|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|