.

Magister: Respondetur quod ad eosdem spectat scrutari veritatem et errores contrarias, testante Salomone qui Ecclesiasti 1 ait: "dedique cor meum ut scirem prudentiam atque doctrinam erroresque et stultitiam". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod ita investigandi et discutiendi sunt errores contra fidem sicut catholice veritates quia, ut Sapiens attestatur: "idem est iudex sui et obliqui", et "eadem est scientia contrariorum". Oportet ergo predicatores et doctores errores pape heretici examinare, studere, et discutere diligenter, quia sic ad veritates plures quas antea nescierunt pervenient, teste glossa accepta ab Augustino 1 Cor. 11 qui ait: "ab adversario mota questio discendi extitit occasio".

Master: One replies that it pertains to the same persons to scrutinize truth and errors contrary thereto, as witnesses Solomon who states in Ecclesiastes 1: "and I gave my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly"[Ecclesiastes 1:17]. From these words one gathers that errors against the faith are to be investigated and discussed as much as catholic truths, because, as the Wise One attests: "the same one is judge of the direct and of the slanted"[Aristotle, De anima, I, 5. Cf. also J. Hamesse, Les Auctoritates Aristotelis, Louvain-Paris 1974, p. 176], and: "the science of contraries is one and the same"[Aristotle, Physica VIII, I, 8 (and Ockham, OPh VI, p. 119). Cf. also J. Hamesse, op. cit., pp. 134, 183]. It is therefore proper for preachers and doctors to examine, to study, and to scrupulously discuss the errors of a heretical pope, because by proceeding in this manner they will arrive at many truths which they previously did not know, witness the gloss borrowed from a comment on 1 Corinthians 11 by Augustine, who states: "a problem raised by an opponent became a learning opportunity"[De Civitate Dei (The City of God), XVI, 2].

Discipulus: Quid facient postquam doctrinam pape erroneam examinaverint diligenter.

Student: What will they do after having scrupulously examined the erroneous doctrine of the pope.

Magister: Respondetur quod rationibus et scripturarum testimoniis contra eam quantum possunt debent se munire, ac illi qui scribendi gratiam receperunt scribant et componant libros, tractaus, sermones et epistolas, secundum quod videtur expediens ad reprobandum doctrinam pape erroneam, opera vero sua modis sibi possibilibus communicent et divulgent, nominibus suis tacitis vel expressis, secundum quod expedire videtur. Quedam enim opera ratione auctoris videntur libentius, et tunc erit utile nomen auctoris exprimere. Interdum vero multi odio habent auctorem, et tunc illis nomen auctoris operis expedit occultare, ut emuli non quis dicat sed quid dicatur intendant. Illi vero qui libros, tractatus, et alia opera componendi gratiam minime habent, in scripturis auctenticis et etiam in operibus novis in quibus magis discrete doctrina pape erronea reperitur se occupent studiose, ut cum tempus venerit opportunum errores pape valeant efficaciter reprobare. Unde tam illi qui nova opera contra pravitatem pape heretici ediderunt quam alii predicatores et doctores in lectionibus et sermonibus publicis secretisque colloquiis quandoque opportunitas loquendi affuerit, debent errores pape secundum gratiam eis datam efficaciter reprobare et veritatem contrariam declarare et quantum in eis est auribus omnium inculcare. Unde ut uno verbo quid sentiunt manifestent, dicant quod more bellatorum qui hostes suos aperte et per insidias et omnibus modis licitis quos excogitare valuerint debellare nituntur, debent predicatores et doctores seu magistri aperte et per insidias publice et occulte ac modis sibi convenientibus perfidiam pape heretici expugnare, nec aliter a culpa fautorie pravitatis heretice sunt immunes, quia non caret scrupulo societatis occulte qui manifesto facinori desinit obviare (Extra, De homicidio, Sicut). Quod intelligendum est cum quis potest manifesto facinori obviare et non apparet in promptu quod per alium facinus manifestum valeat prohiberi.

Master: The answer is that they must provide themselves with as many arguments and scriptural attestations against it as they possibly can, and those amongst them who have been blessed with literary talents will write and compose books, treatises, sermons, and letters, whatever seems expedient, in order to condemn the pope's erroneous doctrine. And of course they will communicate and publish their works by whatever means are possible to them, concealing or revealing their names as expediency dictates. For certain works are looked at with greater pleasure because of their author, and in that case it will be useful to state the author's name expressly. In some instances however many feel hatred towards the author, and in that situation it is expedient to conceal the author's name from them, so that enemies concentrate not on who is speaking but on what is being said [Seneca, De quattuor virtutibus cardinalibus, in J. Hamesse, op. cit., p. 282 n.8. This doctrine was posited as the basis of Ockham's method in the Dialogus: cf. 1 Dial. Prologus]. As for those who have little talent for composing books, treatises and other works, let them earnestly engross themselves in authentic scriptures and also in the new works which analyze the pope's false doctrine more systematically, so that when the opportune time will come they might be able to condemn effectively the pope's errors. Hence those preachers and doctors who will have composed new works against the wickedness of a heretic pope and their less creative colleagues both have the duty, as far as their talents allow, to effectively condemn the pope's errors and to declare the contrary truth, impressing it on all listeners as much as they can, in public lectures and sermons, in secret conversations also, whenever there might be an opportunity to speak. Hence, so as to disclose their view in one brief sentence, these commentators would say that, following the custom of fighters attempting to defeat their enemies directly, or by ambushes and all conceivably permissible methods, preachers and doctors or masters must destroy the treachery of a heretic pope directly or by ambushes, publicly as well as secretly, by methods they find convenient, nor are they otherwise free of the sin of aiding and abetting heretical wickedness, because "suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy is not out of place where someone who can, fails to act against an obvious crime"(Extra, De homicidio, Sicut)[col. 795]. This is to be understood of a situation where someone can prevent an obvious crime and it is not immediately apparent that someone else can prevent the obvious crime.

Et ideo si papa hereticus laboraret inficere orthodoxos, doctores et predicatores regionum ad quas doctrina pestifera pape heretici perveniret, ne illarum incole regionum averterentur a fide deberent viriliter obviare, nec carent in hoc casu scrupulo societatis occulte nisi doctrine erronee pape obviarent si in regionibus illis non essent alii qui doctrine pape erronee scirent, vellent, et possent resistere. Et ita predicatores et doctores in Francia commorantes tenentur doctrinam pape erroneam reprobare priusquam doctrina eadem in Francia ceperit publicari, vel probabiliter dubitatur quod aliquos corrumpet in Francia nisi resistatur eidem. Sic predicatores et doctores Italie debent ab eadem doctrina mortifera preservare Italiam, vel si in aliqua sui parte infecta fuerit debent conari purgare eandem. Et consimiliter de predicatoribus et doctoribus aliarum regionum in quibus morantur est dicendum. Si vero in Francia vel in alia regione sunt aliqui predicatores et doctores seu magistri qui sufficienter eandem regionem a dicta doctrina preservant vel expurgant, alii predicatores et doctores vel magistri regionis eiusdem non tenentur de necessitate salutis doctrine illi obviare, ex quo per alios ei sufficienter resistitur. Sed ubi alii deficerent, ipsi se opponere murum pro fide catholica contra papam hereticum tenerentur, alioquin in fautoriam pravitatis heretice inciderent iuxta auctoritatem superius allegatam ("nec caret scrupulo etc.")

And therefore if a heretic pope were labouring to corrupt true believers, the doctors and preachers of regions where the pope's noxious doctrine had just arrived would have the duty to courageously stand against it. Lest the inhabitants of those regions be alienated from the faith, nor in this case would the doctors and preachers be free of suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy unless they opposed the pope's false doctrine, if there were no others in those regions who might know how, and be willing and able, to resist the pope's false doctrine. And so preachers and doctors residing in France are bound to condemn the erroneous doctrine of the pope before that doctrine begins to spread in France, or there is probable doubt that it might corrupt some in France unless it is firmly opposed. Likewise, the preachers and doctors of Italy must preserve Italy from the same deadly doctrine, or try to purify the land should Italy have become infected in one of its parts. And the same must be said concerning preachers and doctors who reside in other regions. If however there are some preachers and doctors or masters in France or in another region who sufficiently protect or purify that region from the stated doctrine, the other preachers and doctors or masters of that region are not bound to oppose that doctrine by necessity of salvation, since there is adequate resistance to it by others. But where the others were to fail, then these preachers and doctors would be bound to stand as a stone wall protecting the catholic faith against a heretic pope, otherwise they would lapse into the sin of aiding and abetting heretical wickedness, as implied by the authority posited earlier ("suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy etc.")

Discipulus: Videtur quod illa auctoritas et consimiles non debent de quibuscunque intelligi sed de illis tantummodo qui sunt super alios potestatem habentes, quales non sunt predicatores et doctores nisi fuerint prelati.

Student: It appears that this authority and similar ones must not be understood of all and sundry, but only of those who have power over others. Preachers and doctors are not in this category unless they happen to be prelates.

Magister: Dicunt quidam quod hic erras aperte quia auctoritas illa et consimiles debent intelligi non solum de prelatis sed etiam de sociis et subiectis, quod primo per decretalem supra allegatam (Extra, De homicidio, Sicut) videtur aperte probari. Conditor enim decretalis illius, scilicet Alexander tertius, loquitur de occisoribus beati Thome Cantuariensis et de illis qui associaverunt eosdem quorum diversi diversimode culpabiles extiterunt. De quibusdam autem eorum dicit in hec verba: "illi etiam, qui non, ut ferirent, sed, ut percussoribus opem ferrent, si forte per aliorum violentiam impedirentur, paulo minori debent pena mulctari, quia, cum scriptum sit, qui potuit hominem liberare a morte et non liberavit, eum occidit, constat ipsos ab homicidii reatu immunes non esse, qui occisoribus opem contra alios prestare venerunt, nec caret scrupulo societatis occulte, qui cum possit manifeste facinori desinit obviare". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Alexander tertius quasi dupliciter probare conatur quod qui occisoribus opem prestare venerunt a reatu homicidii minime sunt immunes. Primo per illud 'qui potuit hominem liberare etc.', secundo per illud 'nec caret scrupulo etc.' Ergo utrumque illorum dictorum, scilicet 'qui potuit hominem liberare etc.' et 'nec caret scrupulo etc.' de hiis qui occisoribus opem prestare venerunt debet intelligi. Illi autem non erant prelati occisorum nec superiores militibus qui erant occisores sed errant socii vel famuli aut subditi eorumdem. Ergo tales auctoritates 'qui potuit hominem liberare etc.,' 'nec caret scrupulo etc.' et consimiles non solum de prelatis et superioribus et super alios potestatem habentibus sed et de omnibus debent intelligi, quod verum est pro tempore necessitatis, cum non apparet alius in promptu qui velit et valeat proximum a periculo liberare.

Master: Some say that here you are clearly wrong, because this authority and similar ones must be understood as applying not only to prelates but also to associates and subjects. This may be evidently proved, to begin with, by the decretal Extra, De homicidio, Sicut, which was used in argument earlier. Indeed the author of this decretal, namely Alexander III, speaks of the killers of blessed Thomas of Canterbury and of those who collaborated in this crime with varying degrees of culpability. And concerning some of these collaborators Alexander states the following words: "and those also must receive a slightly lesser punishment who were there not to carry out the deed, but to assist the killers should they perhaps have been impeded by the force of others; for, as Scripture says, 'he who can free a man from death and does not, slays him' [echo of Proverbs 24:11]. It stands that those who came to assist the killers against others are not free from the guilt of homicide, nor is suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy out of place when someone who can, fails to act against an obvious crime"[col. 795]. We gather from these words that Alexander III is in effect attempting to prove twice over that those who came to assist the killers are not free from the guilt of homicide. First by this text: 'he who can free a man etc.', and then by this one: 'nor is suspicion of involvement etc.' Therefore each of these statements, namely 'he who can free a man etc.', and 'nor is suspicion of involvement etc.' must be understood of those who came to assist the killers. But these were neither the prelates of the killers nor the superiors of the soldiers who were the killers: they were their associates, or attendants, or servants. Therefore such authorities as 'he who can free a man etc.', 'nor is suspicion of involvement etc.' and similar ones must be understood not only of prelates and superiors and of such as have power over others, but of all and sundry. This is true in time of necessity, when a specific someone willing and able to free a neighbour from danger is not readily available.

Quod etiam tales auctoritates 'qui potuit etc.' et 'nec caret scrupulo societatis occulte etc.' de sociis et de omnibus debeant intelligi probatur secundo sic. Non minus tenetur quilibet socius et subditus vel prelatus subvenire necessitati spirituali proximi quam corporali. Sed quilibet tempore necessitatis, ubi non apparet alius qui proximo subveniat, tenetur opera misericordie corporalia proximo, si potest, impendere. Ergo multo magis quilibet subditus, socius et prelatus opera misericordie spiritualia, si convenienter potest cum non apparet alius qui subveniat, tenetur tempore necessitatis proximo exhibere. Manifesto autem facinori obviare cum quis convenienter potest, proximum ne doctrina pape heretici inficiatur erronea preservare, regionem totam vel pro parte doctrina erronea pape infectam per sermones , informationes, exhortationes et scripturas catholicas expurgare, et consimilia, sunt inter opera misericordie spiritualia computanda. Ergo ad ista et consimilia tempore necessitatis cum non apparent (neque prelati neque alii) qui velint vel possint talia operari, quilibet sive socius sive subditus qui convenienter potest, ista debet proximis de necessitate salutis impendere. Ex quibus colligitur quod si predicatores et doctores seu magistri sive in sermonibus et lectionibus publicis sive per informationes occultas possunt aliquos vel aliquem a doctrina pape erronea revocare et non faciunt, nec apparet alius qui hoc faciat, sunt fautores heretice pravitatis, nec carent scrupulo societatis occulte ex quo possunt et (non apparet alius qui velit et possit) manifesto facinori desinunt obviare.

And that such authorities as 'he who can etc.' and 'nor is suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy etc.' must be understood of associates and of all others is secondly proved thus. A given associate and subject or prelate is no less bound to support a neighbour's spiritual necessity than his physical necessity. But anyone, at a critical moment, when no one else is available to support a neighbour, is bound to provide charitable physical assistance to the neighbour if he can. Therefore all the more is any subject, associate, and prelate, bound to provide charitable assistance of a spiritual kind to a neighbour in time of necessity, if he can do this conveniently, when no one else is there to provide such support. But these actions-preventing an obvious crime when one can do this conveniently, protecting a neighbour lest he be corrupted by the false doctrine of a heretic pope, purifying through sermons, informations, exhortations and catholic writings a region infected in whole or in part by the pope's false doctrine-and similar ones, are to be assessed works of spiritual charity. Therefore in time of necessity any person, whether a subject or an associate, who may conveniently perform such works, is bound by necessity of salvation to provide them to his neighbours, when there are none (prelates or others) willing or able to do so. We gather from these considerations that if preachers and doctors or masters are able, either through public sermons and lectures or by secret communications, to dissuade some or someone from accepting a pope's false doctrine, their failure to do so when there is no one else available for the task makes them aiders and abettors of heretical wickedness, nor are they free from the suspicion of secret conspiracy since they can prevent an obvious crime and do not (there is no one else willing and able).

Discipulus: Quid si metu mortis tali facinori desinunt obviare.

Student: What if they fail to prevent such a crime for fear of being killed.

Magister: Videtur quibusdam quod si probabiliter crederent quod possent aliquos a doctrina pape erronea revocare, nec probabiliter reputarent quod alio tempore, si viverent, maiorem possent facere fructum, peccarent mortaliter obmittendo metu mortis alios a doctrina pape erronea revocare. Verumptamen propter metum mortis excusarentur in tantum quod sententiam excommunicationis nequaquam incurrerent, quemadmodum si quis inter sarracenos et infideles alios constitutus metu mortis negaret Christum, et veneraretur Machometum, peccaret mortaliter sed sententiam excommunicationis evaderet.

Master: It appears to some that if these preachers and doctors were to hold a probable belief that they might dissuade a number of people from accepting the pope's false doctrine, and if these preachers and doctors do not surmise with probability that by remaining alive they might reap a larger harvest at another time, they would commit a mortal sin by avoiding for fear of death to dissuade others from accepting the pope's false doctrine. Nevertheless fear of death would excuse them to this extent that they would not incur a sentence of excommunication. Similarly, if someone living among Moslems and other non-believers were to deny Christ for fear of dying, and offer homage to Mohammed, he would commit a mortal sin but escape a sentence of excommunication.

Capitulum 49

Chapter 49

Discipulus: Inquisivimus de predicatoribus et doctoribus si teneantur doctrinam pape erroneam reprobare. Nunc dissere de illis predicatoribus et doctoribus qui impugnatores pape heretici improbarent vel persequerentur aut quomodolibet infestarent.

Student: We have inquired of preachers and doctors whether they would be bound to reject the false doctrine of a pope. Proceed now to treat of those preachers and doctors who would condemn or persecute or harass in whatever fashion the opponents of a heretic pope.

Magister: Circa hanc interrogationem videtur aliquibus distinguendum quod improbare impugnatores pape heretici contingit dupliciter. Uno modo eorum assertiones per auctoritates et rationes solummodo convincere satagendo, alio modo personis eorum detrahendo, vel in perpera irrogando, aut persecutionem quamlibet procurando, vel contra ipsos alios provocando, seu eis per se vel per alios molestiam quamlibet inferendo. Item, aut assertio pape erronea est dampnata explicite aut solummodo implicite. Item, si est dampnata explicite aut predicatores et doctores qui non impugnant ipsam possunt faciliter scire quod assertio pape est dampnata explicite aut non possunt hoc faciliter scire. Item, aut sciunt papam a viris in sacra pagina eruditis de certis articulis fortiter impugnari aut nesciunt.

Master: It appears to some that this question requires distinctions. There are two ways of condemning the opponents of a heretic pope. One way is by attempting to dissolve their contentions solely by authorities and arguments. Another way is by disparaging their persons or inflicting wickednesses upon them, or by arranging for them to suffer any kind of persecution, or by provoking others against them, or by distressing them in whatever fashion, directly or through others. Again, either the pope's false proposition is condemned explicitly or only implicitly. Again, if it is condemned explicitly, either those preachers and doctors who do not attack it may easily learn that the pope's proposition is condemned explicitly or they have no possibility of obtaining such information. Again, either they know that the pope is being strongly attacked concerning certain propositions by men learned in Holy Writ, or they do not know this.

Discipulus: Quomodo potest contingere quod aliqua assertio pape erronea sit dampnata explicite et tamen quod predicatores seu doctores hoc non possunt faciliter scire.

Student: How can it happen that some false proposition of the pope is explicitly condemned and yet preachers and doctors cannot know this with ease.

Magister: Respondetur quod hoc potest contingere propter ignorantiam predicatorum et doctorum et propter defectum librorum. Multi enim sunt predicatores et doctores tam simplices et tam parvam scripturarum habentes notitiam et peritiam, quod veritates quam plurimas sanctarum scripturarum ignorant et de determinationibus ecclesie parum vel nichil sciunt. Multi etiam eorum ad copiam scripturarum in quibus veritates catholice plures explicite approbantur et per consequens falsitates contrarie reprobantur et condempnantur faciliter pervenire non possunt. Sicut, ut dicunt, pauci preter fratres Minores habent decretalem Nicholai tertii in qua explicite approbatur quod abdicationem proprietatis omnium rerum Christus verbo docuit et exemplo firmavit et per consequens falsitas contradictoria est explicite condempnata. Condempnationem etiam summorum pontificum qui magistros quosdam parisienses dampnantes statum mendicantium condempnaverunt, pauci habent preter fratres Predicatores et Minores, et ita multi ad scripturas continentes dampnationem talium heresum facile pervenire non possunt. Quidam autem a peritis longe distant, nec adest eis opportunitas consulendi peritos, quare si non sunt in scripturis excellenter instructi non facile scire possunt tales hereses esse explicite condempnatas.

Master: The answer is that this may happen because of the ignorance of preachers and doctors, and because of a lack of documents. Indeed there are preachers and doctors who are so simple-minded and have such minimal knowledge of and expertise in written sources, that they are ignorant of very many truths of Holy Writ, and know little or nothing about the church's determinations. And there are also many preachers and doctors who do not have easy access to copies of writings in which many catholic truths are explicitly approved, and consequently many contrary falsehoods are rejected and condemned. Just as, say these commentators, few except the Brothers Minor possess the decretal of Nicholas III in which there is explicit approval that Christ taught by word and confirmed by example the abandonment of property in all things, and thus the contradictory falsehood is explicitly condemned [Exiit qui seminat, Liber Sextus, col. 1112]. Few likewise, except the Brothers Preachers and Minors have the condemnation issued by supreme pontiffs who condemned certain Parisian masters for their negative judgement on the status of Mendicants [Alexander IV, Non sine multa (1257): cf. Ockham OP III, p. 115]. And thus many preachers and doctors do not have easy access to writings which contain the condemnation of such heresies, while some preachers and doctors are far removed from specially qualified erudites and have no opportunity of consulting them. Therefore if they are not well instructed as to written sources they cannot easily know that such heresies are explicitly condemned.

Discipulus: De exemplis adductis in secundo tractatu De dogmatibus Iohannis 22 loquemur, per que, quamvis malitiose ab emulis adducantur, intelligo quomodo aliqui predicatores seu doctores de quibusdam heresibus non possunt faciliter scire an sint explicite condempnate. Quamobrem enarra qualiter per prescriptas distinctiones ad interrogationem propositam respondetur.

We shall discuss the enumerated examples in the second treatise "Concerning the doctrines of John XXII". Although his enemies are pursuing a wicked agenda in presenting these examples, I do understand through them how it is possible that some preachers or doctors cannot easily know about certain heresies whether they are explicitly condemned. Wherefore describe how one answers the question initially raised with the help of these distinctions.

Magister: Respondetur quinque conclusiones tenendo. Quarum prima est, quod predicatores et doctores assertiones impugnantium papam hereticum de assertione que non est dampnata explicite impugnantes, solo sermone nitendo convincere per rationes et auctoritates quod assertiones eorum contrarie assertioni pape heretici non continent veritatem, non sunt censendi fautores heretice pravitatis, nec ex hoc solo sunt reputandi peccare mortaliter. Hec conclusio probatur per hoc quod theologi possunt absque fautoria heretice pravitatis et absque peccato mortali circa assertiones theologicas que non sunt explicite approbate nec explicite condempnate contrarie opinari, et opiniones suas contrarias rationibus et auctoritatibus fulcire conari. Ergo licet papa hereticus et impugnatores eius teneant opiniones contrarias, absque fautoria heretice pravitatis et absque peccato mortali possunt predicatores et doctores assertionem pape que in rei veritate est heretica, licet hoc nesciant, conari probare et assertionem contrariam improbare.

Master: The answer involves holding five conclusions. The first of these is that preachers and doctors who attack in words alone the contentions of those who oppose a statement by a heretic pope which is not explicitly condemned, attempting to prove through arguments and authorities that the contentions of these opponents which are contrary to the statement of the heretic pope are not truthful, should not be interpreted as aiding and abetting heretical wickedness, nor are they to be reckoned by this fact alone to have committed a mortal sin. The proof of this conclusion is that theologians are entitled, without being deemed collaborators in heretical wickedness or mortals sinners, to offer contrary opinions concerning theological propositions which are not yet explicitly approved nor explicitly condemned, and to attempt to bolster their contrary opinions by arguments and authorities. Therefore even if a heretic pope and his opponents should hold contrary opinions, preachers and doctors may attempt to positively defend a statement of the pope which is in truth heretical, although they do not know this, and to reject the contrary assertion, without lapsing into collaboration with heretical wickedness and without committing a mortal sin.

Discipulus: Contra hanc conclusionem et probationem eius michi due obiectiones occurrunt. Quarum prima est quod si assertio pape non est dampnata explicite non est propter eam hereticus iudicandus. Ergo impugnantes papam propter eam asserendo eum esse hereticum sunt merito confutandi. Secunda obiectio est contra hoc quod dicitur et innuitur quod licet predicatores et doctores conentur auctoritatibus et rationibus improbare assertionem impugnantium hereticam assertionem pape, non sunt censendi fautores heretice pravitatis. Hoc enim non videtur verum. Nam nullus potest plus favere heretice pravitati quam conando eam auctoritatibus et rationibus approbare et ostendere veram esse. Si ergo aliqui moliuntur rationibus et auctoritatibus comprobare assertionem pape heretici que est heretica esse veram et assertionem contrariam esse falsam, videtur quod censendi sunt fautores heretice pravitatis.

Student: Two objections occur to me against this conclusion and its proof. The first of these is that if the pope's statement is not explicitly condemned, he must not be judged a heretic on its account. Therefore those who oppose the pope because of this statement, claiming that he is a heretic, are deservedly to be silenced. The second objection is directed against the stated insinuation that even though preachers and doctors were to attempt by authorities and arguments to refute the contention of those who attack the pope's heretical statement, they must not be judged to be collaborators in heretical wickedness. This indeed does not seem true. For no one can favour heretical wickedness to a greater extent than by attempting its commendation, and by demonstrating its veracity through authorities and arguments. If therefore some try to confirm by arguments and authorities that a heretical assertion of a heretical pope is true and that the contrary assertion is false, it appears that they must be viewed as collaborators in heretical wickedness.

Magister: Ad primam respondetur quod licet assertio pape non sit dampnata explicite, in casu est licitum asserere et tenere papam esse hereticum. Ad cuius evidentiam dicitur esse sciendum quod si assertio pape non est dampnata explicite, aut papa eam tenet solummodo opinando (et tunc licet scientibus in rei veritate eam esse hereticam asserere quod est heretica sed non licet eis dicere nec asserere papam esse hereticum, quia ex quo papa solummodo opinando dicit eam non est hereticus reputandus), aut papa talem heresim non dampnatam explicite non opinando sed pertinaciter asserendo tenet, que pertinacia, sicut patet ex libro quarto huius, potest diversimode deprehendi, et in hoc casu licet catholicis scientibus papam heresim dampnatam solummodo implicite pertinaciter asserere et tenere, non tantummodo affirmare assertionem pape esse hereticam, sed licet eis sentire quod papa est hereticus. Periculose tamen hoc publice assererent quia forte hoc probare non possent, et forsan extra concilium generale et in absentia catholice pape, quamvis esset verum non deberent hoc publice affirmare.

Master: The answer to the first objection is that even if the pope's assertion is not explicitly condemned, it is permissible in a particular situation to contend and to hold that the pope is a heretic. The following clarification is stated as evidence for this point. If the pope's assertion is not explicitly condemned, then either the pope holds it as a mere opinion (and it is then permitted to those who know in truth that the assertion is heretical to contend that it is so, but they are not permitted to state or to contend that the pope is a heretic - because of the fact that the pope only utters this assertion as an opinion he is not to be reckoned a heretic), or else the pope holds such a heresy (which is not explicitly condemned) not as an opinion but as a pertinacious assertion. Such pertinacity, and Book Four of our treatise makes this clear [1 Dial. 4, passim], may be discovered in many ways, and in that case Catholics who know that the pope is pertinaciously asserting and holding a heresy which is only condemned implicitly are allowed not merely to claim that the pope's assertion is heretical, but are allowed to believe that the pope himself is a heretic. However it would be dangerous for them to proclaim this publicly because they might not, perhaps, be able to prove it, and perhaps they ought not to publicly claim this outside of a general council and in the absence of a catholic pope, even if it were true.

Ad secundam obiectionem respondetur quod ad fautoriam heresis que non est dampnata explicite non sufficit quod quis eandem rationibus et auctoritatibus munire conetur, sed ultra hoc requiritur quod pertinaciter seu inique talem heresim rationibus et auctoritatibus fulcire sive alias munire conetur, quemadmodum ad hereticam pravitatem non sufficit quod quis errando heresi adhereat, sed requiritur quod pertinaciter adhereat.

The answer to the second objection is that in order to be an abettor of a heresy which is not explicitly condemned it is not sufficient that someone attempt to fortify it with arguments and authorities, but there is a wider requirement that he attempt to bolster or otherwise fortify such heresy with arguments and authorities in a pertinacious and wicked manner. Similarly, in order for heretical wickedness to exist it is not sufficient that someone should erroneously support heresy, but it is required that he support it pertinaciously.

Discipulus: Indica que sunt alie conclusiones quas tenet predicta opinio.

Student: Disclose the other conclusions which are held by the opinion under review.

Magister: Secunda conclusio est quod predicatores et doctores qui impugnatores doctrine erronee pape quantum ad assertionem non dampnatam explicite, non solum rationibus et auctoritatibus sed etiam detrahendo et in perpera irrogando aut contra eos alios provocando vel eis per se vel per alios molestiam quomodolibet inferendo, impugnant, peccant mortaliter et sunt fautores heretice pravitatis. Quia qui propter bonum et licitum infert alteri nocumentum notabile, peccat mortaliter, et si propter impugnationem licitam heretice pravitatis infert alteri nocumentum, est fautor heretice pravitatis. Sed impugnare assertionem pape hereticam licet non sit dampnata explicite est bonum et licitum. Ergo predicatores et doctores qui propter impugnationem huiusmodi inferunt impugnantibus nocumentum notabile peccant mortaliter et sunt fautores heretice pravitatis. Hoc autem faciunt qui eis detrahunt et in perpera et contumelias irrogant, et qui contra eos alios provocant vel per se vel per alios molestiam irrogant. Ergo peccant mortaliter et sunt fautores heretice pravitatis.

Master: The second conclusion is that preachers and doctors who attack thinkers opposing the pope's erroneous doctrine because of a statement not explicitly condemned, and attack them not just by arguments and authorities, but also by disparaging their persons and inflicting wickednesses upon them, or by provoking others against them, or by distressing them in whatever fashion, personally or through others, sin mortally and are collaborators in heretical wickedness. For he who causes notable harm to another on account of a good and lawful action, sins mortally, and is a collaborator in heretical wickedness if he causes harm to another because of the latter's lawful opposition to heretical wickedness. But to oppose a heretical assertion of the pope is a good and lawful thing even if that assertion is not explicitly condemned. Therefore preachers and doctors who cause notable harm to opponents because of such opposition sin mortally and are collaborators in heretical wickedness. And this is what they do who disparage the opponents, and inflict wickednesses and indignities upon them, and who provoke others against them, or distress them personally or through others. Therefore they sin mortally and are collaborators in heretical wickedness.

Tertia conclusio est quod illi predicatores et doctores qui impugnatores pape heretici propter assertionem dampnatam explicite quam non possunt faciliter scire esse dampnatam explicite propter imperitiam in scripturis auctenticis, aut propter defectum librorum, aut propter quamcunque aliam causam propter quam nesciunt papam de heresi impugnari, impugnant, assertionem pape solummodo rationibus et auctoritatibus satagendo munire et assertionem contrariam rationibus et auctoritatibus tantummodo improbare conando, non peccant mortaliter nec sunt fautores heretice pravitatis censendi, quia absque peccato mortali potest quis, dummodo pertinaciam non adiungat, opinando negare assertionem catholicam etiam explicite approbatam, et contrariam hereticam assertionem dampnatam explicite opinari. Si enim aliquis non habens memoriam de historia libri Regum absque pertinacia diceret et rationibus aliquibus confirmaret quod David non habuit simul plures uxores, non peccaret mortaliter nec esset fautor heretice pravitatis. Sic dicunt aliqui quod licet quidam qui nunquam viderunt decretalem Nicholai tertii Exiit qui seminat opinarentur, et suam opinionem auctoritatibus et rationibus confirmare studerent, quod Christus habuit alicuius rei proprietatem, quamvis hoc facerent imitando papam hereticum qui hoc diceret, non peccarent mortaliter si dictam decretalem Exiit faciliter habere non possent, nec scirent papam propter assertionem predictam a viris eruditis in sacra pagina impugnari, quia opinari heresim dampnatam explicite nescienter potest quis absque peccato mortali et fautoria heretice pravitatis, dummodo pertinacia nullatenus misceatur.

The third conclusion is that those preachers and doctors who attack thinkers opposing the pope because of a statement explicitly condemned, do not sin mortally and should not be considered collaborators of heretical wickedness if they merely attempt to fortify the pope's statement by arguments and authorities and only try to refute the contrary statement by arguments and authorities, and also if they cannot easily know that the pope's assertion is explicitly condemned - either due to their lack of expertise in understanding original documents, or because they don't possess the relevant texts, or because of any other reason whatsoever which explains their being unaware that the pope is being attacked for heresy. For as long as there is no added pertinacity on his part someone may, without committing a mortal sin, emit an opinion which negates even an explicitly approved catholic assertion, and hold as an opinion the contrary, explicitly condemned, heretical assertion. If for instance someone having a memory lapse about events described in the Book of Kings were to say without pertinacity and confirm with a few arguments that David did not simultaneously have many wives [2 Samuel 2:2], he would neither sin mortally nor be a collaborator in heretical wickedness. Similarly there are some who say that if those who have never seen the decretal of Nicholas III called Exiit qui seminat were to emit the opinion that Christ had property in some thing, and carefully confirmed their opinion by authorities and reasons, even were they to do this in imitation of a heretic pope's statement to the same effect, they would not sin mortally if they could not easily obtain this decretal Exiit, or did not know that the pope was being attacked by men highly learned in Holy Writ for having made the aforementioned declaration. For someone may unknowingly utter as an opinion a heresy which is explicitly condemned, without mortal sin and collaboration in heretical wicked ness, so long as pertinacity is in no way conjoined to his opinion.

Quarta conclusio est quod predicatores et doctores qui impugnantes papam hereticum pro assertione heretica dampnata explicite quam possunt faciliter scire esse dampnatam explicite et propter quam sciunt papam de heresi impugnari, reprobant aut impugnant, peccant mortaliter nec a fautoria pravitatis heretice sunt immunes. Quia tantum zelum debent habere de fide catholica quam honori et favori cuiuslibet mortalis preferre tenentur, quod cum nuntiatur eis papam in certo articulo contra fidem catholicam errare, si de eadem assertione se intromittere approbando vel reprobando proponunt, non debent negligere querere diligenter an assertio pape sit condempnata, et ita si possunt faciliter scire assertionem eandem esse dampnatam explicite seu contrariam veritatem esse explicite approbatam, nullatenus a peccato mortali et a fautoria heretice pravitatis excusarentur si impugnantes assertionem pape erroneam improbare presumunt.

The fourth conclusion is that preachers and doctors sin mortally, and are not innocent of collaboration in heretical wickedness, who attack or condemn thinkers opposing a heretic pope because of an explicitly condemned heretical assertion, which the preachers and doctors may easily learn to be explicitly condemned and on account of which they know the pope is being attacked for heresy. For they should have such zeal for the catholic faith, which they are bound to rank above the honour and favour of any mortal, that when they receive news that the pope has erred against the catholic faith on a certain issue, if they intend to become involved in the issue of his assertion either in a supportive or in a critical role, they must not neglect to scrupulously inquire whether the pope's assertion has been condemned. And thus, if they can easily learn that his assertion is explicitly condemned or the contrary truth explicitly approved, in no way would they be excused from mortal sin and collaboration in heretical wickedness if they presume to attack those who oppose the erroneous assertion of the pope.

Quinta conclusio est quod predicatores et doctores impugnatores doctrine erronee pape heretici dampnatam explicite, sive sciant sive ignorent eam esse dampnatam explicite, propter impugnationem huiusmodi persequuntur, eis detrahendo vel contumelias aut in perpera irrogando, vel contra eos alios provocando seu per se aut per alios molestiam quomodolibet inferendo, peccant mortaliter et sunt fautores heretice pravitatis reputandi. Gravius tamen peccant illi qui sciunt doctrinam pape esse erroneam quam illi qui ignorant.

The fifth conclusion is that preachers and doctors who because of the latter's opposition persecute opponents of a heretic pope's false and explicitly condemned doctrine by disparaging them or by inflicting wickednesses or indignities upon them, or by provoking others against them, or by distressing them in whatever fashion, directly or through others, sin mortally and are to be considered collaborators in heretical wickedness, whether they know or not that the pope's erroneous doctrine is explicitly condemned. And those who know that the doctrine of the pope is erroneous sin more grievously than those who do not know this.

Discipulus: Quare non possunt ignorantes per ignorantiam excusari.

Student: Why may the ignorant not be excused by their ignorance.

Magister: Respondetur quod ignorantia iuris quod quis scire tenetur non excusat. Hoc autem quilibet scire tenetur quod impugnantes aliquam doctrinam tanquam erroneam non sunt aliqualiter molestandi nisi certitudinaliter constet eos falso vel inique impugnare doctrinam eandem. Quare cum, si doctrina pape sit erronea, non possit constare quod impugnatores ipsius propter solam impugnationem eam falso impugnant vel inique (quia huiusmodi impugnatio est licita), non sunt propter impugnationem huiusmodi aliqualiter molestandi.

Master: The answer is that ignorance of a law which one is obligated to know is no excuse. And everyone is bound to know this: that those who are in opposition to a given doctrine because it is presumed by them to be erroneous must in no way be distressed unless it is quite certain that they are opposing this doctrine in error or without regard for equity. Therefore, since it is not possible to be certain, given that the pope's doctrine is false, that those who oppose it are by that fact alone attacking it wrongly or immorally (because their opposition is lawful), they are not to be in any way distressed on account of such opposition.

Capitulum 50

Chapter 50

Discipulus: Puto quod ad probandum omnes conclusiones predictas rationes et auctoritates quamplures, si cogitares, scires adducere, quas omnes causa brevitatis omitte, et dic breviter quid sentiendum esset de doctoribus et magistris qui doctrinam pape manifeste erroneam defensare aut excusare quomodolibet niterentur, doctrinas autem aliorum (et maxime pauperum) disputabiles et excusabiles, imo veras et catholicas, licet doctrinis quorundam theologorum contrarias, dampnare et pervertere ac ad malum sensum trahere conarentur.

Student: I believe that if you were to reflect, you would be able to produce very many arguments and authorities proving all the aforementioned conclusions. But omit all of them for the sake of brevity, and state concisely what ought to be our feelings concerning doctors and masters who would strive to defend or to excuse in any way a papal doctrine which was obviously erroneous, while exerting themselves to condemn, misrepresent, and falsify the meaning of doctrines held by others, and above all by Mendicants, doctrines which were arguable and excusable, indeed true and catholic, even if contrary to the doctrines of certain theologians.

Magister: Respondetur quod talium doctorum nequitia faciliter describi non potest, quia tales ab omni amore et zelo veritatis sunt penitus alieni, ostendentes aperte quod nequaquam amore scientie et veritatis ad magisterium ascenderunt, sed propter gulam aut honores vel divitias obtinendas in studio laboraverunt.

Master: The answer is that the moral worthlessness of such doctors could not be easily described, for people of this kind are deeply alienated from any love of and zeal for the truth. Their behaviour clearly indicates that they never rose to the status of master for the love of knowledge and truth, but laboured at the university for the sake of their gullet or for the purpose of acquiring honours or riches.

Discipulus: Quibus vitiis sunt tales censendi impliciti.

Student: What vices should we believe such people to be involved in.

Magister: Respondetur quod tales sunt acceptatores personarum. Talibus enim loquitur Isaias 5 capitulo, dicens: "Ve qui potentes estis ad bibendum vinum et viri fortes ad miscendam ebrietatem, qui iustificatis impium pro muneribus et iustitiam iusti aufertis ab eo". Tales enim doctores qui iustificant papam hereticum 'pro muneribus', hoc est pro beneficiis, gratiis et honoribus obtinendis, et 'iustitiam iusti' auferunt 'ab eo', veritatem sue doctrine perperam pervertendo et ad malum sensum (ut placeant pape heretico) inique trahendo, sunt 'potentes ad bibendum vinum', quia inter alios fines malos quos spectant per magisterium obtinere, impletio ventris cibo et potu infimum locum minime tenet, ut de eis vere dicatur illud Apostoli ad Philip. 3: "quorum deus venter" est, quia propter ventrem et honorem et alia terrena commoda consequenda et incommoda devitanda laborant in studio et addiscunt. Unde et de quolibet tali doctore dicit Salomon Prov. 28: "qui cognoscit in iudicio faciem non facit bene. Iste et pro buccella panis deserit veritatem". Ille 'cognoscit faciem in iudicio' qui doctrinam manifeste erroneam ideo nititur excusare vel etiam defensare quia a papa est tradita et inventa, et doctrinam pauperis catholicam et excusabilem, ut pape heretico placeat, contra mentem dicentis ad malum satagit trahere intellectum, qui 'pro buccella panis' id est pro uno bono convivio ubi confusionem non metuit temporalem, catholicam paratus est deserere veritatem.

Master: The answer is that such individuals discriminate about persons for selfish advantage. For it is their ilk that Isaiah addresses in his 5th chapter, saying: "woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink; which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him"[Isaiah 5:22-23]. For such doctors who justify a heretic pope 'for reward', that is to say for the sake of obtaining benefices, favours, and honours, and who 'take away the righteousness of the righteous from him', by wickedly misrepresenting the truth of his doctrine, and unethically falsifying its meaning in order to please a heretic pope, they are 'mighty to drink wine', because among the various nasty ends they are seeking to achieve by the status of master, the filling of their belly with food and drink is hardly last on the list. The statement of the Apostle in Philippians 3 truly applies to them "whose god is their belly" [Philippians 3:19], for they labour and learn at the university for the sake of their belly and so as to gain access to honour and to other worldly conveniences, while avoiding inconveniences. Hence it is of any doctor of this stripe that Solomon says in proverbs 28: "to have respect of person is not good: for a piece of bread that man will transgress"[Proverbs 28:21]. He has 'respect of persons' who strives to excuse or even defend an obviously erroneous doctrine simply because it is discovered and popularized by a pope; and who busies himself in falsifying the meaning of a Mendicant's catholic and excusable doctrine, twisting the author's intended understanding in order to please a heretic pope. 'For a piece of bread', i.e. for one good dinner party at which he fears no temporal anxiety, he is ready to abandon catholic truth.

Discipulus: Ex hiis coniicio quod si unquam aliquis papa futurus manifestus erit hereticus, patebit aperte qui doctores illius temporis zelo veritatis catholice et propter hereticos convincendos (si unquam insurgerent) in studio laboraverunt, et qui propter terrena scientie operam impenderunt.

Student: I surmise from these comments that if ever some future pope becomes a manifest heretic, it will be clearly apparent which doctors of that time would have laboured at the university for zeal of the catholic truth and in order to overcome heretics (if such were to arise), and which doctors devoted effort to learning for the sake of worldly convenience.

Magister: Nonnullis apparet quod hic falleris, quia teste Christo multi "ad tempus credunt et in tempore temptationis recedunt". Sic forte nonnulli, si papa esset hereticus, bono zelo in principio laborabunt, sed cum venerit tribulatio pro fide sustinenda illi firmissime adherebunt.

Master: It appears to a few that here you would be wrong, for as Christ attests: "these for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away"[Luke 8:13]. So perhaps a few doctors, should the pope become a heretic, would at first be active with good zeal, but when persecution for maintaining the faith supervened, these doctors would support the heretic pope most firmly.

Discipulus: Quamvis michi modo appareat quod tempore futuri pape heretici, si fuerit, non posit sciri qui propter zelum veritatis studio vacare ceperunt, tamen satis videbitur manifeste qui erunt sinceri et fortes fidei zelatores, ideo redi ad materiam in isto capitulo disserendam et enumera alia vitia quibus doctores de quibus hic est sermo reputantur impliciti, nec cures alias probationes adducere.

Student: Although it now appears to me that at the time of a future heretic pope, should he come to be, one will not be able to know which doctors began to follow the path of learning prompted by zeal of the truth, it will nevertheless be clear enough which of them are sincere and strong partisans of the faith. Return therefore to the matter which is to be discussed in this chapter, and specify seriatim the other vices in which the doctors about whom we are talking are reckoned to be involved. Do not bother to provide further technical proofs.

Magister: Isti doctores putantur fautores heretice pravitatis, ambitiosi, avari, adulatores, propter excusationem vel assertionem doctrine erronee pape heretici. Propter perversionem autem aliarum doctrinarum putantur invidi, maliciosi, innocentie persecutores, detractores, diffamatores, calumpniatores, falsorum criminum impositores. Unde et in Spiritum Sanctum multipliciter peccare censentur. Propter utrumque autem vitium falsi, mendaces, fallaces, seductores et fraudulenti creduntur.

Master: For excusing or agreeing with the erroneous doctrine of a heretic pope, these doctors are thought to be collaborators in heretical wickedness, eager for advancement, greedy for gain, sycophants. And for the falsification of other doctrines they are thought to be jealous, malicious, persecutors of innocence, disparagers, defamers, slanderers, imposers of false crimes. Hence they are judged to be sinning against the Holy Spirit in many different ways [Matthew 12:31-32]. And for both wickednesses they are believed to be traitors, liars, deceivers, pied pipers, and swindlers.

Discipulus: Qua pena essent tales plectendi.

Student: What penalty should such persons suffer.

Magister: Respondetur quod tales omnibus penis que debentur vitiis superius numeratis essent merito percellendi. Unde dicitur quod sunt excommunicati, et ab omni officio deponendi, imo videtur quibusdam quod essent curie seculari tradendi vel perpetuo carceri mancipandi.

Master: The answer is that such individuals should be deservedly afflicted with all the penalties owed to the vices that were enumerated above. Hence it is said that they are excommunicated, and must be deposed from any office. Indeed it appears to some that they are to be handed over to the secular arm or surrendered to perpetual imprisonment.

Capitulum 51

Chapter 51

Discipulus: De predictis posset fieri longus tractatus, sed quia cupio quod cito isti tractatui finis imponatur ideo ad religiosos censeo transeundum, de quibus interrogo an religiosi qui pape heretico non resistunt sint inter fautores pravitatis heretice computandi.

Student: A long account might be written about the aforementioned matters, but since I wish to bring this treatise to a conclusion soon, I believe consequently that we should shift our attention to the issue of the religious. Concerning which I ask whether the religious who do not resist a heretic pope are to be numbered among the collaborators in heretical wickedness.

Magister: De religiosis distinguitur. Quidam enim religiosi regulariter aliquos de fratribus suis ad studium theologie transmittunt, pluribus etiam officium predicationis et confessionis committunt, multique ex diversis causis per mundum discurrunt et de loco ad locum sepius moventur, magnamque communicationem habent inter se quantumcunque sint per mundum dispersi. Unde accidit quod ea que publice fiunt, non solum in curia romana sed etiam in studiis generalibus et in aliis locis frequentibus, facilius, certius et distinctius cognoscuntur ab eis.

Master: A distinction must be made about the religious. For certain religious, as a rule, send away some of their brethren to be schooled in theology, and also commit to many the office of preaching and of hearing confessions. Furthermore, quite a few of them travel about the world for different causes, frequently moving from place to place, and they communicate a great deal amongst themselves even though they are scattered throughout the world. Hence it so happens that they know public events occurring not only in the Roman Curia but also in schools and universities and in other crowded places easily, certainly, and accurately.

Alii sunt religiosi qui ex consuetudine in certis locis continue residentes loca sua non mutant raroque exeunt claustra sua, nec aliquos de fratribus ad studia vel alia loca transmittunt ac in diversis locis manentes parvam vel nullam communicationem inter se habere noscuntur, et ideo sepe de hiis que in curia romana et in aliis locis frequentibus publice fiunt multa ignorant que aliis minime sunt ignota.

There are other religious whose custom is to continuously reside in certain places, who do not change their habitat and rarely leave their cloisters, nor do they send some of their brethren to schools or to other places. Remaining fixed in various places, these religious are known to have little or no communication with one another, and therefore they are frequently ignorant of many events which occur in the Roman Curia and in other crowded locations, events which are well known to others.

Si igitur papa esset hereticus publicus, hoc est publice diffiniens assertionem que est heresis explicite condempnata vel publice predicans aut docens assertionem contra veritatem apud omnes catholicos divulgatam, puta si publice predicaret Christum non fuisse natum de virgine, vel resurrectionem non esse futuram, aut non esse infernum nec aliquas animas cruciari in inferno, contra primos religiosos esset violenta presumptio quod minime ignorarent papam esse hereticum quia tales religiosi ea que publice fiunt in curia romana non ignorant. Tot enim litteras sibi mutuo scribunt, precipue de novitatibus que contingunt, quod vix aliquid notabile fit in curia romana quin cito et in brevi tempore in omnibus locis eorum per universum orbem publice cognoscatur, et ideo si adheserint pape heretico postquam eius perfidia fuerit publicata, presumendum est quod scienter adhererent pravitate heretice et ideo fautores heretice pravitatis sunt censendi si dixerint vel tenuerint papam esse catholicum et fidelem.

Let us assume that the pope was a public heretic, in other words that he publicly defined a statement which is an explicitly condemned heresy, or that he publicly preached or taught an assertion contrary to the truth established among all Catholics: for instance, if he publicly preached that Christ was not born of a virgin, or that there will be no resurrection, or that there is no hell, nor are some souls suffering in hell [an oblique allusion to Pope John XXII's sermons on the Beatific Vision]. There would be a very strong presumption against the first kind of religious that they could hardly fail to know that the pope is a heretic, because such religious are not ignorant of public events occurring in the Roman Curia. Indeed they write themselves so many letters to and fro, particularly of freshly breaking developments, that hardly anything of significance occurs in the Roman Curia without being quickly and in short order publicly known in all of their residences throughout the entire world. Therefore if such religious were to support a heretic pope after his treachery had been made public, one must presume that they knowingly supported heretical wickedness, and therefore should they say or hold that the pope is catholic and faithful, they are to be judged collaborators in heretical wickedness.

Discipulus: Quid si non dixerint papam esse catholicum et fidelem, tamen sibi obediunt nichil de eius fidelitate vel infidelitate se aliqualiter intromittendo.

Student: What if they do not say that the pope is catholic and faithful, and yet obey him while not dealing in any way with the issue of his faithfulness or faithlessness.

Magister: Respondetur a quibusdam quod in hoc casu, si non possunt perfidiam pape ne transfundatur ad alios prohibere, non sunt censendi fautores pravitatis heretice, sed sunt putandi fautores heretici, quia ex quo perfidiam pape heretici prohibere non possunt, nec credentes erroribus suis corrigere, nec ne alii credant eius erroribus impedire, tacendo de eius perfidia non videntur culpam incurrere, sed obediendo sibi a culpa minime sunt immunes.

Master: Some reply that in this case, if they cannot prevent the pope's treachery from actively influencing others, they should not be thought collaborators in heretical wickedness, but should be reckoned to be collaborators of a heretic. Because they cannot prevent the treachery of a heretic pope, nor correct those who believe his errors, nor impede others from believing his errors, they do not appear to be at fault by remaining silent with respect to his treachery. But by obeying him they are hardly immune from sin.

Discipulus: Dic de aliis religiosis.

Student: What about the other kind of religious.

Magister: De aliis dicitur quod non est presumptio tam violenta contra eos quod sciant vel teneantur scire papam esse hereticum, et ideo non sunt subito iudicandi favere heretice pravitati, vel quod peccent pape heretico obediendo, sed examinandi sunt sollicite an sciant papam esse hereticum vel propter illa que audierunt teneantur hoc scire, et secundum hoc vel culpabiles vel a culpa liberi sunt censendi. Si enim ignorant papam esse hereticum et non laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, obediendo pape heretico ab omni culpa sunt immunes. Si vero sciunt papam esse hereticum vel ignorant quia nolunt scire, aut laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, obediendo pape heretico peccant mortaliter nec possunt a culpa aliqualiter excusari.

Master: Of the others it is said that the presumption against them is not as strong that they know or are bound to know that the pope is a heretic. Therefore they must not immediately be judged as favouring heretical wickedness, or that they would sin by obeying a heretic pope. They must rather be carefully examined to discover whether they know that the pope is a heretic or whether they ought to know this because of the things they have heard, and depending on the outcome of such an examination they are to be thought either guilty or free of guilt. For if they do not know that the pope is a heretic and do not labour in grossly passive ignorance, they are completely free of guilt in obeying a heretic pope. If on the other hand they know that the pope is a heretic or don't know it because they don't want to know, or labour in grossly passive ignorance, they sin mortally by obeying a heretic pope and can in no way be excused from guilt.

Discipulus: Quid spectat ad religiosos facere si papa fuerit hereticus.

Student: What should the religious do if the pope were to become a heretic.

Magister: Respondetur quod ad primos religiosos si fuerint predicatores vel confessores aut lectores, quando predicant et legunt aut confessiones audiunt spectat, debitis circumstantiis observatis, auditoribus suis perfidiam pape heretici nuntiare ut caveant pestiferam doctrinam eius. Ad alios autem quando vadunt per mundum spectat ut, quando est opportunitas, illis quibus loquuntur non publice predicando sed loquela simplici perfidiam pape heretici studeant intimare. Ad alios autem religiosos, si sciverint papam esse hereticum, hoc spectat quod sibi tanquam pape nullo modo obediant, et quod modis sibi congruentibus alios ab obedientia eiusdem revocare tenentur.

Master: The answer is this. It is the task of the first kind of religious, if they are preachers or confessors or lecturers, taking appropriate circumstances into account, to reveal to their listeners the treachery of the heretic pope when they preach and read or hear confessions, so that these listeners may beware of his noxious doctrine. It pertains to other religious of this kind, when they travel about the world, to concentrate on informing those with whom they speak, when the opportunity to do so is there, of the heretic pope's treachery, not by publicly preaching to them but by simple conversation. As to the second kind of religious, if they know that the pope is a heretic, it is their task not to grant him in any way the obedience due to a pope. They are also bound, using whatever means are appropriate to them, to urge others not to obey the heretic pope.









Return to Table of Contents