Part 1, Book 7, chapter 65-73

Text and translation by George Knysh
as at June 2003

Copyright (c) 2003, The British Academy

Capitulum 65

Chapter 65

Discipulus: Quamvis adhuc de fautoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis essent investiganda quamplura, de quibus, applicando ad determinatas personas, in tractatu De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam sollicite indagabo, tamen illis obmissis transeo ad defensores hereticorum et heretice pravitatis, de quibus in primis peto ut narres michi qui defensores hereticorum et heretice pravitatis sunt censendi.

Student: Although many matters pertaining to abettors of heretics and of heretical wickedness would still require to be investigated, (and I shall scrupulously proceed to do so, with reference to specific persons, in the treatise On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith), nevertheless, putting these matters aside, I now focus attention on defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness, and as to these I request first of all that you would explain to me who are to be identified as defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness.

Magister: Respondetur quod cum defendere rem aliquam sit ab impugnatione tueri vel rei impugnate contra impugnantem opem ferre, impugnatio autem tripliciter fieri potest, scilicet verbo, scripto, et facto, multipliciter contingit defendere hereticos et hereticam pravitatem, secundum quod heretici et heretica pravitas possunt multipliciter impugnari. Hereticus enim impugnari potest facto alicuius qui conatur hereticum captivare, aut detinere, aut iudici presentare, vel trahere ad iudicium ut de eo fiat iustitie complementum. Potest etiam impugnari verbo et hoc multipliciter, vel in iudicio cum rite et debite accusatur, vel extra iudicium, cum eius perfidia per predicatores et doctores, prelatos aut alios non ignaros, nescientibus ut caveant nunciatur. Scripto etiam impugnari potest, in iudicio cum contra eum scribitur, vel extra iudicium cum eius perfidia rationibus et auctoritatibus demonstratur, et absentibus per epistolas intimatur. Heretica autem pravitas verbo et scripto poterit impugnari. Verbo quidem, cum in sermonibus aut lectionibus vel secretis colloquiis reprobatur. Scripto vero, cum ad reprobandam hereticam pravitatem scripta catholica componuntur.

Master: The answer is that since to defend some thing is to protect it from attack or to render assistance against an attacker thereof, while an attack may be undertaken in three ways, namely, verbally, in writing, or by deed, one may defend heretics and heretical wickedness in many ways, just as heretics and heretical wickedness may be attacked in many ways. For a heretic may be attacked by the action of someone who attempts to capture him, or to arrest him, or to bring him before a judge, or to haul him off to judgement so that justice might take its final course concerning him. [=execution GK] A heretic may also be attacked verbally, and this in many ways, either when he is duly and properly accused in court, or outside of the courtroom when preachers and doctors, prelates, or others in the know, reveal his treachery to the uninformed so that the latter may take precautions. A heretic may also be attacked in writing: in court when one writes against him, or outside of the courtroom when his treachery is demonstrated by reasons and authorities, and the absent informed of it by letters. Heretical wickedness, for its part, may be attacked verbally and in writing. Verbally: when it is castigated in sermons or lectures or in secret discussions; and in writing, when catholic works are composed to condemn heretical wickedness.

Ex hiis colligitur quod contingit hereticos et pravitatem hereticam multipliciter defendere, et quot modis contingit hereticos et pravitatem hereticam impugnare, tot modis et forte pluribus defendi possent. Contingit igitur defendere hereticos facto, impediendo videlicet ne capiantur vel detineantur ut de eis fiat iustitie complementum. Contingit etiam eos defendere verbo in iudicio et extra iudicium, allegando quod non sunt heretici reputandi. Scripto etiam contingit eos defendere, libros et epistolas componendo ad ostendendum et nuntiandum quod non sunt inter hereticos computandi. Pravitatem etiam hereticam contingit tripliciter defendere, scilicet facto, verbo, et scripto. Facto quidem dupliciter ad presens. Uno modo, ipsos impugnatores ab impugnatione prohibendo. Alio modo, impugnationes et allegationes eorum scriptas destruendo, sive comburendo sive alio modo, vel malitiose detinendo et impediendo ne ad notitiam perveniant aliorum. Verbo etiam contingit pravitatem hereticam defendere, allegando quod non sit inter hereses computanda, et eodem modo contingit scripto heresim defendere.

One gathers from these options that heretics and heretical wickedness may be defended in many ways, and that by whatever methods one might attack heretics and heretical wickedness, the same methods (and possibly more) would be available for purposes of defense. Therefore, one may defend heretics by deed, namely, by preventing their capture, or by preventing their being arrested, so that they not suffer justice taking its final course. One may also defend them verbally in court, or outside of the courtroom, by maintaining that they are not to be considered heretics. One may also defend them in writing, by composing books and letters to prove and to proclaim that they must not be numbered among the heretics. One may likewise defend heretical wickedness in three ways, namely, by deed, verbally, and in writing. And as to action two methods might be mentioned at present. One would be to forbid its opponents to attack it. Another method would consist in destroying their written oppositions and allegations, either by having these burned or through some other means, or by maliciously confiscating them and preventing them from coming to the notice of others. One may also defend heretical wickedness verbally, by contending that it ought not to be numbered among the heresies; and one may similarly defend heresy in writing.

Discipulus: Secundum predicta de defensoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis essent quamplurima indaganda, sed abbreviationis causa multa dimittam. Aliqua tamen queram. Porro quia dubito, quod si unquam aliquis papa erit hereticus, perniciosior et periculosior erit omnibus aliis hereticis qui fuerunt vel erunt preter Antichristum magnum, si tamen idem Antichristus non erit papa, interrogationes quas faciam de defensoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis ad defensores pape heretici et sequacium eius suarumque heresum applicabo. In primis itaque dic qua pena sint plectendi qui de facto impediunt ne de persona pape heretici fiat iustitie complementum, se de eius erroribus defendendis nullatenus intromittendo.

Student: According to the aforementioned there would be a large number of issues needing to be investigated concerning defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness, but I shall put aside many for the sake of brevity. Some, however, I shall pursue. Furthermore, since I consider it arguable that if some pope were ever to become a heretic, he would be more harmful and more dangerous than all the other heretics past and future except for the Great Antichrist (assuming, that is, that this Antichrist would not be the pope himself), [cf. 1 Dial. 6.19] I shall apply any future questions concerning the defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness to the defenders of a heretic pope and of his followers, as well as of his heresies. Tell me at the outset what penalty should be inflicted on those who actively prevent justice taking its final course with respect to the person of a heretic pope, but do not involve themselves in the defense of his errors.

Magister: Respondetur quod tales impedientes et pape heretico impedienti opem ferentes ne de ipso fiat iustitie complementum, aut sciunt papam esse hereticum, aut ignorant, et si ignorant, aut laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, quia nolunt aut contempnunt aut negligunt scire papam esse hereticum, vel laborant ignorantia probabili. Si sciunt papam esse hereticum vel ignorant et laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, et tamen eidem opem ferunt ne fiat de eo iustitie complementum et se de eius erroribus nullatenus intromittunt, imo asserunt forte manifeste eius errores esse contrarios catholice veritati, sunt defensores heretici, licet non sunt directe defensores nec approbatores heretice pravitatis. Et ideo penam hereticorum nequaquam incurrunt, sed in sententiam incidunt excommunicationis et carere debent ecclesiastica sepultura (Extra, De hereticis, Sicut, et Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, Noverit). Alie etiam pene eorum, si in excommunicatione per annum persistunt, taxantur Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1. Quedam etiam pene eorum speciales taxantur Extra, De hereticis, Si adversus. Si autem ignorant papam esse hereticum, et laborant ignorantia probabili, nullam penam incurrunt.

Master: The answer is that such obstructionists, who assist a heretic and obstructionist pope in avoiding the final course of justice as to his person, either know that the pope is a heretic, or they do not know it. If they do not know, then, either their ignorance is grossly passive (for they do not want to know, or scorn to know, or neglect to know that the pope is a heretic), or it is justifiable. If they know that the pope is a heretic, or are ignorant of this due to grossly passive ignorance, and yet help him to avoid the final course of justice while not involving themselves in a defense of his errors, perhaps even asserting openly that his errors are contrary to catholic truth, then they are defenders of a heretic, even if they are not directly defenders of, or assenters to, heretical wickedness. And therefore, in no way do they incur the punishment of heretics, but they rather lapse into a sentence of excommunication, and cannot have the benefit of a legitimate church burial (Extra, De hereticis, Sicut, [cols. 779-780] and Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, Noverit). [col. 910] And other punishments await them (mentioned in Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1) [cols. 787-789] if they remain excommunicated for an entire year. Some of their further punishments are mentioned in Extra, De hereticis, Si adversus. [cols. 783-784] But if they do not know that the pope is a heretic, and their ignorance is justifiable, they incur no punishment.

Discipulus: Nunquid scientes papam esse hereticum vel etiam ignorantes, sed laborantes ignorantia crassa et supina, ad quos spectat et qui possunt facere de papa heretico iustitie complementum, si negligunt, debent inter defensores pape heretici computari.

Student: Must those who know that the pope is a heretic (or even those who are ignorant of this, but whose ignorance is grossly passive), and who have authority and power to inflict terminal justice upon a heretic pope, be classified among defenders of a heretic pope if they neglect the performance of their function.

Magister: Una est opinio quod sunt defensores pape heretici et penam defensorum incurrunt, quemadmodum illi ad quos spectat ex officio defendere clericum verberatum sunt fautores eiusdem violentie et eandem penam incurrunt, si possunt defendere et non faciunt (Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, Quante). Alia est opinio quod tales non sunt defensores pape heretici, quia defensio aliquem actum exteriorem importat. Tales autem nullum actum exteriorem ad dictam defensionem pertinentem exercent.

Master: One opinion holds that they are defenders of a heretic pope, and incur the punishment of defenders, just as those who have the official function of defending a battered clerk are considered abettors of the violence he suffers, and incur the same punishment as the batterers, if they can defend the clerk yet fail to do so (Extra, De sententia Excommunicationis, Quante). [col. 909] There is another opinion that such are not defenders of a heretic pope, because a defense implies some overt action. Such people, however, do not perform any overt action relevant to the stated defense.

Discipulus: Quid sentitur de illis qui defendunt papam hereticum verbo vel scripto, asserendo et dicendo quod non est hereticus reputandus.

Student: What is the feeling concerning those who defend a heretic pope verbally or in writing, asserting and stating that he is not to be reputed a heretic.

Magister: Hoc potest multis modis contingere. Uno modo, verbo vel scripto asserendo et affirmando quod errores ei impositos (quos in rei veritate pertinaciter tenet) non tenet nec dicit, neque asserendo neque opinando neque recitando; alio modo, quod errores dicit et tenet tantummodo opinando et eos nullatenus pertinaciter asserendo; alio modo, quod errores impositi pape non sunt inter hereses computandi. Si primo modo, distinguitur, quia aut sciunt se dicere falsum aut nesciunt se dicere falsum, et tunc vel laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, vel probabili. Si sciunt se dicere falsum, non tantum crimen incurrunt mendacii, sed etiam scienter defensores pape heretici sunt censendi et penam defensorum incurrunt. Si autem nesciunt se dicere falsum, et laborant ignorantia crassa et supina ( quia nolunt scire vel contempnunt aut negligunt scire), quamvis secundum aliquos a crimine mendacii valeant excusari, tamen a crimine defensionis pape heretici minime excusantur, et ideo in penam incidunt defensorum. Si vero nesciunt se dicere falsum et laborant ignorantia probabili, nec crimen mendacii nec crimen defensionis hereticorum committunt, quia ab utroque crimine per ignorantiam probabilem excusantur. Consimiliter distinguitur de asserentibus papam dicere errores impositos tantummodo opinando vel tantummodo recitando. Quia si sciunt vel credunt se dicere falsum, crimen mendacii et etiam crimen defensionis heretici manifeste comittunt. Si vero nesciunt et laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, sunt defensionis heretici crimine involuti. Si autem laborant ignorantia probabili, de utroque crimine excusantur. Si autem dicunt quod errores impositi pape non sunt inter hereses computandi, non solum sunt censendi defensores heretici, sed etiam sunt defensores heretice pravitatis, quod verum est si errores pape heretici sunt explicite condempnati, et taliter defendentes papam hereticum pertinaciter tenent quod errores impositi non debent inter hereses reputari.

Master: There are many ways in which this can happen. One way is to maintain and to confirm verbally or in writing that the heretic pope does not hold nor utter, either as an assertion, or as an opinion, or as a mere recited statement, the errors which are imputed to him, errors which in reality he holds with pertinacity. Another way is to claim that he holds and utters these errors merely as opinions, and that he does not assert them with pertinacity. Yet another way is to suggest that the errors imputed to the pope are not to be classified among the heresies. If one follows the first option, a distinction is in order. For either the defenders know that they are lying, or they do not know that they are lying, and in the latter eventuality their ignorance is either grossly passive, or justifiable. If they know that they are lying, they not only commit the crime of mendacity, but are also to be reckoned conscious defenders of a heretic pope, and incur the penalty due to such defenders. If, however, they do not know that they are lying, ands their ignorance is grossly passive (because they do not want to know, or scorn to know, or neglect to know), then, although according to some they might be excused of the crime of mendacity, they nevertheless are hardly excused of the crime of defending a heretic pope, and therefore they lapse into the penalty due to such defenders. If, on the other hand, they do not know that they are lying, and their ignorance is justifiable, then they commit neither the crime of mendacity nor the crime of defending heretics, since their justifiable ignorance excuses them of both crimes. There is a similar distinction with respect to those who assert that a pope is stating the errors imputed to him merely as opinions or recitations. For if they know or believe that they are lying, then they manifestly commit the crime of mendacity, and also the crime of defending a heretic. If, on the other hand, they do not know that they are lying, and their ignorance is grossly passive, then they are involved in the crime of defending a heretic. But if their ignorance is justifiable, they are excused of both crimes. And if they say that the errors imputed to the pope are not to be classified among the heresies, then they must not only be reckoned defenders of heretics, but also defenders of heretical wickedness. This is true if the errors of a heretic pope are errors explicitly condemned, and if those who defend a heretic pope in this way pertinaciously hold that the imputed errors must not be numbered among the heresies.

Capitulum 66

Chapter 66

Discipulus: Si pro singulis assertionibus supra scriptis satageres allegare, timeo quod prolixitatem fastidiosam legentibus generares. Ideo ad defensores heretice pravitatis accedo, de quibus peto ut dicas qua pena sunt plectendi qui sunt pravitatis heretice defensores, sive defendant pravitatem hereticam prohibendo impugnatores pravitatis eiusdem ne eam impugnent, eis scilicet pro impugnatione pravitatis heretice qua papa macularetur hereticus persecutionem et molestiam inferendo, sive allegationes eorum catholicas contra errores pape heretici comburendo aut quovis modo impediendo malitiose ne ad notitiam perveniant aliorum.

Student: Were you to provide arguments in support of each and every aforewritten assertion, I fear that you would create for readers a boring prolongation of the discussion. I therefore turn to defenders of heretical wickedness. Concerning these, I request that you state what punishment should be the lot of those who are defenders of heretical wickedness, whether they defend heretical wickedness by prohibiting opponents of this wickedness from attacking it (namely by inflicting persecution and harm upon them for attacking the heretical wickedness staining a heretic pope), or by incinerating the scripts of their catholic allegations against the errors of a heretic pope, or by maliciously preventing these scripts (by whatever means) from coming to the notice of others.

Magister: Istis modis videtur quibusdam quod infectus heretica pravitate defenditur, de qua defensione nonnulli tenent quod huiusmodi pape heretici defensores non minus peccant quam papa hereticus, nec minori pena sunt plectendi, imo dicunt quod sunt heretici reputandi. Quia, sicut contingit facto mentiri secundum Ambrosium, ut habetur 22 q. ultima cap. Cavete, ita contingit facto heresi assentire et eam asserere, et per consequens ex factis absque verbis potest quis ostendi esse hereticus manifestus. Predicti ergo defensores heretice pravitatis heretici sunt censendi et pena hereticorum sunt plectendi, quod multis modis videtur posse probari. Hec enim Urbanus papa, ut legitur 24 q. 3 cap. Qui aliorum, sentire videtur, dicens: "qui aliorum errorum defendit multo est dampnabilior illis, qui errant, quia non solum ille errat, sed etiam aliis offendicula preparat erroris et confirmat. Unde quia magister erroris est, non tantum hereticus, sed etiam heresiarcha dicendus est". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod defensores errorum sunt heretici reputandi et dampnabiliores errantibus. Ergo et pari pena sunt plectendi.

Master: It appears to certain thinkers that these are indeed the methods whereby a person infected by heretical wickedness is defended. Some hold as to this defense that such defenders of a heretic pope sin no less than the heretic pope himself, nor ought they to suffer a lesser punishment. In fact, they say that such defenders are to be considered heretics. Because, just as it is possible to lie by deed according to Ambrose (we have this in 22 q. ultima c. Cavete), [22 q. 5 c. 20, col. 888] so is it possible to consent to heresy and to assert it by one's action. Consequently, someone may be shown to be an obvious heretic by his acts, without reference to words. Therefore the aforesaid defenders of heretical wickedness are to be viewed as heretics, and are to suffer the punishment of heretics, a contention apparently capable of being proved in many ways. For Pope Urban seemingly feels as much when he states (as we read in 24 q. 3. c. Qui aliorum): "he who defends the error of others is to be condemned much more than they who err, for he is not only himself in error, but also prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of errors for others. Hence, being a teacher of error, he is not only a heretic, but must also be labeled a heresiarch". [col. 999] One gathers from these words that defenders of errors are to be reckoned heretics, and are to be condemned more than those who err. Therefore an equal punishment is also to be inflicted upon them.

Discipulus: Ista auctoritas non videtur ad propositum, quia loquitur de defendentibus errores allegando pro eis sive verbo sive scripto, quod patet per hoc quod dicit quod "aliis offendicula erroris preparat et confirmat", et per hoc quod dicit "magister erroris est". Ista enim ad allegandum pro erroribus pertinere videntur, et nequaquam spectant ad illos qui impugnatores errorum impediunt, persequuntur, et molestant, et qui impugnationes destruunt vel impediunt ne inter catholicos publicentur.

Student: This authority seems to be irrelevant, for it speaks of those who defend errors by arguing in their favour either verbally or in writing. This is clear enough, since the authority states that he "prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of error for others", and also by the fact that it states that he "is a teacher of error". These descriptions seem to pertain to arguments in favour of errors, and do not apply to those who impede, persecute, or do harm to individuals opposing the errors, nor to those who destroy critical scripts or prevent them from being published among catholics.

Magister: Dicitur quod instantia tua nulla est, quia licet auctoritas Urbani predicta de allegantibus ex pertinacia pro erroribus aliorum verbo vel scripto debeat intelligi, debet nichilominus intelligi etiam de defensoribus facto aliorum errores, eo quod defensores facto errorum modis prescriptis gravius peccare videntur quam solummodo pro erroribus allegantes. Defendentes enim facto modis prescriptis errores pape heretici tam in Deum quam in proximum directe peccare dinoscuntur. Quia et veritatem catholicam manifestari impediunt, et ipsis impugnatoribus pravitatis heretice graviter iniuriantur dum eorum personis molestiam inferunt, et in eorum infamiam aliquid ludibrium circa catholicas allegationes exercent. Qui autem pro erroribus aliorum solum verbo vel scripto pertinaciter allegare presumunt, in Deum tantummodo peccare videntur. Et ideo si defensores allegando solummodo pro erroribus sunt dampnabiliores illis qui errant, multo magis illi qui in favorem et defensionem errorum impugnatores errorum crudeliter persequuntur, et infamia eorum allegationes catholicas irreverenter et probrose tractant, sunt dampnabiliores hiis qui errant si solummodo stant in errore et nichil plus faciunt. Cum vero dicitur quod Urbanus loquitur de illo qui aliis offendicula erroris preparat et confirmat, et de illo qui est magister erroris, que duo non conveniunt nisi allegantibus pro errore, respondetur quod utrumque istorum potest aliquo modo persequentibus impugnatores errorum et destruentibus impugnationes errorum competere. Nam talis potest dici aliis offendicula erroris quodammodo preparare et confirmare in quantum removet prohibentia erroris, nam et removens prohibentia aliquando causa vocatur. Potest etiam dici quodammodo magister erroris in quantum facto docet et monstrat quod errores sunt tenendi.

Master: The response is that your point is worthless. For although the aforesaid authority of Urban must be understood of those who argue pertinaciously, verbally or in writing, in support of the errors of others, it must nonetheless also be understood of those who defend the errors of others by deed, in that those who defend the errors of others by deed in the ways described appear to be committing a more serious sin than those who merely argue in support of these errors. Indeed, those who defend by action (in the ways described) the errors of a heretic pope, are known to be sinning directly against both God and their neighbour. For they prevent the manifestation of catholic truth, and also do serious injury to the very opponents of heretical wickedness, in that they inflict harm upon their persons, and besmirch their reputation by dealing outrageously with their catholic allegations. On the other hand, those who presume to argue pertinaciously in support of the errors of others merely verbally or in writing, only appear to be committing a sin against God. And therefore, if those who defend by merely arguing in support of errors are more to be condemned than those who err, then all the more those who, in order to support and defend errors, cruelly persecute the opponents of errors and besmirch the latter's reputation by dealing outrageously and abusively with their catholic arguments, should receive a greater condemnation than those who err (if they only adopt the error and do nothing else besides). When one states, however, that Urban is speaking of someone who prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of error for others, and of someone who is a master of error (two characteristics which only apply to individuals who argue in support of error), the answer is that both of these characteristics may in some manner be applicable to those who persecute the opponents of errors, and to those who destroy the scripted allegations against errors. For such an individual may be said to prepare stumbling blocks of error to others in some fashion, and to confirm these in so far as he removes the factors which prohibit error. Indeed, sometimes one who removes prohibitions may be called the cause of what ensues. He may also in some sense be termed a master of errors to the extent that he in fact teaches and demonstrates that errors are to be professed.

Discipulus: Alias allegationes ad eandem adducas assertionem.

Student: Bring forth other arguments in support of the main contention.

Magister: Hoc Isidorus, ut habetur 11 q. 3 cap. Qui consentit peccantibus, testari videtur, dicens: "qui consentit peccantibus, et defendit alium delinquentem, maledictus erit apud Deum et homines, et corripietur increpatione severissima. Hinc etiam quidam sanctissimus pater ait: 'si quis peccantem defendit, acrius quam ille, qui peccavit, coherceatur' ". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod qui papam hereticum, pro crimine heresis persequendo impugnatores et impugnationes, defendit, acrius quam papa hereticus coherceri debet.

Master: Isidore appears to witness in its favour when he states (we have it in 11 q. 3 c. Qui consentit peccantibus): "he who gives his consent to sinners, and defends another who is committing a crime, will be cursed before God and men, and subjected to the most severe reprobation. This is where a most holy father says: 'if someone defends a sinner he will be punished more forcefully than the one who commits the sin' [St Basil, Regulae breviores, regula 7]". [col. 671] One gathers from these words that he who defends a heretic pope by persecuting his opponents and their arguments by imputing the crime of heresy to them, must be punished more forcefully than the heretic pope.

Discipulus: Ista auctoritas non loquitur nisi de defensore delinquentis, non de defensore pravitatis heretice, et ita ad propositum non esse videtur.

Student: This authority only speaks of one who defends a criminal, and not of a defender of heretical wickedness, and thus it seems irrelevant to the contention.

Magister: Respondetur quod cum loquitur de defendente delinquentem in genere, debet etiam intelligi de defendente heresim quam tenet papa, quia maius vel non minus peccatum est defendere iniquitatem, cum ille qui facit, si non esset iniquitas, defendi deberet.

Master: The answer is that when it speaks generally of someone who defends a criminal, it must also be understood of someone who defends the heresy held by the pope, for it is a greater or no lesser a sin to defend iniquity, when he who commits it would require to be defended if there were no iniquity involved.

Discipulus: Potestne probari aliter quod huiusmodi defensores heresum quibus papa hereticus irretitur sunt pena hereticorum plectendi.

Student: May it be proved otherwise that such defenders of heresies in which a heretic pope is involved must suffer the punishment of heretics.

Magister: Hoc videtur sic posse probari. Consentientes eadem pena qua agentes sunt plectendi, quod videtur de consentientibus consensu defensionis vel etiam auctoritatis potissime debere intelligi. Quod glossa Extra, De officio et potestate iudicis delegati, cap. 1, testari videtur, dicens: "in quarto casu auctoritatis, sive defensionis, magis peccat consentiens defendendo, et auctoritatem prestando, quam faciens, et magis puniendus est, 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum, et 11 q. 3 c. Qui consentit". Ergo defendentes modis prescriptis hereticam pravitatem pena hereticorum sunt plectendi.

Master: It seems that one may prove this as follows. Those who consent are to suffer the same penalty as those who commit the act, a point which appears above all as needing to be understood of those who consent by providing defense or even by providing authority. This seems attested by the gloss to Extra, De officio et potestate iudicis delegati, c. 1 [c. Quia quaesitum, col. 158] which states: "in the fourth instance of authority or defense, he who consents by defending and by providing authority commits a greater sin than the doer of the act, and must receive a greater punishment, 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum, and 11 q. 3 c. Qui consentit". [s.v. pari pena, col. 327] Therefore those who defend heretical wickedness in the ways described must suffer the penalty of heretics.

Discipulus: Audivi quorundam sententiam de hiis que factis defendunt hereticam pravitatem. Nunc dic de illis qui verbo vel scripto defendunt doctrinam erroneam pape heretici.

Student: I have listened to the opinion of some concerning those who defend heretical wickedness by their actions. Now speak of those who defend the erroneous doctrine of a heretic pope verbally or in writing.

Magister: De hiis breviter dicitur quod, si doctrina pape erronea est talis quod veritatem contrariam illi qui doctrinam pape erroneam solis allegationibus verbo vel scripto nituntur defendere credere tenentur explicite, tales defensores sunt inter hereticos computandi, quia omnis qui negat veritatem quam credere tenetur explicite est inter hereticos numerandus, et pena hereticorum plectendus. Si vero doctrina pape erronea sit talis quod allegantes pro ea non tenentur credere explicite contrariam veritatem, qui eam defendunt solummodo allegando verbis vel scriptis non sunt heretici iudicandi, nec pena hereticorum plectendi, nisi quomodocunque appareat quod suis allegationibus pertinaciter innituntur. Qualiter autem convinci valeant de pertinacia, ex hiis que tractata sunt supra, libro quarto, debet posse patere.

Master: One briefly states about these individuals that, if the erroneous doctrine of the pope is such, that they who attempt to defend the pope's erroneous doctrine only by spoken or written arguments are bound to believe it explicitly, then these defenders are to be numbered among the heretics, because everyone who denies a truth which he is bound to believe explicitly is to be numbered among the heretics, and must suffer the penalty of heretics. If, however, the erroneous doctrine of the pope is such that those who argue in support of it are not bound to explicitly believe the contrary truth, then they who merely defend it by spoken or written arguments are not to be adjudged heretics, nor must they suffer the punishment of heretics, unless it somehow appears that they are pertinaciously attached to their arguments. And the manner whereby they may be convicted of pertinacity should be clear from the points we treated earlier in Book Four.

Discipulus: Ex hac sententia michi sequi videtur quod aliqui allegantes verbo vel scripto pro doctrina pape erronea sunt censendi heretici, et aliqui a pravitate heretica sunt immunes.

Student: It seems to me that it follows from this proposition that some of those who argue verbally or in writing on behalf of the erroneous doctrine of the pope are to be reckoned heretics, while others remain free of heretical wickedness.

Magister: Conceditur quod hoc potest contingere secundum quod potest accidere quod aliqui tenentur credere explicite veritatem contrariam doctrine pape erronee et aliqui eam credere explicite non tenentur, et secundum quod aliqui possunt suis allegationibus pertinaciter adherere et aliqui possunt eis nequaquam pertinaciter adherere. Unde ad cognoscendum qui allegantes verbo vel scripto pro doctrina pape heretici sint heretici reputandi et qui non sint inter hereticos numerandi, oportet diligentissime considerare qui tenentur credere explicite veritatem contrariam, et qui ad hoc minime sunt astricti, et qui sunt pertinaces, et qui de pertinacia convinci non possunt.

Master: It is conceded that this may be the case. For it may happen that some are bound to explicitly believe a truth which contradicts the pope's erroneous doctrine, and others are not bound to believe this truth explicitly. And some may adhere to their arguments with pertinacity while others may not. That is why, in order to know who among those arguing verbally or in writing in favour of the heretic pope's doctrine are to be reputed heretics and who are not to be numbered among the heretics, it is expedient to examine with utmost attention who are bound to believe the contrary truth explicitly, and who are not bound to do this, and which of them are pertinacious, and which cannot be convicted of pertinacity.

Discipulus: Nunquid illi qui allegarent pro doctrina hereticali pape heretici et non tenerentur explicite credere veritatem contrariam nec de pertinacia convinci valerent, deberent defensores pravitatis heretice nuncupari.

Student: Must we reckon as defenders of heretical wickedness those who would argue in support of the heretic pope's heretical doctrine if they are not bound to explicitly believe the contrary doctrine and cannot be convicted of pertinacity.

Magister: Respondetur quod secundum quod nomen defensoris heretice pravitatis in iure accipitur, non deberent defensores pravitatis heretice appellari, quia nomen defensoris sic acceptum semper pertinaciam coincludit.

Master: The answer is that on the precise legal interpretation of the expression "defender of heretical wickedness", they ought not to be so called, because the term "defender" in its legal acception always involves evidence of pertinacity.

Discipulus: Si predicta de defensoribus continent veritatem, aperta est distinctio inter defensores hereticorum et defensores heretice pravitatis. Sed an ista distinctio ex canonicis sanctionibus accipi possit, ignoro. Unde quid de hoc posset dici expone.

Student: If these statements about defenders are true, there exists an obvious distinction between defenders of heretics and defenders of heretical wickedness. But I do not know whether it is possible to derive this distinction from canonical decisions. Hence, do explain what might be said concerning this point.

Magister: Quod ista distinctio ex canonicis statutis possit accipi videtur tali modo posse probari. In quibusdam statutis canonicis defensores ab hereticis distinguuntur. In quibusdam vero defensores heretici appellantur. Ergo videtur quod vocabulum 'defensorum' vel 'defendendi' accipiatur predicto modo equivoce. Antecedens quoad utramque partem probatur, et primo quidem ad primam partem sic probatur. Innocentius tertius in concilio generali, ut legitur Extra, De hereticis, cap. Excommunicamus 1, sic ait: "credentes preterea, receptatores, defensores et fautores hereticorum excommunicationi decrevimus subiacere, firmiter statuentes, ut, postquam quilibet talium fuerit excommunicatione notatus, si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, ex tunc ipso iure sit factus infamis, nec ad publica officia seu consilia, nec ad eligendos aliquos ad huiusmodi, nec ad testimonium admittatur. Sit etiam intestabilis, etc." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod plures penas quas constat hereticos incurrere ipso facto et statim, defensores hereticorum non incurrunt, nisi satisfacere contempserint infra annum. Nam bona defensorum hereticorum, si satisfecerint infra annum postquam fuerint excommunicatione notati, sunt minime confiscanda infra annum, ut ex verbis Innocentii allegatis et ex sequentibus colligi videtur aperte. Bona vero hereticorum confiscanda sunt vel confiscari possunt etiam si infra annum ad fidei redierint veritatem, teste eodem Innocentio tertio, qui, ut legitur Extra, De hereticis, cap. Vergentis, ait: "in terris vero temporali nostre iurisdictioni subiectis, bona hereticorum statuimus publicari, et in aliis idem precipimus fieri per potestates et principes seculares, quos ad id exequendum, si forte negligentes extiterint, per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione remota compelli volumus et mandamus. Nec ad eos bona eorum ulterius revertantur, nisi eis, ad cor revertentibus et abnegantibus hereticorum consortium, misereri aliquis voluerit". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod, ut dicit glossa super verbo 'misereri', hereticis ad cor revertentibus et satisfacientibus sive infra annum sive post annum: "de sola ergo misericordia restituantur bona". Defensoribus autem non sunt infra annum bona auferenda. Ergo defensores de quibus fit mentio in constitutione predicta Excommunicamus non sunt heretici nec fautores heretice pravitatis reputandi, sed defensores hereticorum tantummodo sunt censendi. Qui, sicut habetur Extra, De hereticis, Sicut ait, et cap. Si adversus, et Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, cap. Noverit, ab hereticis distinguuntur.

Master: The possibility of deriving this distinction from canonical statutes may apparently be proved in the following manner. In some canonical statutes defenders are distinguished from heretics, while in others defenders are called heretics. Therefore it seems that the term "defenders" or "defending" has an equivocal contextual meaning. We now prove the premises of this syllogism as to both of its parts. And initially we prove the first part as follows. Innocent III speaks thus in a general council (as we read in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus 1): "as to believers, receivers, defenders, and abettors of heretics, we decreed that they were subject to excommunication, and we firmly ordered that after any of them has been declared excommunicated, if he scorns to offer appropriate satisfaction within one year, from that moment he should by force of law be deemed to have been disgraced, and is not to be permitted to exercise public offices, nor to offer counsel as to such, nor to elect others to such offices, nor to testify in court. He will also not be allowed to have a legal will, etc." [col. 788] One gathers from these words that defenders of heretics do not incur penalties which heretics suffer instantly and immediately, unless they fail to offer due satisfaction within one year. For the properties of defenders of heretics, as appears to be clearly inferred from the cited words of Innocent as well as from other words which follow, are not to be confiscated for a whole year, if they offer appropriate satisfaction within one year after having been declared excommunicated. While the properties of heretics can or must be confiscated even if they return to the truth of faith within one year, witness the same Innocent III, who states, as we read in Extra, De hereticis, c. Vergentis: "but in lands subject to our temporal jurisdiction, we proclaim that the properties of heretics be confiscated. And in other lands we order that the same be decreed by secular princes and authorities. Should these authorities happen to be negligent in the matter, we desire and command that they be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without provision for an appeal, to carry these provisions through. Nor should their properties revert to heretics in the future, unless someone voluntarily takes pity upon them when they experience a change of heart and reject the company of heretics". [col. 783] We gather from these words that, as states the gloss on the word "misereri": "it is therefore solely from compassion that properties are returned" [col. 1675] to heretics who experience a change of heart, and give appropriate satisfaction either within a year or subsequently. In contrast, defenders are not to lose their properties within that first year. Therefore the defenders who are mentioned in the aforesaid constitution Excommunicamus are neither to be reputed heretics nor abettors of heretical wickedness, but are only to be labeled defenders of heretical wickedness. And these are distinguished from heretics, as we discover in Extra, De hereticis, Sicut ait, [col. 779] and in c. Si adversus, [col. 784] and in Extra, De sententia excomunicationis, c. Noverit. [col. 910]

Secunda vero pars antecedentis rationis predicte, scilicet quod quandoque defensores 'heretici' appellantur, probatur. Nam sicut allegatum est supra (24 q. 3 Qui aliorum), defensores errorum alienorum probantur esse non solum heretici sed heresiarche, quia in hoc quod defendunt aliorum errores sunt magistri errorum. Item, quod aliqui defensores sint heretici reputandi testatur Innocentius (Extra, De verborum significatione, cap. Super quibusdam), dicens: "tua devotio postulavit a nobis qui sint dicendi heretici manifesti. Super quo diximus tibi respondendum, illos in hoc casu intelligendos esse manifestos hereticos, qui contra fidem catholicam publice predicant, aut profitentur, seu defendunt errorem". Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod defensores errorum sunt inter hereticos computandi. Quod secundum quosdam intelligendum est sive facto sive verbo sive scripto defendant errores, quod secundum eos iuxta modum preexpositum continet veritatem.

We now prove the second part of the aforestated reason's premisses, namely, that sometimes defenders are called heretics. For as was argued above (with reference to 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum), those who defend the errors of others are proved to be not only heretics, but heresiarchs, because the fact that they defend the errors of others makes them masters of errors. Again: Innocent attests that some defenders are to be reputed heretics when he states in Extra, De verborum significatione, c. Super quibusdam : "your faithfulness requested us to explain which persons must be called manifest heretics. On this we must offer the following reply to you. They should be understood to be manifest heretics in your context, who publicly preach against the catholic faith, or who profess or defend error". [col. 923] We understand from these words that defenders of errors are to be numbered among the heretics. According to some, this must be understood to be the case regardless of whether they defend errors by deed, verbally, or in writing, and these interpreters claim that the proposition is true within the explained context.

Capitulum 67

Chapter 67

Discipulus: De defensoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis usque ad tractatum De dogmatibus Iohannis 22-i et tractatum De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam, nolo plura inquirere. Ideo ad receptatores pertranseo, de quibus dic in primis quomodo a credentibus, fautoribus, et defensoribus distinguuntur.

Student: I do not wish to inquire any further about defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness until the treatise On the doctrines of John XXII, and the treatise On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith. Therefore I now move on to the issue of receivers of heretics, concerning which do explain initially how they are distinguished from believers, abettors, and defenders.

Magister: Respondetur quod receptator et credens hereticis duo disparata videntur, quia licet receptator possit esse credens, tamen potest etiam contingere quod non sit credens, quia qui scienter est receptator hereticorum non est credens, quia non credit eos esse catholicos quos reputat hereticos, nec credit erroribus eorumdem. Receptator vero hereticorum videtur esse fautor eorumdem, quia qui recipit hereticos, eis quodammodo favet, cum etiam non impugnare hereticos quando quis debet eos impugnare sit eis favere. Omnis igitur receptator hereticorum est fautor eorum sed non econverso. Multi enim sunt fautores hereticorum qui tamen non sunt receptatores eorum. Receptator autem et defensor hereticorum sicut duo disparata videntur. Nam potest quis esse defensor hereticorum quamvis non sit receptator eorum quia in eius dominio non morantur. Potest etiam quis esse receptator hereticorum quamvis non sit defensor, quia scilicet eos a nulla impugnatione intendit defendere.

Master: The answer is that a receiver of heretics and a believer of heretics appear to be two different things. For although a receiver might be a believer, it may nevertheless happen that a receiver is not a believer. One who is a knowing receiver of heretics is not a believer, since he does not believe that those whom he reputes to be heretics are catholics, nor does he believe their errors. A receiver of heretics, however, appears to be their abettor, because he who receives heretics favours them in some fashion: even not to oppose heretics when someone is obligated to oppose them is to show them favour. Therefore every receiver of heretics is an abettor of heretics, but the reverse relationship does not hold, for there are many abettors of heretics who nevertheless are not receivers of heretics. Furthermore, a receiver of heretics and a defender of heretics appear to be different things. For someone may be a defender of heretics although he is not a receiver of heretics, since they do not reside in his dominion. And someone may be a receiver of heretics although he is not their defender, namely, because he has no intention of defending them from any attack.

Discipulus: Qui sunt receptatores hereticorum.

Student: Who are receivers of heretics.

Magister: Respondetur quod nomen 'receptatorum', secundum quod in iure accipitur, sonat in malum. Et ideo isti sunt receptatores hereticorum qui, cum possent hereticos de terra sua aut dominio expellere, eos scienter vel ignoranter (ita tamen quod laborant ignorantia crassa et supina) permittunt in terra sua aut dominio absque custodia libere commorari. De istis loquitur glossa Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1, super verbo 'receptatores', dicens: "sine quibus heretici manere diu non possunt".

Master: The answer is that the term "receiver" as it is used in the law denotes something bad. And therefore, they are receivers of heretics who, having the power to expel heretics from their land or dominion, knowingly or unknowingly (but in the latter case with grossly passive ignorance) allow them to reside freely in their land or dominion without putting them under guard. It is of them that the gloss on the word "receptatores" in Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1 speaks, stating that "without such, heretics cannot remain secure for long". [col. 1683]

Discipulus: Secundum predicta, si papa hereticus manens in dominio alicuius regis vel principis aut alicuius alterius, tanta fulciretur potentia quod dominus temporalis non posset eum expellere, nec quomodolibet detinere, talis dominus non esset censendus receptator hereticorum.

Student: According to the aforesaid, if a heretic pope, residing in the dominion of some king or prince or someone else, wielded such power that the temporal lord was unable to expel him or in any way place him under restraint, such a lord would not be considered a receiver of heretics.

Magister: Hic respondetur quod talem dominum temporalem impotentia excusaret.

Master: The answer is that in this case such a temporal lord would be excused for lack of temporal power.

Discipulus: Potestne aliquid aliud excusare dominum temporalem, si non expellit papam hereticum vel eius sequaces de suo dominio vel de terra sibi subiecta.

Student: Might there be any other excuse for a temporal lord who does not expel a heretic pope or his followers from his dominion or from a land subject to him.

Magister: Respondetur quod timor probabilis turbationis fidelium absque fructu spirituali potest excusare dominum temporalem.

Master: The answer is that probable fear of a disturbance of the faithful without spiritual gain might excuse a temporal lord.

Discipulus: Nunquid tenetur dominus temporalis expellere papam hereticum de suo dominio, si tantam habet potentiam temporalem, et non timet probabiliter turbationem fidelium absque fructu spirituali, quamvis dominus temporalis non fuerit per prelatos ecclesie requisitus.

Student: If he has sufficient temporal power and has no probable cause to fear a disturbance of the faithful without spiritual gain, is a temporal lord obligated to expel a heretical pope from his dominion, even if the temporal lord has not been requested to do so by prelates of the church.

Magister: De hoc tractatum est supra, libro sexto cap. 99 et ultimo, ubi ostensum est quod, deficiente ecclesiastica potestate, sive per impotentiam, sive per malitiam, sive per dampnabilem negligentiam, laici debent hereticos cohercere.

Master: We have dealt with this issue earlier, in the 99th and in the last chapters of Book Six, where we demonstrated that when ecclesiastical power fails, whether by impotence, or by malice, or by culpable negligence, laymen have the duty to forcibly repress heretics.

Discipulus: Quid faciet dominus temporalis si scit papam hereticum manere in suo dominio, et non potest eum artare.

Student: What should a temporal lord do if he knows that the heretic pope resides in his dominion, and he lacks power to place the pope under arrest.

Magister: Requiret auxilium aliorum catholicorum. Si autem alii nolunt auxiliari ei, excusatus est.

Master: Let him request the assistance of other catholics. If, however, others do not want to help him, he is excused.

Discipulus: Quid faciet populus ubi moratur papa hereticus, si dominus temporalis, quamvis possit, nolit papam hereticum cohercere.

Student: What should the common people of the territory where the heretic pope resides do, if the temporal lord refuses to use force against this heretic pope even when he can.

Magister: Respondetur quod populus, non obstante quod dominus temporalis sit receptator pape heretici, si potest absque dispendio spirituali, debet papam cohercere, ubi sciret papam esse hereticum, puta si papa aliquid assereret contra veritatem apud omnes catholicos divulgatam, utpote si diceret Christum falsum prophetam, vel fidem christianam esse falsam vel fictam, aut quod anime reproborum in inferno minime cruciantur, vel aliquid huiusmodi, quod apud omnes catholicos tanquam catholicum divulgatum existit, nec esset necesse quod populus in hoc casu consuleret sapientes, nisi forte ad sciendum quomodo deberet procedere contra papam hereticum. Non enim populus propter persuasiones, allegationes, vel verba quorumcunque sapientum vel insipientum deberet quoquomodo in dubium revocare an papa esset in tali casu hereticus reputandus, et tanquam hereticus evitandus ac etiam puniendus. Imo quicunque sapientes, clerici vel laici, qui dicerent papam in tali casu non debere a populo reputari hereticus, essent a populo heretici iudicandi.

Master: The answer is that the populace, regardless of the fact that its temporal lord is a receiver of the heretic pope, is obligated to use force against the pope (if this can be done without spiritual detriment) where it knows that the pope is a heretic, for instance if the pope made some assertion against a truth disseminated among all catholics, e.g., if he stated that Christ was a false prophet, or that the Christian faith was false or fictitious, or that the souls of the damned do not suffer the torture of hell, [an allusion to the Visio beatifica controversy] or something of this sort, which is disseminated among all catholics as catholic doctrine. Nor would it be necessary in this case for the populace to consult experts, except perhaps to be informed of the manner in which it should proceed against the heretic pope. For the populace must in no way doubt that in such a situation the pope must be considered a heretic, and must be avoided and even punished as a heretic, regardless of the convictions, arguments, or words uttered by any, be they expert or ignorant. Indeed any experts, clerks or laymen, who would state that in such a situation the pope ought not to be considered a heretic by the people, would themselves have to be adjudged heretics by the people.

Discipulus: Quomodo potest populus absque auctoritate domini temporalis aliquid contra papam hereticum attemptare, cum populus nullam habeat iurisdictionem omnino, sed in dominum suum omnem iurisdictionem transtulerit.

Student: How can the people attempt any action against the heretic pope without the authority of the temporal lord. After all, the populace has no jurisdiction whatsoever, but has transferred all jurisdiction to its lord.

Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis populus in imperatorem vel regem iurisdictionem transtulerit, iurisdictionem tamen quam habet in favorem fidei quando papa est hereticus, et manet cum eis et prelati ac dominus temporalis nolunt vel non possunt papam cohercere, a se transferre non potest, nec tali iurisdictioni renuntiare potest, quia illa iurisdictio concessa est populo in favorem fidei christiane.

Master: The answer is that although the populace has transferred jurisdiction to the emperor or to the king, it nevertheless cannot transfer from itself the jurisdiction which it possesses in favour of the faith when the pope is a heretic, and the prelates and temporal lord with whom the heretic resides either do not want to, or cannot, use force against him. Nor can the people renounce such jurisdiction, because this jurisdiction has been granted to the people in support of the Christian faith.

Discipulus: Quo iure habet populus iurisdictionem huiusmodi super papam hereticum. Non iure divino, quia de hoc in iure divino nulla fit mentio. Nec etiam iure humano, quia etiam in iure humano de hoc nulla fit mentio. Nec iure naturali, quia a iure naturali nulla est iurisdictio penitus, eo quod ex iure naturali nullus habet super alium potestatem. Natura enim omnes fecit equales.

Student: By what right do the people possess such jurisdiction over a heretic pope. Not by divine right, since there is no mention of it in divine law. Nor by human right, because there is no mention of this in human law either. Nor by natural right, because no jurisdiction whatever exists by natural law, in that no one has power over another by natural right, for nature has made all humans equal.

Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis in iure divino nulla fiat mentio vocalis de iurisdictione huiusmodi, sententialiter tamen hoc ex iure divino et naturali ac humano simul colligitur. Nam ex iure divino concluditur quod papa factus hereticus est papatu privatus. Ex iure autem humano habetur quod pape heretico non est communicandum modo predicto, quod etiam corporaliter servari debet quando absque perniciosa turbatione fidelium servari potest, eo quod nulli heretico est communicandum modo predicto. Item, ex iure humano habetur quod si papa vel dominus temporalis alicuius populi fiat hereticus, totus populus a iurisdictione tam pape quam domini temporalis absolvitur, teste Gregorio nono qui, ut habetur Extra, De hereticis, cap. ultimo, ait: "absolutos se noverint a debito fidelitatis hominii et totius obsequii, quicunque lapsis manifeste in heresim aliquo pacto, quacunque firmitate vallato, tenebantur astricti". Ex iure autem naturali, non quidem quod fuisset tempore nature institute, sed quod est pro tempore nature lapse, habetur quod populus propter perfidiam alicuius qui non est superior eo, locum aut patriam relinquere non tenetur. Ex quibus concluditur quod si papa fiat hereticus, et dominus temporalis faverit eidem, populus iurisdictionem saltem aliqualem obtinet super papam hereticum, quia ex quo papa hereticus est iure divino papatu privatus, non est superior populo ubi moratur. Iure autem humano populus pape heretico communicare non debet, ergo debet papam hereticum devitare. Iure autem naturali non tenetur propter papam hereticum patriam aut locum deserere vel relinquere. Ergo potest papam hereticum, ne eidem communicet, de loco suo expellere vel eum in custodia detinere.

Master: The answer is that although no verbal mention of such a jurisdiction is made in divine law, one nevertheless may deduce its existence in substance from a convergence of divine, natural, and human law. One concludes indeed from divine law that a pope who has become a heretic is deprived of the papacy. And one holds from human law that there is to be no communication as described with a heretic pope, a duty which must also be observed with respect to physical contact, when this can be done without harmful disturbance to the faithful, because there is to be no contact of the type described with any heretic. Again, we have it from human law that if the pope or the temporal lord of some people becomes a heretic, the entire populace is released from the jurisdiction of both the pope and of the temporal lord, witness Gregory IX, who states (as we discover in Extra, De hereticis, c. ultimo) : "Let any know who were duty bound by any agreement, however strongly confirmed, to individuals obviously fallen into heresy, that they are released from the debt of human obedience and from any respectful deference whatever". [c. 16, cols. 789-790] While from natural law (indeed not the natural law which would have regulated our deeds had our original nature developed historically, but the natural law which exists for the period of fallen human nature) we deduce that the populace is not obligated to abandon its place of residence or its homeland because of the faithlessness of someone who is not the people's superior. From these various points, one concludes that if the pope becomes a heretic, and the temporal lord favours him, the populace obtains at least a certain jurisdiction over the heretic pope, because, based on the fact that a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy by divine law, he is not the superior of the people in his area of residence. And by human law the populace must not communicate with the heretic pope, therefore it must avoid contacting the heretic pope. Finally, by natural law a populace is not bound to desert or to abandon its country or territory because of a heretical pope. Therefore the populace is entitled to expel the pope from its territory, or to place him under detention, so as to avoid having to communicate with him.

Discipulus: Ista ratio non procedit nisi papa hereticus se ingereret communioni populi, ergo si non ingerit se communioni populi, populus nullam iurisdictionem habet super eum.

Student: This reason carries weight only if a heretic pope involves himself in active communion with the populace. Therefore if he does not seek such active contact, the populace possesses no jurisdiction over him.

Magister: Dicitur quod sufficit quod per rationem predictam probaretur populum in aliquo casu iurisdictionem aliquam (extendendo nomen iurisdictionis ad quamcunque potestatem expellendi vel etiam aliquem detinendi) super papam hereticum obtinere, quia dicitur quod ex tali iurisdictione populi super papam hereticum multiplicem contingit inferre.

Master: The response is that it suffices to prove by means of the stated reason that the populace occasionally obtains a certain jurisdiction over a heretic pope, stretching the term "jurisdiction" to include any power to expel or even to detain someone, because the contention is that from such a jurisdiction of the people over a heretic pope a broader one may be inferred.

Discipulus: Causa brevitatis, nolo quod ex iurisdictione predicta aliqua alia inferantur, sed dic secundum predictam opinionem, si papa hereticus voluerit recedere, an populus debeat eum dimittere liberum abire, an eum tenetur in firma custodia detinere.

Student: For the sake of brevity, I do not wish any other matters to be inferred from the jurisdiction being discussed. But answer the following on the basis of the stated opinion: if the heretic pope should decide to leave, must the populace allow him to depart in freedom, or is it bound to detain him in firm custody.

Magister: Respondetur quod populus tenetur eum in firma custodia detinere, cuius ratio assignatur talis. Non minus debet unaqueque persona et multitudo fidelium esse sollicita de salute spirituali proximorum quam corporali, secundum quod ex verbis beati Augustini que ponuntur 23 q. 4 cap. Ipsa pietas, que allegata sunt supra, colligitur evidenter. Sed si esset aliquis in populo qui, vallatus complicibus, eundem populum et omnem alium catholicum corporaliter conaretur extinguere, populus non deberet liberum abire dimittere, sed ne alios populos christianos occideret, detinere. Ergo si papa hereticus omnes catholicos spiritualiter per pravitatem hereticam conatur necare, populus cum quo moratur, non solum proprio periculo sed etiam periculo aliorum fidelium precavendo, ipsum detinere tenetur.

Master: The answer is that the populace is bound to detain him in firm custody, and the following reason is advanced to explain this. Each and every person and multitude of believers must be no less concerned about the spiritual salvation of their neighbours than about their physical salvation, a conviction evidently gathered from the words of blessed Augustine in 23 q. 4 c. Ipsa pietas, which were earlier advanced in argument. [cols. 909-910. Cf. 1 Dial. 6.44, 50] But if there was someone within the people who, with the help of accomplices, were to attempt to physically exterminate this same people and every other catholic people, the people would be obligated not to allow him to withdraw in freedom, but rather to detain him lest he slay the other Christian peoples. Therefore, if a heretic pope is attempting to spiritually destroy all catholics through heretical wickedness, the populace with which he is residing is obligated to detain him, not only to prevent peril to itself, but also to prevent peril to the other faithful.

Discipulus: Nunquid si populus permittit papam hereticum libere secum commorari, et suos dogmatizare errores, debet receptator hereticorum censeri, si potest papam hereticum detinere.

Student: If the populace allows the heretic pope to freely reside in its midst, and to propound his errors, must it be considered a receiver of heretics, assuming that it has the power to detain the heretic pope.

Magister: Respondetur quod sic. Quia ex quo spectat ad populum detinere papam hereticum quando dominus temporalis et prelati circa cohertionem pape heretici sunt dampnabiliter negligentes, si populus eum non detinet debet receptator pape heretici reputari.

Master: The answer is affirmative. Since it is up to the people to detain a heretic pope when the temporal lord and the prelates are culpably negligent with respect to the use of force against a heretic pope, if the populace does not detain him it must be considered to be a receiver of the heretic pope.

Discipulus: Nunquid quilibet de populo tali debet dici receptator pape heretici.

Student: Must any member of such a people be called a receiver of the heretic pope.

Magister: Respondetur quod omnes qui dampnabiliter negligunt papam hereticum detinere, vel qui tali negligentie consentiunt, sunt receptatores pape heretici. Si vero sunt aliqui in populo qui ad detentionem pape heretici alios exhortantur quantum licet eis pro gradu suo, paratique essent una cum aliis papam hereticum detinere, aut talem exhortationem metu mortis vel gravium tormentorum omittunt, dolentes quod papa hereticus minime detinetur, non sunt inter receptatores pape heretice computandi.

Master: The answer is that all those are receivers of the heretic pope who are culpably negligent in the matter of his detention, or who consent to such negligence. If, on the other hand, there are some members of the people who, to the extent that their status allows, exhort others to detain the heretic pope, and would be prepared to collaborate with others in the matter of detaining the heretic pope, or if their omission of such exhortation is due to fear of death or of severe torments, and they grieve at the fact that the heretic pope is not being detained, then they are not to be numbered among the receivers of the heretic pope.

Discipulus: Nunquid tales qui parati essent papam hereticum detinere tenentur recedere, ne communicent pape heretico.

Student: Are those who would be prepared to detain the heretic pope obligated to leave, so as not to communicate with the heretic pope.

Magister: Respondetur quod si tales remanere in populo minime possunt nisi communicent pape heretico propter potentiam pape heretici et suorum, communicare possunt corporaliter pape heretico, scilicet loquendo, comedendo, bibendo, et corporaliter insimul conversando, nec ad vitandam talem communionem cum notabili dampno suo tenentur recedere. Sed antequam communicent pape heretico aliter quam corporaliter tantum, puta in officio divino, vel in hiis que ad papatus spectant officium, maxime quantum ad ea que ordinis sunt, aut facto vel verbo protestando eum esse papam, debent de loco illo recedere, quia taliter communicare pape heretico nullus potest absque peccato mortali. Quilibet autem ante debet omnia mala tolerare quam peccare mortaliter.

Master: The answer is that if, due to the power of the heretic pope and of his supporters, such individuals could not remain members of the people unless they communicated with the heretic pope, they may physically communicate with him, namely, speak, eat, drink, and converse with him in mutual contact, and they are not obligated to leave with deleterious effects to themselves in order to avoid this kind of communication. But they must withdraw from this territory sooner than communicate with the heretic pope otherwise than physically, for instance, by going to mass with him, or having dealings with him pertinent to the papal office, most of all as to issues relating to spiritual order, or by acknowledging him to be pope by word or deed; for no one may communicate with a heretic pope in this manner without committing a mortal sin, and everyone ought rather to undergo all possible pains than to sin mortally.

Discipulus: Prima pars istius sententie decretali Innocentie 3ii, que ponitur Extra, De his que vi metusve causa fiunt, cap. Sacris, repugnare videtur. Ait enim: "distinguimus autem utrum is, qui communicat excommunicatis invitus, sit per coactionem astrictus aut per metum inductus. In primo siquidem casu talem non credimus excommunicatione teneri, cum magis pati, quam agere convincatur. In secundo vero licet metus attenuet culpam, quia tamen non eam prorsus excludit, cum pro nullo metu debeat quis mortale peccatum incurrere, talem excommunicationis labe credimus inquinari". Ex quibus verbis colligitur, ut videtur, quod nullus metus etiam mortis excusat corporaliter communicantem excommunicato a peccato mortali. Cum ergo papa hereticus sit excommunicatus quia incidit in canonem sententie promulgate, ut notat glossa 24 q. 1 cap. Achatius sicut allegatum est supra, quicunque communicat pape heretico, etiam corporaliter tantummodo, excommunicationis sententia inquinatur.

Student: The first part of this opinion seems to contradict the decretal of Innocent III found in Extra, De his que vi metusve causa fiunt, c. Sacris. For he states: "we should distinguish whether he who unwillingly communicates with excommunicated persons does this under pressure of force, or motivated by fear. In the first situation, at any rate, we do not believe the individual in question to be obligated by the excommunication, since he is clearly more a victim than an actor. But in the second case, although fear diminishes guilt, it does not entirely exclude it, because no one must commit a mortal sin however strong the fear, and therefore we believe such an individual to be polluted with the stain of excommunication". [col. 220] We gather from these words, it would appear, that no fear, not even fear of death, excuses from the commission of a mortal sin someone who physically communicates with an excommunicated person. Therefore, since a heretic pope is excommunicated because he falls under the sanction of a promulgated judgement, as notes the gloss to 24 q. 1 c. Achatius, [s.v. in heresim, col. 1382] earlier adduced in argument, [cf. 1 Dial. 6.19] whoever communicates with a heretic pope, even if merely physically, is polluted by a judgement of excommunication.

Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod Innocentius 3us in decretali predicta de excommunicatione corporali nullam facit penitus mentionem, et ideo pro morte vitanda licitum est cuicunque excommunicato communicare corporaliter. Nec potest ecclesia de plenitudine potestatis artare quemcunque contra suam voluntatem in tali casu excommunicatum vitare. Et ideo Innocentius loquitur de communione non corporali sed de aliqua alia, puta in crimine vel alio modo, que absque constitutione humana noscitur interdicta.

Master: The answer to this is that Innocent III makes no mention whatever of physical excommunication in the aforesaid decretal, and therefore one is permitted to communicate physically with any excommunicated individual in order to avoid death. Nor can the church use its plenitude of power in this case to force anyone against his will into avoiding an excommunicated individual. And therefore Innocent is not speaking of a physical communication but of a different kind of communication, for instance in crime, or in some other fashion which is known to be forbidden independently of human law.

Discipulus: Circa dictam responsionem due difficultates michi occurrunt. Prima est, quia videtur quod ecclesia, que etiam summum pontificem comprehendit, penes quam plenitudo residet potestatis, potest precipere cuilibet catholico ut nullo metu mortis vel perditionis rerum excommunicato communicet. Aliter enim plenitudinem potestatis nequaquam haberet. Si autem ecclesia potest hoc precipere, alius obedire tenetur. Secunda est, quia si ecclesia non potest aliquem obligare sub pena excommunicationis ut nec etiam metu mortis corporaliter communicet excommunicato, videtur etiam per eandem rationem quod per eandem penam non potest obligare fideles ne aliter quam corporaliter excommunicato communicent.

Student: I have two difficulties with respect to this answer. The first is this. It appears that the church (which also includes the supreme pontiff), in whose competence plenitude of power resides, may command to any catholic not to communicate with an excommunicated person even if threatened by death or loss of property. For otherwise the church would not possess plenitude of power. And if the church may command this, then one is bound to obey. The second difficulty is this. If the church cannot obligate someone under penalty of excommunication to refrain from physical communication with an excommunicated person even if threatened by death, it appears (for the same reason) that the church cannot obligate the faithful by the same penalty not to communicate with excommunicated persons otherwise than physically.

Magister: Ad primam respondetur quod ecclesia non potest aliquem obligare sub pena excommunicationis ut nullo metu mortis vel perditionis rerum communicet excommunicato, cuius ratio assignatur talis. Ad illa que supererogationis sunt vel excessive gravia dinoscuntur, ad que quis nec iure divino nec iure naturali nec spontanea voluntate noscitur obligari, non potest ecclesia de plenitudine potestatis fideles artare. Hec enim est causa quare ecclesia non potest christianos ad votum continentie vel virginitatis artare, quia, ut lex sacra dicit: "castitas que suaderi potest, imperari non potest". Similiter ecclesia non potest cogere christianos religionem mendicantium vel monachorum intrare, quia hoc supererogationis est, et causa quare ad ea que supererogationis sunt non potest ecclesia christianos compellere, est quia talia excessive sunt gravia, ad que christiani lege divina vel iure naturali minime obligantur. Quare ad ea prelati christianos obligare non debent, ne sint de numero illorum de quibus dicit Christus Matthei 23: "alligant autem onera gravia et importabilia et imponunt in humeros hominum: digito autem suo nolunt ea movere". Ad ea igitur que sunt excessive difficilia et gravia non potest ecclesia regulariter obligare fideles, licet ex causa et pro culpa ad talia possit aliquos obligare, quemadmodum aliquibus pro culpa precedenti matrimonium interdicit, et aliquos in monasteria etiam invitos statuit retrudendos. Cum igitur mortem suscipere et res suas amittere et gravia tormenta subire, et talia consimilia, sint inter excessive gravia computanda, ecclesia per nullam constitutionem potest regulariter christianos in aliquo casu, in quo ad huiusmodi nec per legem divinam nec per legem nature nec per voluntatem spontaneam obligantur, astringere. Ad non communicandum autem corporaliter excommunicato, christiani nullo predictorum modorum tenentur vel artantur, quia si ad hoc aliquo predictorum modorum essent astricti, etiam de dispensatione pape non possent aliqui communicare excommunicatis, quod constat esse falsum. Ergo ecclesia regulariter per aliquam constitutionem generalem sub pena excommunicationis non potest quemlibet obligare ut nec metu mortis vel amissionis rerum corporaliter communicet excommunicatis.

Master: The answer to the first difficulty is that the church cannot obligate someone under penalty of excommunication to refrain from communicating with an excommunicated person even if threatened by death or loss of property, and this for the following reason. The church cannot from plenitude of power force the faithful to perform acts of supererogation, or such as are known to be excessively burdensome, acts one is known not to be obligated to perform either by divine law, or by natural law, or by one's free will. This is indeed the reason why the church cannot force Christians to vow chastity or virginity, because, as the sacred law states: "chastity may be advocated, but cannot be ordered". [32 q. 1 c. 13, col. 1119] Similarly, the church cannot force Christians to enter a religious Order of mendicants, or monks, because this is a supererogatory matter. And the reason why the church cannot compel Christians to perform acts of supererogation is because such acts are exceedingly burdensome, and Christians are not obligated to perform them by divine law or by natural law. Therefore, prelates must not obligate Christians to perform such acts, lest the prelates be numbered among those of whom Christ states in Matthew 23: "for they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers". [Matthew 23:4] Therefore the church cannot, as a rule, obligate the faithful to perform acts which are excessively difficult and onerous, although it may obligate some to such performance for cause and fault. For instance, it forbids matrimony to some on the basis of a prior misdeed, and it commands that individuals be locked up in monasteries even against their will. Therefore since death, loss of property, harsh torture, and the like are numbered among excessively onerous experiences, the church cannot, as a rule, constrain Christians by any legislation to perform or accept such specifics where Christians are not obligated to do so by divine law, by natural law, or by their own free will. And indeed Christians are neither bound nor forced by any of the stated sources to refrain from physical communication with an excommunicated person, for if they were bound to avoid this by any of the stated sources, then none could communicate with excommunicated individuals even by papal dispensation, a fact evidently false. Therefore as a rule the church cannot obligate anyone by some general statute, under penalty of excommunication, to refrain from physical communication with excommunicated individuals, even if threatened by death or loss of property.

Cum vero dicis quod ecclesia non haberet tunc plenitudinem potestatis, respondent quidam quod summe necessarium esset hiis diebus, quod per sapientes iuramentis et horribilibus comminationibus per reges ad veritatem dicendam artatos, declararetur que spectant ad plenitudinem potestatis quam ecclesia noscitur obtinere. Dicunt enim quod aliqui literati, ut beneficia ecclesiastica consequantur, ita ampliant plenitudinem potestatis ecclesie, quod omnem iurisdictionem laicalem, imo omne dominium et proprietatem laicorum in quibuscunque rebus temporalibus manifeste evacuant. Quod tamen scripture divine aperte repugnat, cum etiam infideles secundum scripturam sacram rerum temporalium habeant dominium et proprietatem, nec tempore apostolorum licuit ecclesie dominos infideles rebus temporalibus spoliare.

And when you say that in that case the church would not have plenitude of power, some thinkers respond that it would be of the highest necessity in these times of ours that kings pressure wise men by oaths and dreadful threats to declare the truth as to matters relevant to the plenitude of power which the church is known to possess. For these thinkers claim that some of the learned, in order to obtain ecclesiastical benefices, magnify the church's plenitude of power to such an extent that they obviously eliminate every lay jurisdiction, indeed every lordship and property of laymen in any temporal goods whatsoever. And this clearly clashes with Holy Writ, since according to Sacred Scripture even non-believers possess lordship and property of temporal goods, nor was it permitted to the church in the age of the apostles to strip non-believing lords of their temporal possessions.

Discipulus: Quomodo evacuant aliqui omnem proprietatem et dominium laicorum.

Student: In what way do some of the learned eliminate every property and lordship of laymen.

Magister: Respondetur quod sunt quidam dicentes quod omne illud spectat ad plenitudinem potestatis ecclesie quod non obviat legi divini neque legi nature, et in omnibus casibus omnes christiani summo pontifici obedire tenentur. Quare cum non habere dominium et proprietatem temporalium neque legi divine neque legi nature repugnet, in hoc tenentur omnes laici summo pontifici obedire. Quare summus pontifex potest ad libitum de temporalibus laicorum disponere, et per consequens non sunt censendi ad laicorum proprietatem et dominium pertinere.

Master: The answer is that there are some who say that everything which does not contradict divine law or natural law pertains to the plenitude of power of the church, and in all such cases all Christians are obligated to obey the supreme pontiff. Therefore since to lack lordship and property of temporals contradicts neither divine law nor the law of nature, all laymen are bound to obey the supreme pontiff in this. Therefore the supreme pontiff may dispose arbitrarily of the temporals of laymen, and consequently these temporals are not reckoned as pertinent to the property and lordship of laymen.

Discipulus: De hac materia te exquisite interrogabo in tractatu De dogmatibus Iohannis 22i, quare nunc tantummodo dic cur, non obstante plenitudine potestatis ecclesie, ecclesia non potest obligare christianos ut etiam pro morte vitanda non communicent corporaliter excommunicatis.

Student: I shall question you abundantly on this issue in the treatise On the doctrines of John XXII, therefore at present explain only why the church, notwithstanding the plenitude of ecclesiastical power, cannot obligate Christians to refrain from physically communicating with excommunicated persons even in order to avoid death.

Magister: Respondetur breviter a nonnullis quod hoc ad plenitudinem potestatis ecclesie minime spectat, quia sicut plenitudo potestatis ecclesie ad res laicorum, ut libere faciat de eis quicquid sibi placuerit, minime se extendit, ita etiam plenitudo potestatis ecclesie ad illa que supererogationis et gravia sunt nullatenus se extendit, ut, scilicet, illa valeat imperare, licet suadere possit.

Master: Some briefly respond that this is not relevant to the church's plenitude of power, because just as the church's plenitude of power does not extend itself to the properties of laymen, so that it might freely and arbitrarily dispose of such, neither does the church's plenitude of power extend itself to onerous and supererogatory matters, namely, so that it might command their performance, although it may counsel this.

Discipulus: Hoc quod plenitudo potestatis ecclesie ad gravia se minime extendit Capitulum Karoli quod ponitur dis. 19 cap. In memoriam adversari videtur. Ibi enim sic legitur: "licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta sede imponatur iugum, tamen feramus et pia devotione toleremus". Quibus verbis manifeste asseritur quod ad gravia potestas summi pontificis se extendit, cum 'vix ferenda' sint inter gravia computanda.

Student: The claim that the church's plenitude of power does not extend itself to onerous matters appears to negate the Capitulary of Charles [Charlemagne] which is found in dis. 19 c. In memoriam. For in that context we read as follows: "even if a hardly bearable yoke is imposed by this holy see, we shall nevertheless bear it, and tolerate it with pious devotion". [cols. 60-61] These words clearly assert that the power of the supreme pontiff extends itself to onerous matters, since matters "hardly bearable" must be numbered among such.

Magister: Respondetur quod Karolus loquitur de hiis que spectant ad officium summi pontificis. De aliis autem nequaquam intelligit. Unde si papa preciperet regi vel comiti quod daret nepoti suo aliquam civitatem vel castrum, imo duos florenos, sibi nullatenus obedire esset astrictus. Multo fortius si tale quid preciperet pauperi, non teneretur sibi parere.

Master: The answer is that Charles is speaking of such matters as pertain to the office of the supreme pontiff, and does not understand this comment as relevant to other matters. Hence, were the pope to order a king or a count to grant the pope's nephew a certain city or fortress, nay, even two florins, the king or the count would in no way be obligated to obey him. All the more if the pope were to command something similar to a poor person would the latter not be bound to obey him.

Discipulus: Dic quomodo respondetur ad secundam difficultatem quam tetigi supra.

Student: Explain how one responds to the second difficulty I raised earlier.

Magister: Ad illam respondetur per predicta, quia ubi aliquid a lege divina vel iure naturali noscitur esse prohibitum, ibi potest ecclesia gravissimam penam transgredientibus infligere, et ad servandum preceptum legis divine et legis nature catholicos obligare. Ubi autem non est nisi preceptum humanum, nisi ex causa rationabili non voluntaria, non potest ad servandum idem preceptum catholicos sub gravi artare pena quin saltem pro morte vitanda posset quis tale preceptum pretergredi. In tali enim casu epyeykes interpretatur legem humanam non esse servandam in illo intellectu quem verba prima facie sonare videntur. Sic, sicut allegatum est supra, Bonifatius martyr iuramentuum suum quod prestitit de non communicando hereticis interpretatus fuit, quam interpretationem Zacharias summus pontifex approbavit. Cum igitur communicare corporaliter excommunicatis non est prohibitum a lege divina neque a lege nature, per nullum preceptum humanum possunt regulariter christiani constringi quin pro morte vitanda possint communicare excommunicatis, licet ex causa et pro culpa aliqui, et pro aliquo tempore omnes, possint astringi ne cum aliquo excommunicato communicent etiam pro morte vitanda. Unde et tale quid posset accidere circa papam hereticum, quod omnes christiani possent astringi ne communicarent eidem etiam pro morte vitanda, sed hoc non est regulare de omnibus christianis omni tempore respectu omnium excommunicatorum. Sed communicare excommunicato aliter quam corporaliter, puta in crimine, vel in hiis que ad ecclesiasticum officium pertinent, quo excommunicatus fungi non potest, est prohibitum a lege divina. Ideo ibi potest ecclesia addicere penam excommunicationis, ut nullus christianus taliter communicet excommunicato etiam pro morte vitanda.

Master: The answer flows from the points just made. For where something is known to be forbidden by divine law or by natural law, there the church is empowered to inflict the heaviest of penalties on delinquents, and to obligate catholics to observe the commandments of divine law and of natural law. But where there exists only a human legal provision, the church, except for some reasonable and involuntary cause, cannot force catholics to observe this provision under threat of severe penalty, since someone might bypass the church's command at the very least in order to avoid death. For in such a situation, a reasonable person [epyeikes: cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics V.10] interprets the human law as not to be observed in the sense which its wording initially seems to convey. Just so, as was argued earlier, [cf. 1 Dial. 7.58] did Boniface the martyr interpret his professed oath that he would not communicate with heretics; and the supreme pontiff Zachary approved this interpretation. Therefore, since physical communication with excommunicated persons is forbidden neither by divine law nor by the law of nature, Christians may not, as a rule, be constrained by any human precept so as to be prevented from communicating with excommunicated persons in order to avoid death; although for cause and fault some individuals, and at certain times all individuals, may be forcibly ordered not to communicate with some excommunicated person even in order to avoid death. And something of the sort may possibly happen with respect to a heretic pope. All Christians may well be constrained not to communicate with him even in order to avoid death. However, this is not an operative rule for all Christians at all times and with respect to all excommunicated persons. But it is forbidden by divine law to communicate with an excommunicated person otherwise than physically, for instance to communicate with him in a crime, or in those issues which pertain to an ecclesiastical office which the excommunicated person cannot exercise. Therefore in this case the church may legally assign a penalty of excommunication, so that no Christian communicate in this way with an excommunicated person even on order to avoid death.

Capitulum 68

Chapter 68

Discipulus: Aliqua que in precedenti capitulo recitasti aliquibus forsitan videbuntur obscura, que in tractatu De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam te faciam explicare. Ideo, illis omissis, dic qua pena receptatores pape heretici et sequacium eius sunt plectendi.

Student: Some of the things which you have recited in the preceding chapter will perhaps appear obscure to a few, and I shall endeavour to have you explain them in the treatise On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith. Therefore, omitting them for the moment, explain the punishment which receivers of a heretic pope and of his followers ought to suffer.

Magister: Circa hoc possunt esse opiniones contrarie. Una, quod pena hereticorum sunt plectendi quia heretici sunt censendi. Hec videtur esse opinio glosse Extra, De hereticis, cap. Excommunicamus 1 # Credentes, que super verbo 'receptatores' ait: "sine quibus heretici manere diu non possunt, arg. ff. De offic. presid. lege Congruit, ff. De receptatoribus lib. 1. Unde merito isti sunt puniendi: imo gravius delinquunt, qui aliorum errores defendunt, et acrius puniri debent, 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum. Et ideo simili pena cum hereticis puniuntur, 11. q. 3 c. Qui consentit". Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod receptatores hereticorum gravius delinquunt quam heretici et simili pena puniendi sunt.

Master: There may be contrary opinions concerning this issue. One opinion is that they must suffer the punishment of heretics because they are to be reckoned heretics. This appears to be the opinion of the gloss on the word "receptatores" in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes, which states: "without such, heretics cannot remain secure for long, ff. De offic. presid. lege Congruit, ff. De receptatoribus lib. 1. Hence, such individuals deserve to be punished: indeed the crime of those who defend the error of others is more serious, and they must be punished more harshly, 24 q. 3. Qui aliorum. And therefore they receive a penalty similar to that of heretics, 11 q. 3 c. Qui consentit". [col. 1683] We are given to understand from these words that the receivers of heretics commit a more serious crime than the heretics, and must suffer a similar punishment.

Alia est opinio quod illi qui solummodo sunt receptatores hereticorum et non approbant errores eorum, licet timore vel cupiditate tracti aut ex aliqua causa mala eos nolunt de terra sua fugare nec etiam detinere, non sunt heretici reputandi, nec sunt quoad omnia pena hereticorum plectendi, quia legitime sanctiones inter hereticos et receptatores hereticorum expresse distinguunt, et taxantes penam receptatorum hereticorum moderatiorem penam infligunt, sicut patet Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes. Hoc etiam ex eodem capitulo # Moveantur colligitur evidenter, ubi sic legitur: "si vero dominus temporalis, requisitus et monitus ab ecclesia, suam terram purgare neglexerit ab heretica feditate, per metropolitanum et ceteros conprovinciales episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur, et, si satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo pontifici, ut ex tunc ipse vasallos ab eius fidelitate denunciet absolutos, et terram exponat catholicis occupandam, qui eam, exterminatis hereticis, absque ulla contradictione possideant". Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod dominus temporalis, licet sit receptator hereticorum, utpote quia quamvis requisitus et monitus ab ecclesia terram suam non purgat ab heretica pravitate, non est statim ab omni pena hereticorum plectendus, quia bona sua sunt statim minime publicanda, nec terra sua est ab aliis catholicis occupanda, quam tamen penam heretici ipso facto incurrunt, quia hereticus etiam occultus de iure nichil possidet (dis. 8 Quo iure).

There is another opinion, that those who are merely receivers of heretics and do not approve of their errors (even if, motivated by fear or cupidity or by some other wicked reason, they refuse to expel the heretics from their land or even to place them under arrest), are not to be reckoned heretics, nor suffer in all respects the punishment of heretics, because legitimate legal rules expressly distinguish the status of heretics from that of receivers of heretics, and inflict a lesser punishment on receivers of heretics when assigning penalties. This is made clear in Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes. [col. 788] This is also evidently gathered from the section Moveantur in the same chapter, where we read as follows: "if, however, the temporal lord, asked and warned by the church, should neglect to cleanse his land of heretical filth, he shall be involved in a bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province, and, should he scorn to give satisfaction within a year, notification of this shall be made to the supreme pontiff, so that he might as of that moment proclaim that the lord's vassals are released from fidelity to him, and explain that the lord's land is there for catholics to occupy, who, having exterminated the heretics, may possess it without any impediment". [col. 788] We are given to understand from these words that a temporal lord, even if he is a receiver of heretics (for instance, because although asked and warned by the church he does not cleanse his land of heretical wickedness), is not to suffer immediately every punishment due to heretics, since his properties are not to be immediately confiscated, nor is his land to be occupied by other catholics, a punishment, on the other hand, which heretics incur ipso facto; for a heretic, even if occult, legally possesses nothing (dis. 8, Quo iure). [col. 12-13. Cf. gloss s.v. nam iure divino, col. 22]

Discipulus: Ista secunda opinio magis videtur michi consona statutis sanctorum patrum, ideo quomodo ad glossam que videtur esse in contrarium respondetur declara.

Student: This second opinion appears to me to be more in tune with the statutes of the holy fathers, therefore declare how one responds to the gloss which seems to contradict it.

Magister: Dupliciter respondetur. Uno modo, quod glossa non est autentica, et aperte veritati repugnat, ideo est neganda. Nec videtur inconveniens negare glossas decretorum, cum etiam ipse textus decretorum aperte negetur eo quod in textu assertiones erronee inserantur. Sicut patet 23 q. 4 # Sed obiicitur, ubi narrat Gratianus, quod tempore Achab missi fuerunt duo quinquagenarii ad Helyam qui dicerent: "homo Dei, rex Israel vocat te". Quod tamen est heresis explicite condempnata, quia contraria veritas est explicite approbata, videlicet, quod hoc accidit tempore Ochozie, mortuo rege Achab, quia in scriptura divina invenitur expresse, et ipse Gratianus, si dicto illo pertinaciter adhesisset, fuisset hereticus manifestus. Si ideo non fuit hereticus, hoc accidit quia ex sola ignorantia absque omni pertinacia dixit predictam heresim opinando, quod sibi ex hoc contingit quod memoriam libri Regum tunc actualiter non habebat. Unde super verbo 'Achab' dicit glossa: "confundit historiam, non enim Achab misit illos quinquagenarios sed rex Ochozias, nec etiam illud contingit tempore Achab, sed illud contingit sub Ochozia". Et ita patet quod etiam glossa negat textum libri decretorum. Glossa etiam in pluribus locis reprobat Gratianum, sicut patet 11 q. 3 # Evidenter itaque, et 2 q. 3 # 1, et in aliis locis pluribus. Et ideo dicunt quod multo fortius licet negare glossas que, ut dicunt, nonnunquam divine scripture repugnant. Interdum etiam canonicas sanctiones allegant inepte, quod, ut dicunt, ex hoc accidit quod glossatores in scripturis sacris et scientiis philosophicis nequaquam periti fuerunt, et ideo quamplura capitula iuris canonici ex scripturis divinis et originalibus sanctorum accepta nequaquam profunde et perfecte intelligere potuerunt.

Master: The answer is twofold. One approach is to state that the gloss is not authentic, and that it openly contradicts the truth, therefore it must be rejected. Nor does it seem inconvenient to negate the glosses of canon law, since the very text of such law may be openly denied when erroneous assertions are included therein. This is clear from 23 q. 4 # Sed obicitur, [Gratian, dictum post c. 29, col. 913] where Gratian tells the story that in the time of Achab, two fifty-year old men were sent to the prophet Elias with this message: "man of God, the king of Israel summons thee". [2 Kings 1:9] The story, however, is an explicitly condemned heresy, because the contrary truth is explicitly approved, namely, that this event occurred in the time of Ochozias, after the death of king Achab, for this is explicitly found in Holy Writ, and Gratian himself, had he pertinaciously clung to his statement, would have been a manifest heretic. If therefore he was not a heretic, this happened because he stated the mentioned heresy as an opinion, out of sheer ignorance and without any pertinacity, something he became involved in because at that moment he did not actually remember the exact words of the Book of Kings. Whence the gloss states on the word "Achab": "he [Gratian] confuses historical events, for it is not Achab who sent these fifty-year-old men, but king Ochozias, nor did this event occur in the time of Achab, but all this happened under Ochozias". [col. 1316] And so it is clear that even a gloss negates the text of the canon law book. The gloss texts also criticize Gratian in many contexts, which is clear in 11 q. 3 # Evidenter itaque, [Gratian, dictum post c. 24, col. 651. Cf. gloss s.v. ab ingressu, and s.v. Item Gregorius, col. 932] and in 2 q. 3 # 1, [Gratian, dictum ante c. 1, col. 451. Cf gloss s.v. quia autem est notandum, col. 632] and in many other places. And therefore these thinkers say that one is permitted even more to negate glosses which, as they say, are sometimes inconsistent with Divine Scripture. Glosses occasionally even cite canonical decisions in argument incompetently, which, they say, is due to the fact that the authors of these glosses were not learned in the Sacred Scriptures and in the philosophical sciences, and therefore could not understand deeply and perfectly many chapters of canon law which were borrowed from the Divine Scriptures and from the writings of saints.

Aliter dicitur quod glossa predicta non dicit receptatores hereticorum gravius delinquere quam hereticos et consimiliter puniendos, sed transeundo de receptatoribus hereticorum ad defensores hereticorum, dicit defensores hereticorum gravius puniendos et gravius delinquere, quod bene intellectum de defensoribus hereticorum continet veritatem.

Another approach is to say that the gloss in question does not state that receivers of heretics commit a more serious crime than the heretics and must receive a similar punishment, but, making a transition from receivers of heretics to defenders of heretics, the gloss states that defenders of heretics are to be punished more severely and commit a more serious crime, and this, well understood, is indeed true with respect to defenders of heretics.

Capitulum 69

Chapter 69

Discipulus: Post inquisitionem distinctam licet propter amplitudinem materie brevem de credentibus, fautoribus, defensoribus, et receptatoribus hereticorum, peto ut absque probationibus magnis, causa prolixitatis vitande, dicas secundum aliquam opinionem an omnes credentes, et similiter omnes fautores, et omnes defensores, et omnes receptatores pape heretice et aliorum hereticorum sint equaliter reprehensibiles iudicandi.

Student: After this specific investigation concerning believers, abettors, defenders, and receivers of heretics, brief though it was due to the abundance of the material, I ask that you examine by reference to some opinion, but without major probative arguments so as to avoid unwelcome length in the presentation, whether all believers, and similarly all abettors, and all defenders, and all receivers of a heretic pope and of other heretics, are to be judged equally reprehensible.

Magister: Respondetur quod aliquos esse magis vel minus aut equaliter reprehensibiles iudicandos dupliciter potest intelligi, scilicet, secundum iudicium divinum, et humanum. Secundum iudicium divinum, illi sunt magis reprehensibiles iudicandi qui ex maiori contemptu Dei vel ex maiori negligentia peccant in aliquo predictorum. Hoc autem est notum soli Deo.

Master: The answer is that there are two ways of understanding that some are to be judged as more, or less, or equally reprehensible, namely, by reference to divine judgement, and by reference to human judgement. According to divine judgement, they are to be judged more reprehensible who sin in one of the mentioned situations with greater contempt of God or with greater negligence. However, this is known only to God.

Discipulus: Non intendebam querere nisi qui essent reprehensibiles iudicandi secundum humanum iudicium, et hoc non simpliciter, sed quoad aliquid et quoad quid. Nolo enim intricatas et secundum aliquos fantasticas questiones in hoc opere pertractari.

Student: I did not intend to inquire about any save those who would be judged reprehensible according to human judgement, and furthermore, not in some absolute fashion, but by reference to specific circumstances and events. For I don't want involved (and according to some, fantastic) questions to be analyzed in this work.

Magister: Ad intentionem tuam dicunt nonnulli quod, secundum humanum iudicium, credentium hereticis et heretice pravitati gravius peccant literati quam illiterati, quia literati, ceteris paribus, possunt facilius cognoscere veritatem. Item, inter literatos gravius peccant, ceteris paribus, theologi quam alii, et inter theologos gravius peccant illi qui magis nutriti fuerunt in contraria veritate. Si enim aliquis papa vel alius dogmatizaret et asserere conaretur errores quorundam magistrorum Parisiensium a summis pontificibus condempnatos, qui statum mendicantium, scilicet Predicatorum et Minorum, erronee dampnaverunt, inter omnes credentes erroribus illis pape vel alterius, Predicatores et Minores gravius delinquere noscerentur. Quia quanto magis aliquis cognoscit vel habet cognoscere veritatem, tanto magis peccat si veritatem negat eandem. Cum ergo ad Predicatores et Minores specialissime spectat cognoscere veritatem status sui, magisque quam alii sint in notitia status sui nutriti, si, cupientes pape placere vel ex alia causa credent erroribus quibus status dampnatur eorum, magis quam alii, ceteris paribus, peccare noscuntur. Et si illi errores in fidem impingunt, non solummodo ordinum suorum sed etiam proditores christianitatis sunt censendi, nec unquam christianitas poterit de eis confidere tempore temptationis. Si enim ille est proditor veritatis qui non libere pronuntiat veritatem quam pronuntiare oportet (11 q. 3 Nolite), multo fortius ille est proditor veritatis qui credit errori quem antea reputavit errorem. In casu ergo predicto et in omni consimili Predicatores et Minores ultra omnes peccarent huiusmodi credendo erroribus. Inter ipsos autem gravius peccarent literatiores, sive essent magistri sive discipuli. Sepe enim hiis diebus discipuli superant magistros in veritatis cognitione. Nam quia acceptatores personarum ad magisterium ambitiosos exaltant, plures magistri istis temporibus rursum indigent ut doceantur que sunt elementa exordii sermonum Dei, et facti sunt quibus lacte opus sit, non solido cibo, et ideo literatiores, sive sint discipuli sive magistri, gravius peccant credentes erroribus.

Master: Focusing on your intention, one responds that there are a few thinkers who say that, according to human judgement, of those who believe heretics and heretical wickedness, the learned sin more seriously than the unlearned, because the learned, other things being equal, may come to know the truth more easily. Again: among the learned, other things being equal, the theologians sin more seriously than do the others, and among the theologians, they sin more seriously who were more comprehensively educated in the contrary truth. For if some pope, or someone else, were to officially teach and attempt to assert the errors of certain Parisian masters condemned by supreme pontiffs, masters who had erroneously criticized the status of mendicants, namely that of the Preachers [Dominicans] and of the Minors [Franciscans], it is these very Preachers and Minors who would be known to have committed the more serious offence among all the believers of such errors of the pope or of someone else. For to the extent that someone has or is in a position to have a greater knowledge of some truth, to that extent does he commit a more serious sin if he denies that truth. Therefore, since it pertains most specifically to Preachers and to Minors to know the truth of their status, and since they were more intensely educated than others in the knowledge of their status, if, desiring to please the pope or for some other reason, they believe the errors by which their status is criticized, they are known, other things being equal, to be committing a greater sin than others. And if these errors impact on the faith, they must be understood to have not only betrayed their Orders, but Christendom as well, nor may Christendom ever have confidence in them in a time of temptation. For if he is a traitor to the truth who does not freely profess a truth which needs to be proclaimed (11 q. 3 Nolite), [cols. 649-650] all the more strongly is someone a traitor to the truth who believes an error which he previously considered to be such. Therefore in the case just mentioned, and in any similar cases, Preachers and Minors would sin beyond all others by believing these errors. And among them those more learned would sin more seriously, whether they were masters or students. For in our times, students are frequently superior to masters in knowledge of the truth. Indeed, because those prone to show undue favouritism to persons elevate the ambitious to master status, many masters in our times are again in dire need of being taught the rudimentary elements of the words of God, and have become as those who require milk rather than solid food. Therefore those who are more learned, whether they are students or masters, sin more seriously by believing errors.

Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius inter fautores pape heretici et sequacium eius.

Student: Who sin more seriously among the abettors of a heretic pope and his followers.

Magister: Respondetur quod reges et principes scienter faventes pape heretico, ratione potentie temporalis qua absque periculo temporali valent sibi resistere, gravius peccant quam alii. Nam alii, qui non tanta vallantur potentia, absque forte aliquali periculo pape heretico resistere non valerent, et ita timor periculi attenuaret peccatum eorum. Et ex isto concluditur quod, quanto aliqui maiorem defensionem haberent quam alii, tanto gravius peccarent pape heretico favendo. Si enim aliquis rex vel princeps omnes resistentes pape heretico in dominio suo manentes defenderet, vel eos minime impugnaret, multo gravius delinquerent qui, manentes in dominio illius regis vel principis, pape heretico aliquo modo faverent, quam alii commorantes in dominiis regum et principum qui resistentes pape heretico nequaquam defenderent sed persequerentur, vel persequi et molestari ab aliis minime prohiberent.

Master: The answer is that kings and princes who knowingly support a heretic pope, sin more seriously than others, by reason of the temporal power which would make it possible for them to resist this pope without temporal danger. For others, not having such power to safeguard them, would perhaps not be in a position to resist the heretic pope without some danger, and thus the fear of danger would reduce the seriousness of their sin. And from this one concludes that to the extent that some would have greater defense capabilities than others, to that extent they would sin more seriously in supporting a heretic pope. Indeed, if some king or prince were to defend (or fail to attack) all those residing in his dominion who resisted a heretic pope, they would commit a far greater offence who would support the heretic pope in some manner while residing in the dominion of this king or prince, than others residing in the dominions of kings and princes who would not defend opponents of a heretic pope, but either persecute them or fail to prevent their being persecuted and harmed by others.

Discipulus: Mirum videtur quod reges et principes in hoc casu gravius peccarent quam prelati, cum magis pertineat ad prelatos obviare pape heretico quam ad reges et principes.

Student: It seems astonishing that in this case kings and princes would sin more seriously than prelates, since it is more the function of prelates to resist a heretic pope than that of kings and princes.

Magister: Respondetur quod quidam prelati inter principes, ratione temporalis potentie, computantur, et ideo illi prelati favendo pape heretico peccarent gravissime, quia peccatum aliorum aliquo modo attenuaret timor periculi temporalis. Cum vero dicis quod ad prelatos magis spectat obviare pape heretico quam ad reges et principes, respondetur quod ad omnes spectat obviare pape heretico, quia, sicut notat glossa Extra, De hereticis, Vergentis: "quod in religionem divinam committitur, in omnium fertur iniuriam, et publicum crimen committitur, Codice, eodem titulo, lege Manichaeos". Sic etiam, ut habetur dis.1: "ius publicum est in sacris et sacerdotibus et magistratibus", ubi dicit glossa: "unde qui ledit sacerdotes, vel res sacras, ab omnibus tanquam pro publico crimine potest accusari". Multo magis ius publicum in fide christiana consistit, et multo fortius qui ledit et impingit fidem catholicam tanquam pro publico crimine potest ab omnibus accusari, quare omnes tenentur pape heretico tanquam publicum crimen committenti resistere. Et ita ad reges et principes spectat pape heretico obviare. Et hoc similiter spectat ad prelatos qui etiam inter principes nullatenus numerantur, sed quodammodo aliter. Quia ad reges et principes spectat contra papam hereticum exercere potentiam temporalem, nisi essent aliqui qui vellent sponte ex instinctu divino subire martyrium, quemadmodum legio Thebeorum ad martyrium se sponte obtulit, licet, si voluisset, armis materialibus restitisset.

Master: The answer is that some prelates are numbered among princes by reason of their temporal power, and therefore these prelates would sin most seriously by favouring a heretic pope, since the sin of the other prelates would be diminished in some measure by their fear of temporal danger. When you claim, however, that it is more the function of prelates to resist a heretic pope than that of kings and princes, the answer is that all have the function of resisting a heretic pope, because, as the gloss to Extra, De hereticis, Vergentis notes: "what is committed against the Christian religion is an injury which affects everyone, and it is the commission of a public crime, Codice, eo.tit., l. Manichaeos". [s.v. longe sit gravius, col. 1676] Similarly, we have this in dis. 1: "public right consists in the sacred, the priesthood, and the administration", [c. 11, col. 3] where the gloss states: "hence, he who does harm to priests, or to sacred objects, may be accused by all as one who has committed a public crime". [col. 6] Much more does public right consist in the Christian religion, and much more strongly may someone who harms and impacts upon the catholic faith be accused by all as one who has committed a public crime. Therefore everybody is obligated to resist a heretic pope as someone who is committing a public crime. And thus kings and princes have the function of opposing a heretic pope. This pertains in similar fashion even to those prelates who are not numbered among the princes, but here the approach is somewhat different. For it is the task of kings and princes to exercise temporal authority against a heretic pope, unless there be some among them who wish to submit voluntarily to martyrdom by divine inspiration, just as the Theban legion spontaneously offered itself to martyrdom, although, had it wanted to, it could have involved itself in armed resistance.

Ad prelatos autem qui non sunt principes, spectat scripturarum testimoniis et sanctis exhortationibus, secularis auxilii brachium invocando, pape heretico obviare. Porro quia reges et principes essent extra timorem periculi quamvis papam hereticum impugnarent, multi autem prelati absque periculo temporali papam hereticum impugnare non possent, ideo reges et principes pape heretico favendo gravius peccarent quam prelati in periculo constituti. Et etiam religiosi ac predicatores et doctores qui essent extra periculum quamvis papam hereticum impugnarent, favendo pape heretico gravius peccarent quam reges et principes, pro eo quod maiorem habent notitiam veritatis, et ad opera spiritualia , inter que impugnatio pape heretici non obtinet infimum locum, se artius obligaverunt.

But to prelates who are not princes, it pertains to oppose the heretic pope by citing Scriptures, proferring holy exhortations, and requesting the assistance of the secular arm. Furthermore, because kings and princes would fear no danger in the process of opposing a heretic pope, while many prelates would be unable to oppose a heretic pope without temporal danger, kings and princes who support a heretic pope would sin more seriously than prelates threatened by danger. And likewise religious, preachers, and doctors [masters] , who would not be in danger if they opposed a heretic pope, would sin more seriously by supporting a heretic pope than kings and princes, in that they would possess a better knowledge of the truth, and because they had obligated themselves more strictly to the performance of spiritual deeds, among which opposition to a heretic pope hardly occupies an insignificant place.

Discipulus: Nunquid sufficit regibus et principibus defendere impugnantes papam hereticum.

Student: Is it sufficient for kings and princes to simply defend the opponents of a heretic pope.

Magister: Respondetur quod non, quia si non potenter, cum potuerint, impugnaverint papam hereticum, sed solummodo defenderint impugnantes, non erunt calidi nec frigidi sed tepidi, et ideo incipiet eos Deus evomere de ore suo. Et consimiliter esset iudicandum de regibus et principibus si aliquos sequaces viles et pauperes pape heretici acriter invaderent, et ipsum papam hereticum satagerent excusare. Tales enim nequaquam adverterent illud Deuteronomi 1: "ita parvum audietis ut magnum nec accipietis cuiusquam personam quia Dei iudicium est". Quod non attendere, quamvis in omnibus iudicibus et potestatem habentibus sit dampnabile, tamen in regibus et principibus multo dampnabilius et ignominiosius esse dinoscitur. Acceptio enim persone pape heretici in regibus et principibus qui eius potentiam temporalem nullatenus pertimescunt, vel contemptui fidei christiane, aut nimis defectu zeli ad fidem catholicam, aut avaritie effrenate, vel pusillanimitati, aut stolide fatuitati, vel alicui alio vitio quod dignitati regie et principum est probrosum, debet ascribi.

Master: One replies that it is not. For if, having the power to do so, they did not strongly oppose the heretic pope, but merely defended his opponents, they would be neither hot nor cold but lukewarm, and hence God would begin to spew them out of his mouth. [Revelation 3:16] And a similar judgement must be made with respect to kings and princes were they to take harsh measures against some poor and insignificant followers of a heretic pope, while attempting to find excuses for the heretic pope himself. For such would hardly be taking notice of the following remark in Deuteronomy 1: "ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgement is God's". [Deuteronomy 1:17] To ignore this precept, while being condemnable in the case of all judges and power wielders, is known to be much more condemnable and ignominious in the case of kings and princes. And this unwarranted favouritism shown to the person of a heretic pope by kings and princes who hardly fear his temporal power, should be ascribed either to contempt for the Christian faith, or to a sad lack of zeal on its behalf, or to limitless avarice, pusillanimity, dull stupidity, or some other vice disgraceful to the royal or princely dignity.

Discipulus: Dic qui inferiores regibus et principibus gravius peccant favendo pape heretico, utrum videlicet prelati vel doctores, clerici seculares vel religiosi.

Student: State who among those inferior to kings and princes sin more seriously by supporting a heretic pope, namely, whether it is the prelates or doctors, the secular clerks or the religious.

Magister: Respondetur quod quo ad aliquid prelati gravius peccant quam doctores. Quia enim prelati curam simplicium susceperunt, et eos non diligenter informant contra errores pape heretici, quantum ad hoc gravius peccant quam magistri qui curam illorum minime gerunt. Illi autem qui sunt prelati et doctores gravissime peccant. Ratione autem scientie maioris qua pollent doctores ultra prelatos simplicis literature, gravius peccant doctores quam prelati huiusmodi. Religiosi autem, ceteris paribus, gravius peccant favendo pape heretico quam clerici seculares, inter quos illi peccarent gravissime quorum statum vel aliquid contingens statum eorum papa hereticus erronee condempnaret.

Masters: The answer is that as to certain things, prelates sin more seriously than doctors. Indeed, since prelates have responsibility for the spiritual care of the populace, and do not diligently enlighten it against the errors of the heretic pope, they sin more seriously in this connection than masters who do not have such spiritual responsibilities. And those who are both prelates and doctors sin most seriously. Further: because of the greater knowledge by which doctors prevail over unlearned prelates, doctors sin more seriously than such prelates. Again: other things being equal, religious sin more seriously in favouring a heretic pope than do secular clerks, and among religious they would sin most seriously whose status or something pertinent thereto the heretic pope would have erroneously condemned.

Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius, fautores pape heretici vel credentes erroribus pape heretici.

Student: Who sin more seriously, abettors of a heretic pope, or those who believe his errors.

Magister: Respondetur quod si sunt aliqui fautores pape heretici qui non sunt credentes eius erroribus, credentes eo quod sunt heretici gravius peccant quam fautores qui non sunt credentes. Aliter dicitur quod quia fautores peccant scienter si non sunt credentes, credentes vero ignoranter peccant, fautores gravius peccant quam credentes.

Master: One responds that if some are abettors of a heretic pope but do not believe his errors, believers (because they are heretics) sin more seriously than abettors who are not believers. Another response is that since abettors, if they are not believers, knowingly commit a sin, while believers sin in ignorance, abettors sin more seriously than believers.

Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius, fautores vel defensores pape heretici.

Student: Who sin more seriously, abettors or defenders of a heretic pope.

Magister: Respondetur quod quia omnis defensor hereticorum est fautor eorum et non econverso, ideo qui sunt defensores pape heretici gravius peccant quam qui sunt tantummodo fautores.

Master: The answer is that because every defender of heretics is their abettor, but not conversely, therefore those who defend a heretic pope sin more seriously than those who are merely abettors.

Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius inter defensores pape heretici.

Student: Who among defenders of a heretic pope sin more seriously.

Magister: Respondetur quod inter defensores scienter pape heretici, gravius peccant reges et principes ac potentes qui potentiam pape heretici non formidant. Inter defensores autem ignoranter pape heretici qui laborant ignorantia, crassa et supina dampnabilior est in prelatis, et gravius peccant (et doctores et religiosi), quam in regibus et principibus qui rebus secularibus ex officio sunt intenti.

Master: The answer is that among the conscious defenders of a heretic pope, it is the kings, the princes, and the powerful who do not fear the power of the heretic pope, who sin more seriously. While among those who defend a heretic pope in ignorance, grossly passive ignorance is more to be condemned in prelates than in kings and princes whose normal function consists in the administration of secular affairs, and it is prelates who sin more seriously, along with doctors and religious.

Discipulus: Dic de receptatoribus pape heretici, qui gravius peccant.

Student: State who sin more seriously among receivers of a heretic pope.

Magister: Respondetur quod quanto receptatores pape heretici muniuntur maiori potentia temporali et minus timent potentiam temporalem pape heretici, tanto gravius peccant. Et ideo gravius peccaret rex potens receptando papam hereticum quam dux vel baro, aut castrum vel civitas, nisi ex aliqua causa rex plus haberet timere potentiam temporalem pape heretici quam alius minoris potentie temporalis. Et ex isto concluditur quod, ceteris paribus, inter omnes reges et principes, ille qui esset maioris potentie et quem plus timeret papa hereticus, gravius contra Deum et christianitatem delinqueret si papam hereticum minime impugnaret.

Master: The answer is that to the extent that receivers of a heretic pope are endowed with greater power and have less to fear from the temporal power of a heretic pope, to that extent do they sin more seriously. And therefore a powerful king, by receiving a heretical pope, would sin more seriously than a duke, or a baron, or a fortress, or a city, unless for some reason this king would have more to fear from the temporal power of a heretic pope than someone of lesser temporal power. And from this one concludes that, other things being equal, among all kings and princes, he would be more seriously remiss against God and Christendom if he refrained from opposing a heretic pope, who would have greater power and who would be feared more intensely by the heretic pope.

Capitulum 70

Chapter 70

Discipulus: De papa heretico ac credentibus, fautoribus, defensoribus, et receptatoribus pape heretici, ut modo michi videtur, nonnulla discussimus. Nunc autem rogo ut de gravitate periculi tempore pape heretici, si unquam aliquis papa a fide deviabit catholica, perscruteris, an scilicet tempore pape heretici grave imminebit periculum christianis.

Student: As presently appears to me, we have discussed a number of issues concerning a heretic pope, and the believers, abettors, defenders, and receivers of a heretic pope. But now I would ask that you scrutinize the seriousness of the danger which would arise in the time of a heretic pope, if some pope should ever deviate from the catholic faith, namely, whether, in the time of a heretic pope, a serious danger would threaten Christians.

Magister: Interrogatio tua, ut eam proponis, aliquid supponit et aliquid querit. Supponit enim quod aliquis erit papa hereticus. Querit autem quale tunc periculum christianis instabit. De illo vero quod supponit fuerunt opiniones, quibusdam dicentibus quod erit futurus papa hereticus, aliis dicentibus quod temerarium fuit et est dicere quod erit papa hereticus, et temerarium est negare. Circa illud etiam quod interrogatio tua querit, sunt diverse opiniones. Una est quod, si unquam aliquis papa erit hereticus, non grave periculum fidelibus imminebit, quia cardinales, prelati, et magistri statim sibi resistent, quibus reges et principes ac alii seculares potenter assistent, et ideo statim perfidiam pape heretici extirpabunt. Alia est opinio que de futuris non reputat divinandum. Tenentes enim opinionem illam dubitant quod si unquam erit papa hereticus, gravissimo periculo catholici exponentur, ita quod timent quod maius instabit periculum christianis si aliquis papa diu victurus erit hereticus quam si tota christianitas a sarracenis vel aliis infidelibus caperetur.

Master: Your question, in the form in which you put it, contains both an assumption and a query. For it assumes that someone will become a heretic pope. And it asks what danger will then threaten Christians. As to what it assumes there were various opinions, some saying that there would be a future heretic pope, others retorting that is was and is foolhardy to state that there would be a heretic pope, but just as reckless to deny it. And with respect to what your question specifically asks, there also exist diverse opinions. There is the view that, if some pope ever became a heretic, no grave danger would threaten the faithful, because the cardinals, the prelates, and the doctors would immediately resist him, and kings and princes and other secular authorities would give them powerful assistance, and therefore they would immediately root out the heretic pope's treachery. But there is another opinion which holds that one should not make guesses as to future events. Indeed, those who propound this opinion think it arguable that should there ever be a heretic pope, catholics will be exposed to extreme danger; and they fear that a greater peril will threaten Christians if some pope should long prevail as a heretic than if the whole of Christendom were to be conquered by Saracens or by other non-believers.

Discipulus: Miror quod aliqui de hoc valeant dubitare, quia si sarraceni omnes regiones christianorum per potentiam subiugarent, omnes christianos extinguerent vel subderent servituti. Papa autem hereticus hoc minime attemptaret, et ita ista opinio ratione carere videtur. De te tamen motivum eius audire desidero.

Student: I am astonished that some feel this to be an arguable point, for if the Saracens were to conquer by force all the Christian lands, they would eradicate or enslave all the Christians. A heretic pope, on the other hand, would hardly attempt this, and thus this second opinion appears to lack rational foundation. However I would like to hear from you the motive of this opinion.

Magister: Si affectas scire motivum eorum, primo opinionem eorum intelligas.

Master: If you wish to know what motivates the thinkers who advance this opinion, you should first understand the substance of the opinion.

Discipulus: Puto quod intelligo.

Student: I believe I do.

Magister: Non apparet, quia tu videris intelligere de periculo temporali. Ipsi autem principaliter intelligunt de periculo spirituali, quamvis etiam secundario intelligant de periculo corporali, quia dubitant quod papa hereticus, nisi refrenetur timore catholicorum, cogitabit omnes christianos extinguere vel cogere aliam sectam suscipere.

Master: This is not apparent, for you appear to understand it as referring to temporal danger. They, on the other hand, are primarily thinking of spiritual danger, although they also, secondarily, include physical peril in their understanding, since they feel it arguable that a heretic pope, unless restrained by his fear of catholics, will plan to eradicate all Christians or force them to adopt another religious persuasion.

Discipulus: Narra motivum eorum, intelligendo de periculo spirituali.

Student: Outline their reasoning, understanding that it applies to spiritual danger.

Magister: Motivum eorum est tale. Quanto quis pluribus modis quorum nullus impedit alium, sed quilibet efficacior sit per quemlibet, nititur aliquem expugnare, tanto illum citius superabit vel dubitandum est quod citius superabit. Sed papa, si erit hereticus, pluribus modis quam sarraceni, quibus tota christianitas non posset corporaliter obviare, conabitur populum christianum expugnare et spiritualiter iugulare. Modi autem impugnandi quibus uteretur essent eque efficaces vel efficaciores quam modum impugnandi sarracenorum. Unusquisque modus alium nequaquam impediet, sed quilibet quemlibet efficaciorem reddet. Ergo papa, si erit hereticus, citius quam sarraceni populum christianum spiritualiter superabit, vel dubitandum est quod citius superabit. Spiritualiter autem superari et in anima cruciari periculosius est et peius quam morti succumbere corporali. Ergo gravius periculum imminebit vel poterit imminere populo christiano si papa efficietur hereticus quam si sarraceni totam terram christianorum sue subderent ditioni.

Master: Their reasoning is as follows. To the extent that someone attempts to attack someone else by using a number of methods, none of which obstructs the other, but each of which is rendered more effective by convergence, to that extent will the attacker triumph more quickly over the enemy, or it is arguable that he will so triumph. But the pope, if he becomes a heretic, will attempt to conquer and spiritually destroy the Christian people by methods more numerous than those of the Saracens, which we assume that the whole of Christendom would be unable to physically resist. And the methods of attack the heretic pope would use would be just as effective or more effective than those of the Saracens. Each and every method of the pope would in no way obstruct the other, but each would rather make the other more effective. Therefore the pope, if he were to become a heretic, would spiritually triumph over the Christian people more swiftly than the Saracens, or it is arguable that he would. But it is more dangerous, indeed worse, to be defeated spiritually, and to have one's soul crucified, than to succumb to physical death. Therefore a more serious danger will threaten, or might threaten, the Christian people if the pope should become a heretic than if the Saracens were to subject the whole land of the Christians to their rule.

Discipulus: Qui sunt illi modi quibus papa, si esset hereticus, catholicos et christianos populos impugnaret.

Student: What would be the methods by means of which the pope, if he were a heretic, would attack the catholic and Christian peoples.

Magister: Respondetur quod catholicos et sibi resistentes forte non minus acerbe quam sarraceni corporaliter procuraret invadi. Quia mandaret episcopis et inquisitoribus heretice pravitatis ut eos ubicunque possent satagerent captivare, et nisi a suo proposito resilirent, eos traderent curie seculari, qui, ut pape heretico complacerent et ab eo aliquod beneficium obtinerent, tanquam belue crudelissime mandatum pape heretici totis viribus conarentur effectui mancipare. Secundo, papa, si esset hereticus, per scripturarum testimonia ad suum sensum intorta christianos invaderet et multos ad suam traheret voluntatem, eo quod intelligentiam scripturarum nequaquam habentes ad verum intellectum pervenire nescirent. Tertio, impugnaret christianos per speciem veritatis et religionis, cui non adherere videretur multis stultum et insanum. Quarto, impugnaret catholicos per ecclesiasticam auctoritatem, cui non obedire putaretur a nonnullis inobedientie crimen incurrere.

Master: The answer is that he would perhaps provide for a physical assault on catholics and on those resisting him no less cruel than that of the Saracens. For he would issue a command to bishops and to inquisitors of heretical wickedness, that they strive to capture such opponents wherever possible, and hand them over to the secular arm unless they recanted their conviction; and these papal agents, in order to please the heretic pope and to obtain some benefice from him, would, like the most cruel of beasts, attempt to effectively carry out the heretic pope's mandate with all the powers at their disposal. Secondly, the pope, if he were a heretic, would attack Christians with Scriptural citations twisted in support of his interpretation, and would win over many to his will, in that, not having a proper understanding of the Scriptures, they would not know how to grasp their true meaning. Thirdly, he would attack Christians by an illusion of truthfulness and religious devotion, not to support which would seem to many a mark of foolishness or madness. Fourthly, he would attack catholics by relying on ecclesiastical authority, not to obey which would be thought by some to be a commission of the crime of disobedience.

Discipulus: Probabile michi videtur quod istis modis et aliis papa, si esset hereticus, niteretur christianos suis erroribus subiugare et eos spiritualiter iugulare. Sed christiani sibi nequaquam acquiescerent, imo nec etiam tolerarent, sed statim de eo facerent iustitie complementum. Quare cum ipse esset unus cui omnes resisterent christiani, sarraceni autem quamplurimi, nullo modo tantum posset imminere periculum si papa efficeretur hereticus sicut si sarraceni sibi terram christianorum subiicerent.

Student: It seems probable to me that the pope, if he were a heretic, would attempt to subjugate Christians to his errors by these and by other methods, and to destroy them spiritually. But Christians would in no way yield to him, indeed they would hardly tolerate him, but would immediately subject him to the final process of justice. Therefore, since the heretic pope would be but a single individual whom all Christians would resist, while the Saracens would be quite numerous, in no manner would it be possible for a similar peril to arise if the pope became a heretic, as would be the case if the Saracens conquered the land of the Christians.

Magister: Respondetur quod si christiani vellent pape heretico obviare, non incumberet eis tantum periculum spirituale sicut si sarraceni regiones christianorum sibi subiicerent. Sed dubitant isti quod multitudo christianorum pape heretico nullatenus obviaret, imo suis erroribus adhereret, ipsique sponte faveret.

Master: The answer is that if Christians wanted to stand up to a heretic pope, they would not be faced with as great a spiritual danger as they would have to deal with if the Saracens were to conquer the Christian territories. But these thinkers consider it arguable that the multitude of Christians would not in fact stand up to a heretic pope, indeed that it would rather participate in his errors, and voluntarily support him.

Discipulus: Unde posset accidere quod multitudo christianorum pape heretico adhereret.

Student: How might it come to pass that the multitude of Christians would join the cause of a heretic pope.

Magister: Dicunt quod ex multis causis forte accideret, et aliqui adhererent ex una causa, alii ex alia.

Master: They say that this would perhaps happen for a variety of causes. Some would join him for one reason, others for another.

Discipulus: Enumera aliquas causas ex quibus posset accidere.

Student: List some of the causes which might lead to this situation.

Magister: Dicitur quod una causa ex qua aliqui pape heretico adhererent est falsa et erronea estimatio quam habent nonnulli de papa.

Master: It is said that one cause whereby some would join the camp of a heretic pope is the false and erroneous conviction which many have concerning the papal status.

Discipulus: Que est illa falsa et erronea estimatio.

Student: What is this false and erroneous conviction.

Magister: Respondetur quod est multiplex. Quidam enim putant quod papa non potest peccare, quemadmodum quidam Sergiani, ut in quodam libro antiquo legi, in favorem Sergii pape tradiderunt. Unde quidam, ut audivi, hiis temporibus publice dicunt quod papa est deus in terris, non quidem sicut omnes sacerdotes dicuntur dii, qui tamen peccare possunt, sed sic ut malefacere nequaquam possit, et in terris omnia que vult possit. Quidam putant quod papa contra fidem errare non potest. Quidam putant quod licet papa peccare et errare possit contra fidem, de omnibus tamen que facit debemus supponere quod sint bene facta, et de nullo quod facit licet nobis iudicare quod sit male factum. Quidam putant quod licet valeamus reputare aliqua facta pape esse mala et male facta, tamen nulli licet christiano papam arguere vel iudicare, reprehendere, aut aliquam contra eum iudicialiter ferre sententiam. Et ex hiis quattuor estimationibus falsis de papa, et ex qualibet illarum, accideret quod, papa effecto heretico, ei christiani aliqui adhererent.

Master: The answer is that it is multifarious. For instance, some people think that the pope cannot sin, as certain Sergians claimed on behalf of pope Sergius, a contention I read in a very old book. Hence there are some, as I have heard, who are publicly stating in these times of ours that the pope is a God on earth, indeed not in the sense in which all priests are said to be gods (who nevertheless may commit sins), but with the implication that he can in no way do wrong, and that he may do on earth everything that he wants. Others believe that the pope cannot err against the faith. Still others believe that although the pope may sin and err against the faith, we must nevertheless assume that all the things that he has done have been done well, and that nothing that he does may we judge as having been done wrongly. Some think that although we may consider that some things done by the pope are bad and done badly, nevertheless no Christian is allowed to question or to judge the pope, to rebuke him, or to pass legal sentence against him. And from these four false convictions about the papal status, or from any single one of them, it might happen that some Christians would join the camp of a pope who had become a heretic.

Discipulus: Prime due estimationes false michi videntur. De quarta autem tractatum est prius. Ideo dic secundum istos in quo tertia estimatio a veritate recedit.

Student: The first two convictions appear to me to be false, while the fourth has been dealt with earlier. [Cf. 1 Dial. 6.1ss] State therefore in what way, according to these thinkers, the third conviction deviates from the truth.

Magister: Dicitur quod quantum ad omnia que non possunt bono animo fieri est contraria veritati. Quicquid enim papa fecerit quod non potest bono animo fieri, nec recta intentione, licet cuilibet hoc scienti iudicare de papa quod male facit et inique, et quod peccat mortaliter. Unde si viderem papam fornicantem, vel simoniam committentem, vel mentientem in doctrina religionis aut in proximi nocumentum, vel innocentem aliquem diffamantem, vel aliquid contra Deum precipientem, aut aliquid huiusmodi, liceret michi et deberem iudicare, non quidem iudicialiter sed certa credulitate, papam peccare mortaliter.

Master: The answer is that this conviction contradicts the truth with respect to all things which cannot be done with a good conscience. For whatever the pope will have done which cannot be done with a good conscience or with right intention, anyone who knows this is permitted to judge as having been done wrongly and criminally on the part of the pope, and as constituting the pope in a state of mortal sin. Hence, were I to see the pope involving himself in fornication, or committing simony, or lying about religious doctrine, or lying with harmful consequences to his neighbour, or defaming some innocent person, or uttering some command against God or something of this kind, I would have both the right and the duty to judge that the pope had committed a mortal sin, and while my judgement would not carry legal effect it would possess indubitable cognitive consequences.

Discipulus: Secundum istam sententiam ita passim liceret iudicare de papa quod malefaciat sicut de quocunque alio christiano.

Student: According to this principle, I would be allowed to constantly pass judgement on the pope's misdeeds as much as on those of any other Christian.

Magister: Respondetur quod non, quia multa licent pape que aliis illicita dinoscuntur. Et ideo de talibus, si faciat ea papa, non licet iudicare quod papa malefaciat, de aliis tamen hoc licet. Propter quod, quia sunt aliqua que sunt illicita pape que tamen aliis licent, de talibus licet iudicare quod papa peccat, sed de aliis hoc minime licet.

Master: The reply is negative, because many things are permitted to the pope which are known to be forbidden to others. And therefore if the pope were to do such things, it would not be permitted to judge that he is doing wrong, while it would be permissible to make such a judgement with respect to others. On the other hand, because there are matters which are forbidden to the pope while allowed to others, it is permitted with respect to such matters to judge that the pope is sinning, but it is not permitted to make such a judgement of other people.

Discipulus: Videtur quod isti parum reputant de persona pape, licet forte de officio pape multum estiment.

Student: It seems that these theorists have little regard for the person of the pope, although perhaps they think highly of the papal office.

Magister: Isti reputant papam hominem mortalem, peccabilem, innumeris periculis spiritualibus expositum. Multos autem summos pontifices qui fuerunt, reputant fuisse viros sceleratissimos, omni confusione dignos, et quod hoc licet asserere et sentire, et ita de quolibet summo pontifice licet hoc sentire in speciali, quandoque facit aliquid (et constat eum posse facere) quod bono animo nequaquam facere potest. Unde assertionem qua dicitur quod debemus reputare bene factum quicquid fecerit, heresim perniciosissimam et periculosissimam arbitrantur.

Master: They believe the pope to be a mortal man, capable of committing sins, and exposed to countless spiritual dangers. They further believe that many supreme pontiffs of past ages were the most heinously criminal of men, worthy of every retribution. They think that it is permitted to state this fact, and to feel it, and thus that one is allowed to feel this reaction specifically concerning any pope, whenever he does anything (and it stands to reason that he is capable of doing this) which can in no way be done with a good conscience. Hence they consider the contention stating that we must believe well done whatever the pope has done to be a heresy most pernicious and most dangerous.

Discipulus: Suntne alique alie estimationes false et erronee que facerent multos pape heretico adherere.

Student: Are there any other false and erroneous convictions which would influence many to join the camp of the heretic pope.

Magister: Respondetur quod sic. Putant enim quidam quod cohertio pape heretici spectat solummodo ad concilium generale. Quidam autem putant quod cohertio pape heretici spectat solummodo ad clericos et nullo modo ad laicos, nisi fuerint per prelatos ecclesie requisiti. Quidam vero putant quod cohertio, et similiter vitatio pape heretici solummodo spectat ad cardinales. Quidam putant quod solummodo spectat ad maiores prelatos ecclesie, puta ad patriarchas et episcopos. Quidam putant quod simplices et laici de spiritualibus nichil facere debent, nisi quod fuerit eis per episcopos suos iniunctum. Et ideo de papa heretico se intromittere non debent, nisi quod eis preceperint episcopi eorundem. Quidam putant quod quamdiu papa hereticus toleratur a multitudine christianorum nullus debet eum aliqualiter impugnare. Quidam putant quod multitudo est in omnibus sequenda, et ideo ille pro papa est habendus quem multitudo christianorum habet pro papa. Ex hiis omnibus estimationibus et qualibet illarum, aliisque quam pluribus estimationibus falsis et erroneis, accideret quod si papa fieret hereticus quamplures ei firmiter adhererent.

Master: The answer is affirmative. Some, for instance, think that the forcible suppression of a heretic pope pertains only to a general council. Others, however, believe that the forcible suppression of a heretic pope pertains only to clerks, and in no way to laymen, unless they were requested to do this by prelates of the church. And some think that suppression (and similarly avoidance) of the heretic pope is strictly the affair of cardinals. Some think that this only pertains to the major prelates of the church, such as patriarchs and bishops. Some think that the unlearned and the laymen must do nothing about spiritual matters except what they have been enjoined to do by their bishops, and therefore they must not become involved in the matter of a heretic pope except to follow the instructions given to them by their bishops. Some believe that no one should in any fashion oppose a heretic pope so long as he is tolerated by the multitude of Christians. Some believe that the multitude is to be followed in all things, and therefore he is to be recognized as pope whom the multitude of Christians holds to be so. From all of these convictions, and from any one of them in particular, as well as from other most numerous false and erroneous convictions, it might well happen that if a pope were to become a heretic, very many would firmly place themselves in his camp.

Discipulus: Dixisti unam causam divisam in plures ex qua accideret quod si papa efficeretur hereticus christiani plures adhererent eidem. Ideo nunc dic alias causas ex quibus idem accideret.

Student: You have stated one cause, divided into particulars, wherefore it might happen that were a pope to become a heretic, many Christians would join his camp. Proceed, therefore, to mention other causes which might lead to the same eventuality.

Magister: Alia causa sive occasio, secundum istos, quare multi christiani pape heretico adhererent, est timor mundanus sive humanus iunctus diffidentie qua unus christianus diffidit de alio, et ista causa oritur ex defectu zeli ad catholicam fidem. Quia enim multi propter catholicam fidem nollent aliquod detrimentum corporis vel rerum incurrere, vel saltem non magnum, et nescientes an alii christiani vellent eis assistere contra papam hereticum, ab impugnatione pape heretici omnino desisterent et eidem cum aliis adhererent, saltem quousque alius potens aliquis inciperet papam hereticum impugnare. Putant enim tenentes opinionem predictam, quod si papa esset hereticus et aliquis rex potens eum invaderet toto posse, multi qui prius pape heretico adheserunt eum fortissime impugnarent. Et hec est una causa, secundum istos, quare reges et principes ac alii potentes qui temporalem potentiam pape heretici non timerent, gravius peccarent quam alii si pape heretico scienter faverent, quia eorum negligentia esset quampluribus occasio pape heretico adherendi. Alia causa sive occasio quare multi adhererent pape heretico est cupiditas et ambitio. Cupiditas enim obtinendi divitias et pecunias ac beneficia ecclesiastica et honores a papa heretico multos faceret eidem consentire.

Master: According to these theorists, another cause or opportunity which might prompt many Christians to join the camp of the heretic pope, is wordly or human fear mingled with the lack of confidence whereby one Christian distrusts another. And this cause is rooted in a lack of zeal for the catholic faith. For since many would not want to experience any injury affecting body or property because of the catholic faith (or at least no great injury), and not knowing whether other Christians would be prepared to assist them against a heretic pope, they would totally refrain from opposing such a pope and would join his camp along with others, at least until some other powerful individual began to attack the heretic pope. Indeed those who hold the opinion we are discussing believe that if the pope was a heretic and some powerful king made war on him with all his might, many who had previously joined the heretic pope's camp would also oppose him most strongly. And this is one reason, according to these theorists, why kings and princes and other potentates unafraid of the heretic pope's temporal power, would sin more seriously than others if they knowingly supported the heretic pope, because their negligence would provide very many with the opportunity of joining the camp of the heretic pope. Another cause or opportunity which might prompt many to join the camp of the heretic pope is greed and ambition. For the lustful yearning to acquire riches, and monies, and ecclesiastical benefices and honours from the heretic pope would drive many to acquiesce in his legitimacy.

Capitulum 71

Chapter 71

Discipulus: De impugnatoribus pape heretici sepe fecimus mentionem, de quibus unum obsecro ut pertractes, qui videlicet ad impugnandum papam hereticum sunt idonei reputandi.

Student: We have frequently mentioned the opponents of a heretic pope. I would beseech you to deal with one question concerning these, namely, which persons are to be considered as qualified to oppose a heretic pope.

Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod omnes catholici discretionem habentes ad impugnandum papam hereticum uno modo vel alio debent idonei reputari.

Master: The answer is that all catholics endowed with reason must be deemed in one sense or another to be qualified opponents of a heretic pope.

Discipulus: Ista responsio est tam generalis quod ad mentem meam nequaquam vadit. Scio enim quod cum papa hereticus sit omnium fidelium inimicus, omnes fideles ratione utentes ad impugnandum ipsum aliquo modo idonei sunt censendi. Oportet tamen quod inter ipsos sint quidam qui sint quasi duces, directores, et capita aliorum, de quibus interrogationem quam proposui intellexi.

Student: This reply is so general that it hardly touches on what I have in mind. For I know that since a heretic pope is the enemy of all the faithful, all believers endowed with reason are in some way to be considered his qualified opponents. However, it is proper that there should be some among them who would act as leaders, directors, and heads of the rest, and it is of such individuals that I understood my proposed question.

Magister: Respondetur quod virtutibus excellentes, in sacris literis eruditi, in arduis rebus experti et potentia prediti temporali, ut sint duces et capita impugnantium papam hereticum, sunt censendi idonei. Contingit enim dupliciter papam hereticum impugnare, scilicet corporaliter contra ipsum, si oportuerit, materialia arma movendo, et spiritualiter tam ipsum quam errores eius auctoritatibus et rationibus convincendo. Primo modo, potentia prediti temporali debent idonei reputari ad papam hereticum impugnandum. Secundo modo, in sacris literis eruditi sunt idonei ut sint quasi duces et principales impugnatores pape heretica pravitate maculati. Virtutum autem eminentia et rerum experientia opportune videntur utrisque, ut sicut oportet et quando oportet papam hereticum et complices eius impugnent.

Master: The answer is that they should be considered qualified to be leaders and heads of the heretic pope's opponents who are pre-eminent in virtues, learned in the sacred letters, experts in difficult tasks, and possessing temporal power. For one can oppose a heretic pope in two ways: namely, by physically attacking him with material arms, if this is convenient, and by spiritually rejecting both his person and his errors by authorities and reasons. In the first instance, those possessing temporal power must be considered qualified to oppose a heretic pope. In the second instance, it is the learned in Sacred Letters who are qualified to be the leaders and principal opponents of a pope stained by heretical wickedness. But pre-eminence as to virtues and practical experience seem convenient to both categories of opponents in order that they may attack the heretic pope and his accomplices as and when convenience dictates.

Discipulus: Adhuc ista reponsio est magis generalis quam vellem. Unde precor ut secundum aliquam sententiam aliquas prerogativas speciales assignes, quibus oportet principales impugnatores pape heretici preeminere ad hoc quod idonei censeantur.

Student: Again, this response is more general than I would like. Hence I pray that you follow some opinion in listing certain special prerogatives which it is proper for the opponents of a heretic pope to possess in the highest degree in order to be considered fit to perform their task.

Magister: Speciales prerogative tales sunt innumere.

Master: There are innumerable special prerogatives of this kind.

Discipulus: Aliquas paucas tange.

Student: Mention a few of them.

Magister: Dicunt quidam quod ad hoc quod quis impugnator pape heretici idoneus censeatur, requiritur quod sit firmiter stabilitus in veritatibus contrariis erroribus pape heretici, ut scilicet nulla ratione ab illis veritatibus possit avelli. Unde quantum ad veritates illas assertiones suas neque correctioni pape, neque correctioni concilii generalis, neque correctioni angelorum de celo debet submittere, sed quemadmodum beatus Paulus scripsit Galatis dicens: "licet nos aut angelus de celo evangeliset vobis preter quam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit", ita quilibet impugnator idoneus pape heretici dicat in corde suo et proferat ore cum fuerit opportunum: "licet ego, aut papa, aut concilium generale, aut tota congregatio christianorum, aut tota multitudo angelorum de celo errores pape heretici evangelizare, asserere vel affirmare presumpserit, anathema sit". Ideo autem non debet impugnator idoneus pape heretici assertiones suas quantum ad veritates contrarias erroribus pape heretici alicuius correctioni submittere, quia illas veritates non tanquam ab homine, sed tanquam a Deo, qui correctione non eget, traditas suscepit, amplectitur, et veneratur. Et ex isto, ut dicunt, eliditur error quorundam dicentium quod omnis christianus fidem suam debet supponere correctioni beatissimi pape. Quod probant per exemplum de beato Hieronymo, qui fidem suam quam didicerat in ecclesia, et in qua nutritus fuit, supposuit correctioni et iudicio beatissimi pape. Sed hoc, dicunt isti, esse erroneum, imo hereticum manifeste, quod exemplis et ratione probare conantur. Primo quidem exemplo beati Pauli, qui, ut legitur ad Galatos 2, cum reprehenderet papam, scilicet beatum Petrum, assertionem suam correctioni pape nequaquam submisit, imo voluit quod papa se correctioni sue committeret. Ideo enim reprehendit papam, ut de excessu commisso in preiudicium evangelice veritatis corrigeret. Secundo, probant hoc exemplo clericorum romanorum qui se a communione Anastasii pape 2i laudabiliter abegerunt, de quibus constat quod assertionem suam correctioni pape nullatenus submiserunt.

Master: There are those who say that in order that someone may be considered a fit opponent of a heretic pope, it is expected that he be firmly grounded in the truths which contradict the errors professed by the heretic pope, namely, that no reason would sway him from these truths. Hence, he must not submit his stated convictions as to these truths to the correction of the pope, nor to the correction of a general council, nor to the correction of angels from heaven. But just as blessed Paul wrote to the Galatians, saying: "though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed", [Galatians 1:8] so ought every qualified opponent of a heretic pope say in his heart and utter verbally at the opportune moment: "were I myself, or the pope, or the general council, or the entire congregation of Christians, or the whole multitude of angels in heaven, to presume to preach, assert, or affirm the errors of a heretic pope, let each and every one be accursed". And that is why the qualified opponent of a heretic pope must not submit to someone's correction his assertions with respect to truths which contradict the errors of the heretic pope, because he has received, he holds, and he venerates these truths as given to him not by man, but by God, and God does not require correction. This point, they go on to say, eliminates the error of some interpreters who claim that every Christian must submit his faith to the correction of the most holy pope. They prove this claim by the example of blessed Jerome, who submitted his faith, which he had learned in the church, and in which he was educated, to the correction and judgement of the most holy pope. But the thinkers we are reporting say that this claim is erroneous, and even obviously heretical, a judgement they attempt to prove by examples and by reason. And first by the example of blessed Paul, who, as we read in Galatians 2, when he rebuked the pope (namely blessed Peter), in no sense submitted his assertion to the correction of the pope, but rather wanted the pope to submit to his own (Paul's) correction. [Galatians 2:11] Indeed he rebuked the pope so that the pope could correct himself as to a deviation committed in prejudice of evangelical truth. Secondly, they prove this judgement by the example of the Roman clerks who removed themselves in praiseworthy manner from communion with pope Anastasius II, and it is established that these clerks in no way submitted their assertion to the correction of the pope.

Discipulus: Forte dicetur istis quod clerici illi non submiserunt assertionem suam correctioni pape heretici qualis fuit Anastasius 2us, sed submiserunt correctioni futuri pontificis catholici.

Student: It might perhaps be objected to these thinkers that the clerks in question did not submit their assertion to the correction of a heretic pope, which Anastasius II was, but submitted it to the correction of a future catholic pontiff.

Magister: Hoc reprobatur, quia Anastasium secundum reputaverunt hereticum propter hoc, quod assertioni eorum quam acceperant a sanctis patribus contradixit. Et propter eandem rationem, quicunque futurus papa postea contradixisset, eundem hereticum reputassent. Quare nullius hominis correctioni volebant assertionem suam submittere. Et ideo dicunt isti quod christianus assertionem catholicam correctioni pape non debet submittere, quod etiam ratione probare nituntur. Nam veritatem infallibilem et immutabilem non debet quis correctioni illius submittere qui falli potest et errare. Veritates autem catholice sunt infallibiles et immutabiles, papa vero falli potest et errare, ergo tales veritates nullus debet correctioni pape submittere. Unde minimam veritatem contentam in scriptura divina non debet quicunque submittere correctioni pape, quia certa, sicut discussione non indigent, ita et correctione non egent. Quare, cum omnia asserta in scripturis divinis sint certa, nulla correctione egent. Quare nullius correctione debent submitti. Cum vero dicitur quod beatus Hieronymus fidem suam quam didicerat in ecclesia supposuit correctioni beatissimi pape, respondetur quod hoc simpliciter est falsum, quod tamen ex verbis beati Hieronymi male intellectis elicitur. Unde, ut mentem beati Hieronymi cunctis aperiant, verba ponunt eiusdem, qui, ut habetur 24 q. 1 cap. Hec est fides, ait: "hec est fides, papa beatissime, quam in catholica ecclesia didicimus, quamque semper tenuimus; in qua si minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum est, emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri et sedem tenes et fidem. Si autem hec nostra confessio apostolatus tui iudicio comprobatur, quicunque me culpare voluerit, se imperitum, vel malivolum, vel etiam non catholicum, sed hereticum comprobabit". Ex quibus verbis concludunt quidam quod beatus Hieronymus fidem suam, quam in ecclesia didicerat, supposuit correctioni beatissimi pape. Sed dicunt alii quod isti verba beati Hieronymi minus bene intelligunt. Non enim intendit Hieronymus fidem suam quam didicerat in ecclesia correctioni beatissimi pape supponere, quia si papa illi fidei contradixisset, beatus Hieronymus ipsum hereticum reputasset. Didicit enim Hieronymus in ecclesia quod Christus fuit verus Deus et verus homo, cui si papa obviasset, pro heretico pessimo eum Hieronymus habuisset.

Master: This explanation is rejected. These clerks considered Anastasius II to be a heretic because he had contradicted their assertion, which they had received from the holy fathers. And for the same reason, they would have considered a heretic whichever future pope might have subsequently contradicted this. Therefore they did not want to submit their assertion to the correction of any man. And that is why these thinkers say that a Christian must not submit a catholic assertion to the correction of the pope, a contention they also attempt to prove by reason. For someone must not submit a truth which is infaillible and immutable to the correction of one who may err or be misled. But catholic truths are infaillible and immutable, while the pope may err or be misled, therefore no one must submit such truths to the correction of the pope. Hence, one must not submit to the correction of the pope even the least weighty of the truths contained in Divine Scripture, because matters which are certain, just as they do not require discussion, so likewise do they not require correction. Therefore since all the matters asserted in the Divine Scriptures are certain, they require no correction at all. Therefore they must not be submitted to anyone's correction. When it is claimed, however, that blessed Jerome submitted his faith, which he had learned in the church, to the correction of the most holy pope, the answer is that this is plainly false, and that the claim is derived from badly understood words of blessed Jerome. Hence, in order to explain the intention of blessed Jerome to everyone, the thinkers we are reporting cite his words. Blessed Jerome (we find this in 24 q. 1 c. Hec est fides) states: "this is the faith, most holy pope, which we have learned in the catholic church, and which we have always held; should we have affirmed something in our presentation thereof which is unlearned or perhaps lacking in caution, we desire to be corrected by you, who hold both Peter's see and his faith. But if this confession of ours is approved by the judgement of your apostolicity, then whoever would want to fault me will prove himself unlearned, or malicious, or even not a catholic but a heretic". [col. 970] Some deduce from these words that blessed Jerome submitted his faith, which he had learned in the church, to the correction of the most holy pope. But others reply that such interpreters misunderstand blessed Jerome's words. Indeed, Jerome did not intend to submit to the correction of the most holy pope his faith which he had learned in the church, for had the pope contradicted this faith, blessed Jerome would have considered him a heretic. For Jerome had learned in the church that Christ was true God and true man. Had the pope denied this, Jerome would have held him to be the worst of heretics.

Discipulus: Quid ergo supposuit beatus Hieronymus correctioni pape.

Student: What, then, did Jerome submit to papal correction.

Magister: Respondetur quod beatus Hieronymus absolute nichil supposuit correctioni pape, sed conditionaliter tantum, quod verba eius aperte declarant cum dicit: "in qua si minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum est emendari cupimus a te etc.," que verba, sicut de se patet, conditionalia sunt.

Master: The answer is that Jerome submitted nothing absolutely (but only conditionally) to the correction of the pope, which his words openly declare when he states: "should we have affirmed something in our presentation thereof which is unlearned or perhaps lacking in caution, we desire to be corrected by you etc." It is inherently obvious that these words are conditional.

Discipulus: Saltem ex forma verborum apparet quod Hieronymus fidem suam quam didicerat in ecclesia conditionaliter supposuit correctioni pape. Quia primo dicit: "hec est fides, papa beatissime, quam in catholica ecclesia didicimus", et postea subiungit: "in qua si minus etc."

Student: It appears at least from the form of the words that Jerome conditionally submitted his faith, which he had learned in the church, to the correction of the pope. For he initially states: "this is the faith, most holy pope, which we have learned in the church", and afterwards he adds; "should we have affirmed etc."

Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis absque periculo Hieronymus potuerit conditionaliter fidem suam supponere correctioni pape, quia conditionalis nichil ponit, (unde et hec conditionalis vera est: "si in evangelio aliquod falsum asseritur, corrigendum est") tamen beatus Hieronymus in verbis premissis non intendebat fidem suam supponere correctioni pape, sed expositionem suam circa fidem intendebat conditionaliter supponere correctioni pape, ut iste sit sensus verborum suorum: "in qua", id est circa quam, scilicet fidem, exponendam et explanandam, "si minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum est, emendari cupimus a te, etc." Quemadmodum si quis postillator evangelii diceret; "hoc est evangelium, in quo si aliquid minus bene dixi, paratus sum corrigere".

Master: The answer is that although Jerome could have conditionally submitted his faith to the correction of the pope without danger (for a conditional statement affirms nothing; hence this conditional statement is true: "if something false is asserted in the Gospel it must be corrected"), nevertheless blessed Jerome had not intended in the cited words to submit his faith to the correction of the pope, but had intended to conditionally submit his exposition concerning the faith to the correction of the pope. Therefore his words should be interpreted as follows: "in our presentation thereof", that is, concerning its (namely the faith's) exposition and explanation, "should we have affirmed something which is unlearned, or lacking in caution, we desire to be corrected by you etc." This is similar to a commentator of the Gospel saying: "this is the gospel; should I have stated something badly in my exposition, I stand ready to be corrected".

Capitulum 72

Chapter 72

Discipulus: Si de predicto modo circa alias prerogativas quibus preeminere debet impugnator idoneus pape heretici dilatares, multis lectoribus operis huius fastidium generares, ideo alias succincte percurras.

Student: If you offer similarly expanded comments concerning the other prerogatives which the qualified opponent of a heretic pope must possess in pre-eminent fashion, you would arouse boredom in many readers of this work, therefore be brief in your description of other prerogatives.

Magister: Alie prerogative impugnatoris pape heretici assignantur. Quarum alique sunt communes impugnantibus corporaliter et spiritualiter pape heretici, alique vero sunt proprie impugnantibus spiritualiter papam hereticum. Oportet eos qui corporaliter vel spiritualiter papam hereticum magnam sequelam habentem satagunt impugnare, tanquam directores et capita aliorum, novarum viarum existere inventivos. Quia sicut, teste beato Augustino ad Bonifatium, ut legitur dis. 50 cap. Ut constitueretur, cogunt multas invenire medicinas multorum experimenta morborum, ita casus novi et extranei emergentes cogunt industrios ad occurrendum vias novas et extraneas invenire. Cum ergo sit valde extraneum atque rarum quod papa sit pravitate infectus heretica, ad ipsum viriliter impugnandum oportet vias extraneas cogitare, presertim si potentum fuerit favore munitus. Quicunque contra papam hereticum voluerit solumodo uti communibus, erit forsitan similis medico imperito qui uno collirio omnium oculos vult curare. Non sufficit autem impugnatori idoneo pape heretici contra ipsum vias extraneas invenire, nisi, cum fuerit expediens, ipsas curaverit effectui mancipare, ut, videlicet, non timeat aggredi novitates. Quamvis enim novitates inutiles, perniciose, et periculose sint omnino vitande, novitates tamen perutiles, necessarie, et salubres sunt carius amplectende. Non est aptus ad quecunque ardua peragenda qui omnes horruerit novitates. Si Alexander Macedo novitates aggredi timuisset, maiorem partem mundi sibi nullatenus subdidisset. Si civitas Romana novitates minime attemptasset, nunquam pacem in universo orbe fecisset. Quid loquar de seculi hominibus, cum apostoli, si novitates inducere formidassent, ad novam legem gentes nullatenus convertissent. Non sunt ergo novitates penitus respuende, sed sicut vetusta cum apparuerint onerosa sunt omnimode abolenda, ita novitates cum utiles, fructuose, necessarie, et expedientes secundum rectum iudicium videbuntur, sint animosius amplectenda. Non autem sufficit impugnatori idoneo pape heretici novitates, cum opportunum fuerit, attemptare, nisi etiam, cum expediens fuerit, periculis et laboribus et etiam morti, si opportuerit, se exponat. Qui enim omnia pericula expavescit, similis est illi de quo dicitur Ecclesiasti 11: "qui observat ventum non seminat, et qui considerat nubes nunquam metet".

Master: Here is a listing of other prerogatives of the heretic pope's opponent. Some of these are common to both spiritual and physical opponents of a heretic pope, while others are proper to those who oppose this pope spiritually. It is appropriate that the persons directing and heading others in physical or spiritual opposition to a heretic pope who has a large following, should be discoverers of new and fresh methods of action. For just as, witness blessed Augustine writing to Boniface (as we read in dis. 50 c. Ut constitueretur), the experience of many diseases promotes the discovery of many cures, so does the emergence of new and unusual problems prompt diligent individuals to intensify the discovery of new and unusual solutions. Therefore, since it is quite unusual and rare for the pope to become infected with heretical wickedness, it is appropriate to discover unusual methods of firmly opposing him, especially if he were well protected by the support of the powerful. Whoever would wish to merely employ common tactics against a heretic pope would perhaps resemble the untalented doctor who wants to heal everyone's ocular ailments with just one kind of eye-salve. Nor would it suffice for the qualified opponent of a heretic pope to discover unusual tactics against him, unless he put them into practice given the opportunity to do so, and, namely, did not fear to implement these novelties in reality. For although useless, harmful, and dangerous innovations are to be entirely avoided, innovations which are quite useful, necessary, and salutary should be eagerly embraced. He who would abhor all novelties is ill-equipped to engage himself in difficult tasks. Had Alexander the Macedonian feared to implement novelties, he would not have conquered most of the world. Had the city of Rome not performed novelties, it would never have established peace in the whole world. But why do I speak of secular personalities, when the apostles, had they been afraid to introduce novelties, would not have converted peoples to the New Law. Therefore innovations are not to be unreservedly rejected, but, just as old ways are to be entirely abolished should they appear burdensome, so must innovations be heartily embraced when they shall appear useful, fruitful, necessary, and expedient by reference to right reason. And, furthermore, it does not suffice for the qualified opponent of a heretic pope to embark upon innovations when the opportunity to do so arises, unless he also, when expediency demands, exposes himself to dangers, labours, and even death if need be. For he who takes fright at all dangers is similar to the person about whom Ecclesiastes 11 states: "he that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap". [Ecclesiastes 11:4]

Rursus, si habet divitias, debet esse paratus expensas effundere, quia nulla eleemosyna corporalis extra articulum necessitatis extreme est ita necessaria. Neque enim monasteriorum constructio, neque pauperorum quorumcunque sustentatio, neque ecclesiarum edificatio, neque miserabilium personarum defensio, neque captivorum redemptio, neque pro terre sancta recuperatione largitio, potest equiparari expensis que fiunt ad impugnandum papam hereticum et fidem catholicam defendendam et exaltandam, eo quod exaltatio et defensio fidei catholice est omnibus temporalibus preferenda.

Again, if he possesses wealth, he should be prepared for considerable expenses, for no physical alm is as indispensable as this one, save for such as would be forthcoming in a situation of extreme necessity. Indeed, neither the construction of monasteries, nor the sustenance of all categories of the poor, nor the building of churches, nor the defense of miserable persons, nor the ransoming of captives, nor the financial contribution towards the reconquest of the Holy Land, can be compared to the expenses which need to be incurred in order to combat a heretic pope, and to defend and exalt the catholic faith, because the exaltation and defense of the catholic faith must take precedence over all temporal concerns.

Amplius, impugnator idoneus pape heretici perditionem rerum, honorum, et fame nullatenus expavescat. Hec enim omnia sunt inter bona minima computanda. Nec propter ista est defensio fidei aliquatenus obmittenda. Quamvis enim unusquisque, si convenienter potest, famam suam, que inter omnia temporalia preeminere videtur, ad edificationem proximi et propter scandalum evitandum servare tenetur, propter ipsam tamen servandam non est defensio fidei relinquenda. Quia absque fama est salus, et sepe fama est causa perditionis eterne. Et ideo qui de perditione fame nimium contristatur, ut aliquid spectans ad honorem Dei vel salutem suam vel proximorum obmittat, non est dignus regno Dei. Talis enim cum Apostolo nequaquam propter Christum omnia velut stercora arbitratur, sed gloria vexatur inani, omnia opera sua faciens ut ab hominibus videatur.

Further, the qualified opponent of a heretic pope should not fear the loss of property, of honours, and of reputation. For all these should be reckoned among the least weighty of goods. Nor should the defense of the faith be in any way renounced on their account. For although everyone is obligated, if conveniently possible, to reserve one's good reputation (apparently the most significant of temporal goods) for the edification of neighbours and to avoid scandal, the defense of the faith must not be abandoned in order to preserve one's good name. For there can be salvation without reputation, and reputation is frequently the cause of eternal perdition. And therefore, he who is overly saddened by loss of reputation, and proceeds to renounce something pertinent to the honour of God, or to his own or his neighbours' salvation, is unworthy of the kingdom of God. Indeed, such a person will never, in emulation of the Apostle, consider all things as dung for the sake of Christ, [Philippians 3:8] but desirous of vainglory, [Galatians 5:26] will perform all of his activities so as to gain popular attention.

Iterum, impugnator idoneus pape heretici omnem duplicitatem evitet, ne scilicet facto, verbo vel scripto patenter ostendat quod ipsum habet pro vero summo pontifice. Quamvis enim nonnunquam licitis et utilibus simulationibus uti expediens censeatur, tamen uti duplicitate que falsitatem includit semper est illicitum reputandum, teste sapiente, qui Ecclesiastici 2 ait: "ve duplici corde et peccatori terram ingredienti duabus viis".

Further, the qualified opponent of a heretic pope will avoid all duplicity lest, namely, he openly suggests by deed, word, or script, that he holds the heretic pope to be a true pope. For although at times it is believed expedient to utilize legitimate and useful pretences, nevertheless the use of duplicity which includes falsehood is always to be considered illegitimate, witness a wise person who states in Ecclesiasticus 2: "woe to him who is of a double heart, and to the sinner that goeth on the earth two ways". [Ecclesiasticus 2:14]

Sit insuper in prosequendo negotia fidei contra papam hereticum calidus, non tepidus. Tepidus enim in hoc negotio, presertim si est magnus et potens, non solummodo de ore Dei evometur, sed etiam pauperibus et simplicibus sibi adherentibus erit causa et occasio confusionis et destructionis, non tantummodo temporalis, sed etiam forsitan spiritualis. Quia si non ferventer defendit eos, papa hereticus et complices sui tanquam belue crudelissime ipsos tam spiritualiter quam corporaliter satagerent trucidare.

Moreover, let the opponent be ardent and not lukewarm in pursuing the interest of faith against a heretic pope. For one who is lukewarm in this process, especially if he is a great and powerful individual, will not only be spewed out of God's mouth, but will also become a cause and opportunity of disorder and destruction, not merely temporal, but perhaps also spiritual, to his poor and unlearned supporters. For if he does not vehemently defend the latter, the heretic pope and his accomplices will, like beasts most cruel, attempt to exterminate them both spiritually and physically.

Oportet etiam impugnatores idoneos pape heretici amore et concordia fortius adiuvari, ne, si dissensionibus et contentionibus, odio, emulationibus, et scismatibus disiungantur, facilius desolentur. Quia, teste Salvatore: "omne regnum divisum contra se desolatur et omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se non stabit". Quare impugnatores pape heretici, quantumcunque iustam causam habuerint, non sperent quod propter ipsos tam laudabilem finem accipiant si inter se discordes extiterint dampnabiliter et divisi. Tales enim non sunt de semine illorum per quos fides orthodoxa exaltabatur, sed per aliam occasionem Deus causam fidei feliciter terminabit.

It is also proper that opponents of a heretic pope strongly rely on mutual love and concord, lest, if divided by disagreements and quarrels, hatred, jealousies, and schisms, they be more easily forsaken. Because, witness the Saviour: "every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand". [Matthew 12:25] Therefore the opponents of a heretic pope, no matter how just their cause, should not expect that they will manage to succeed in accomplishing such a praiseworthy goal through their own efforts if damnable discord and division exists among them. For if this is what they are involved in, then they are not of the seed of those who had once exalted orthodox faith, and God will choose another set of circumstances to bring the cause of faith to a happy conclusion.

Impugnator ergo idoneus pape heretici gloriam propriam minime querat, quasi velit quod per ipsum solummodo victoria habeatur, sed gaudeat per quemcunque causa fidei licite adiuvetur. Nec facta et consilia minorum despiciat, quia sepe parvulis revelantur que a sapientibus et prudentibus absconduntur. Sit consiliativus, assidue inquisitivus, et interrogativus viarum et modorum quibus est contra papam hereticum procedendum. Quia, teste Salomone: "erit salus ubi multa sunt consilia". Et quamvis minorum consilia sepe minime sint spernenda, tamen a sapientibus est maxime in hoc casu consilium requirendum, nec aliquis de sapientia propria tanquam sit sufficiens quoquo modo confidat. Si enim mille carentes potentia temporali, quorum quilibet sapientiam Salomonis excederet, papam hereticum regum et principum favore fulcitum satagerent impugnare, aliorum consilio indigerent. Nec tamen propter hoc pauciores et minus sapientes debent aliqualiter formidare contra papam hereticum bellum accipere. Quia quamvis nichil de contingentibus obmittere debeant, in sua tamen sapientia vel virtute sperare non debent, sed in virtute Dei, qui, si certaverint usque ad mortem, expugnabit pro eis inimicos eorum. Quamobrem nullam multitudinem adherentium pape heretico expavescant, quia sicut allegatum est supra, teste Iuda Machabeo: "non est differentia in conspectu Dei celi liberare in multis et in paucis". Et Exodi 23 unicuique fideli in hec verba mandatur: "non sequeris turbam ad faciendum malum, nec in iudicio plurimorum acquiesces sententie ut a vero devies". Cuius rationem assignat Psalmista dicens: "defecit sanctus quoniam diminute sunt veritates a filiis hominum, vana locuti sunt unusquisque ad proximum". Et alibi ait: "omnes declinaverunt simul, inutiles facti sunt. Non est qui faciat bonum non est usque unum". Rationem etiam eiusdem assignat Salomon Ecclesiasti 1 dicens: "stultorum infinitus est numerus". Nec Isaias rationem eius tacuit cum dixit: "omne caput languidum et omne cor merens a planta pedis usque ad verticem non est in eo sanitas". Imo etiam Salvator ipse rationem dicti prioris expressit cum dicit Matthei 7: "Lata porta et spaciosa via que ducit ad perditionem et multi sunt qui intrant per eam quam angusta porta et arta via que ducit ad vitam et pauci sunt qui inveniunt eam". Et alibi ait: "multi autem sunt vocati, pauci vero electi". Ex quibus aliisque innumeris nonnulli accipiunt argumenta ad probandum quod propter quantamcunque multitudinem adherentium pape heretico non debent pavere paucissimi contra papam hereticum patenter insurgere. Ante omnia tamen ab omni peccato mortali se servare conantur, quia sicut non est speciosa laus in ore peccatorum ita defensio fidei vel impugnatio pravitatis heretice per scelestum coram Deo est minime preciosa, licet utilis aliis esse possit. Oportet igitur impugnatorem idoneum pape heretici non solum peccata carnalia sed etiam spiritualia declinare. Propter quod nonnulli putant quod hiis diebus essent paucissimi impugnatores idonei pape heretici, quia fere totum mundum, tam clericos quam laicos, tam seculares quam religiosos, dubitant peccatis mortalibus spiritualibus, fornicatione et furto peioribus, esse enormiter irretitos, ut ambigant non minus modo quam tempore Noe verificari illud Genesis 6: "corrupta est autem terra coram Deo, et repleta est iniquitate".

Therefore let the qualified opponent of a heretic pope not seek his own glory, as if wishing that victory be achieved through him alone, but let him rejoice in whoever legitimately assists the cause of faith. And let him not despise the deeds and counsels of lesser people, for matters are frequently revealed to the simple which are hidden from the wise and the prudent. Let him seek advice, assiduously investigating and querying the ways and means whereby one ought to proceed against the heretic pope. For as Solomon witnesses: "in multitude of counsellers there is safety". [Proverbs 24:6] And although the counsels of the lesser are frequently not to be despised, it remains that in such an enterprise it is above all the counsel of the wise which must be sought, nor should one in any way be confident of the sufficiency of one's own wisdom. For if a thousand individuals not endowed with temporal power, each of whom exceeded the wisdom of Solomon, were to oppose a heretic pope who was strengthened by the favour of kings and princes, they would need the counsel of others. Yet for all that, the fewer in number and the less wise must not fear in any way to undertake a war against a heretic pope. For although they must not omit any of the relevant preparations, neither must they place exclusive expectation on their own wisdom and virtue, but rather on the virtue of God, who will defeat their enemies on their behalf if they fight unto death. For that reason they should not fear the multitude of the heretic pope's supporters, because, as earlier argued, [1 Dial. 7.47] witness Judah Maccabee: "with the God of heaven it is all one, to deliver with a great multitude, or a small company". [1 Maccabees 3:18] And in Exodus 23 a command is issued to every believer in these words: "thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgement". [Exodus 23:2] And the reason for this is laid down by the Psalmist, who states: "for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour". [Psalms 12:1-2] And elsewhere he states: "they are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one". [Psalms 14:3] The reason for this is also laid down by Solomon, who states in Ecclesiastes 1: "the foolish are infinite in number". [Ecclesiastes 1:15] Nor did Isaiah mute this reason when he stated: "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head is no soundness in it". [Isaiah 1:5-6] Indeed, the Saviour himself expresses the reason of the prior statement when he says in Matthew 7: "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it". [Matthew 7:13-14] And elsewhere he states: "for many are called, but few are chosen". [Matthew 22:14] From these texts, and from innumerable others, many derive arguments to prove that the very few must not fear to rise up openly against a heretic pope, no matter what multitude of supporters he possesses. But above all, opponents of a heretic pope must preserve themselves from any mortal sin, because, just as praise in the mouth of sinners is not impressive, likewise is the defense of the faith or the assault on heretical wickedness made by a criminal of no value before God, though it might be useful to others. It is therefore appropriate for the qualified opponent of a heretic pope to avoid not only physical but also spiritual sins. And this is why many believe that in our times there would be exceedingly few qualified opponents of a heretic pope, because these thinkers argue that practically the entire world, clerks as much as laymen, seculars as much as religious, are involved without measure in the commission of spiritual mortals sins, worse than fornication and theft, and these thinkers believe that the following statement of Genesis 6 is presently verified no less than it was in the time of Noah: "the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence". [Genesis 6:11]

Capitulum 73

Chapter 73

Discipulus: De isto ultimo dicto vehementer admiror, cuius motiva in tractatu De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam sollicite indagabo. Nunc autem, cum plures prerogativas tetigeris quibus secundum quorundam sententiam oportet impugnatores idoneos pape heretici preeminere, que omnes communes impugnatoribus corporaliter et spiritualiter papam hereticum michi videntur, numera aliquas prerogativas speciales quibus expedit preeminere impugnatores pape heretici, per testimonia scripturarum precipue, si papa hereticus errores coloratos et latentes conatus fuerit diffinitive populis tradere christianis.

Student: I am tremendously astonished by this last statement, and shall diligently inquire about its motives in the treatise On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith. Now, however, since you have touched on many prerogatives which, according to the opinion of some, it is proper for qualified opponents of a heretic pope to possess in the highest degree, prerogatives all of which appear to me to be common to those who oppose a heretic pope physically and spiritually, proceed to list certain particular prerogatives which should be present in the highest degree in those who oppose the pope specifically by relying on the witnesses of Scriptures, if this heretic pope should definitively have attempted to impart to Christian peoples errors both flagrant and hidden.

Magister: Dicitur quod huiusmodi impugnatores idoneos pape heretici oportet sanctarum habere intelligentiam scripturarum ut, scilicet, non solum memoriam verborum retineant, sed intellectum capiant veritatis. Quia, teste Hieronymo, ut legitur 1 q. 1 cap. Marcion: "nec putemus in verbis scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu; non in superficie, sed in medulla; non in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis". Multi enim quamvis memoria vigeant ut literas multas retineant, et prompte que voluerint recitent et allegent, carent tamen iudicio et acumine rationis, unde ad verum intellectum, nisi forte aliquando casualiter, per seipsos nesciant pervenire. Et de istis potest verificari illud Apostoli 2 Timotheo 3: "semper discentes et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes". Tales autem non sunt idonei ad impugnandum errores occultos et latentes. Alii sunt vigentes rationis iudicio, quamvis in memoria deficere videantur, et illi, quamvis interdum cum magno labore et tarde, sunt idonei errores occultos et latentes ac coloratos pape heretici impugnare. Quamvis enim sepe sint imperiti sermone ut eloquentia careant et ornatu verborum, non tamen scientia, quia illi sciunt ex paucis multa elicere, et illi perspicue vident que veritati sunt contraria, que consona, que antecedentia, que consequentia, que impertinentia sunt censenda. Qui etiam per rationes sophisticas et auctoritates male intellectas non de facili seducuntur. Per quam autem scientiam rationis iudicium ad predicta potissime adiuvetur libro nono De optimo genere addiscendi poteris invenire. Qui autem memoria et iudicio prepollent, quod raro accidit ut quidam estimant, et essent in sacris literis eruditi, essent maxime idonei impugnatores errorum pape infecti heretica pravitate. Oportet autem impugnatores idoneos pape heretici summe cavere ne assertiones ipsius ambiguas contra mentem eius, vel etiam preter mentem ipsius ad perversum nitantur trahere intellectum. Et multo fortius assertiones eius veras in omni sensu pervertere minime debent. Si enim aliquod fecerint predictorum, presertim scienter, vel etiam ex ignorantia crassa et supina, non solum coram Deo peccare mortaliter iudicabuntur, sed etiam apud intelligentes maligni vel invidi aut iniusti apparebunt. In primis igitur, mentem ipsius ex omnibus dictis eius, quando assertio eius est ambigua, investigent. Si enim assertio eius non est ambigua sed sensum habens tantummodo falsum, non est necesse ad alia dicta eius recurrere. Cum vero patuerit manifeste sensum eius esse erroneum, non cavillose, non sophistice, non per auctoritates male intellectas, non per assertiones dubias et de quibus est licitum disputare, non per rationes fantasticas, non intelligibiles, et intricatas, non per dicta illorum quos licitum est negare, sed per scripturas autenticas bene et sane intellectas, ac per rationes apertas, evidentes, et irrefragabiles, studeant reprobare et fundare solidissime contrariam veritatem. Hec autem omnia amore faciant veritatis et odio falsitatis, ut ira, rancore, vel odio persone pape heretici nullatenus moveantur.

Master: One responds that it is proper for such qualified opponents of a heretic pope to possess sound knowledge of Scriptures, namely, so that they not only remember their words, but also grasp the meaning of their truth. Because, witness Jerome (as we read in 1 q. 1 c. Marcion): "nor should we believe the Gospel to be found in the mere words of the Scriptures, but in their meaning; not on the surface, but in the marrow; not on the written pages, but in the rational foundation". [col 381] For there are many individuals who, although endowed with sufficient memory to retain many of Scripture's words, and able to instantly recite and argue these at will, nevertheless lack proper judgement and intellectual penetration as to these words' true meaning, and do not know how to arrive at this by their own power, unless they manage it occasionally and by accident. And it is of such interpreters that may be verified the following comment of the Apostle in 2 Timothy 3: "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". [2 Timothy 3:7] Such persons are indeed not fitted to oppose errors both flagrant and hidden. There are others, however, endowed with rational discernment, although they seem to lack memory, and it is they who are qualified to oppose the secret, hidden, and flagrant errors of a heretic pope, even if it sometimes takes them much time and effort to perform the task. Indeed, although they frequently are unskilled in qualities of speech, and lack eloquence and verbal flourish, they do not lack knowledge, for they know how to deduce much from little, and it is they who clearly see which claims are contrary to the truth and which are in harmony with it, which statements are to be considered the premises of an argument, which the conclusions, and which are altogether irrelevant. These individuals are not easily misled by sophistical reasons and misunderstood authorities. You will, by the way, be able to discover in Book Nine [?] of The best method of learning [cf. Introduction to 1 Dial. 6. 16-35] by which rational science judgement is most potently assisted in these contexts. It is those who posses both superior memory and superior judgement (some consider this confluence to occur but rarely), and who are learned in the Sacred Letters, who would be the best qualified opponents of the errors of a pope infected by heretical wickedness. It is also proper that the qualified opponents of a heretic pope be supremely careful not to attempt to forcibly convert his ambiguous assertions into interpretations which run counter to his intention, or, equally, to strain these assertions into perverse meanings which go beyond his intention. And much more significantly, they must not pervert those assertions of his which are true in every sense. For if they did any of the aforementioned, especially if they did this knowingly, or on the basis of grossly passive ignorance, they will not only be judged as mortal sinners before God, but will also appear to be malicious, or envious, or unjust in the eyes of intelligent observers. Therefore let them initially analyze the heretic pope's ambiguous assertion on the foundation of all his statements. But if his assertion is not ambiguous, and can only have a sense which is false, it is not necessary to refer to his other statements. If, however, it were clear and obvious that the papal assertion was erroneous, let the opponents proceed to reject it and to lay most solid foundations for the contrary truth: not in quibbling fashion, not by sophistry, not by misunderstood authorities, not by doubtful assertions concerning which debate is permissible, not by fantastic, unintelligible, and involved allegations, not by the statements of those thinkers one is permitted to reject, but by authentic Scriptures, well and solidly understood, and by reasons which are clear, evident, and irrefutable. And let them do all this from love of truth and from hatred of falsehood, so that they be in no way motivated by anger, resentment, or hatred towards the person of the heretic pope.

Discipulus: Cum instarem quod hoc opus inciperes, arbitrabar brevem tractatulum De hereticis nos facturos, qui preter estimationem meam in longum aliquantulum est protensus, quem si omnes difficultates nunc michi de papa heretico eiusque complicibus occurrentes tibi disserendas exponerem, oporteret extendere in immensum. Sane cum opera prolixa pluribus dinoscantur ingrata modernis, sit hic presens sermo noster De hereticis consummatus. Tue autem benevolentie gratias ago, quod personam induens recitantis, votis meis, nunc abbreviando, nunc falsas sententias recitando et pro eis fortiter allegando, nunc ad rationes probabiles respondendo, nunc argumentationes sophisticas non solvendo, nunc veritates absque probationibus referendo, et quantum ad omnia alia, condescendere studuisti. Istum autem modum utilem reputavi, quia sic nec ad probandum nec ad reprobandum aliquod prescriptorum amor vel odium persone tue quemcunque movebit, sed omnibus legentibus materia dabitur cogitandi. Puto enim quod cum ista fuerint divulgata, tum propter raritatem, tum propter utilitatem, viri literati et intelligentes zelum veritatis et boni communis habentes, que vera sunt rationibus manifestis et testimoniis scripturarum apertis satagent confirmare, et que falsa sunt reprobare studebunt. Tu etiam, ut estimo, cum mentem tuam ceperis aperire de predictis, opera facies magnifica et preclara, plana veritate referta, ad omnium utilitatem fidelium, et Dei omnipotentis honorem. Cui sit gloria, laus, et imperium in secula seculorum. Amen.

Student: When I urged you to begin this work, I thought that we would compose a brief little treatise On heretics. The actual product has expanded, beyond my expectation, into a rather long treatise. If I were to submit to you for discussion all the problems which now occur to me concerning a heretic pope and his accomplices, the treatise would swell into immensity. But since long works are not viewed with favour by many of our contemporaries, let this present discourse of ours On heretics be herewith concluded. I am indeed grateful for your kindness. Assuming the persona of a reciter, you took care to acquiesce to my wishes, sometimes abbreviating the material being discussed, sometimes reciting false opinions and arguing firmly in support of them, sometimes responding to strong and probable reasons, sometimes leaving sophistical arguments unsolved, sometimes simply declaring truths without proving them; and your generosity applied to all the other issues which I raised. I have certainly found this approach to be useful, because, as a result, the love or hatred of your person will not influence anybody either to support or to reject argumentatively any of the issues we have written about. This approach will rather give all readers food for thought. Indeed, I do believe that when these materials will be published, learned and intelligent men who possess zeal for truth and for the common good will respond both to their originality and their usefulness, by attempting to confirm the truths contained herein through manifest arguments and open witnesses of the Scriptures, and by studiously rejecting all the peripheral falsehoods. I further reckon that when you begin to reveal your own opinion on these issues, you will write splendid and magnificent works, presenting the unambiguous truth, for the utility of all the faithful, and for the honour of Omnipotent God. May glory, praise, and dominion be His for ever. Amen.

Return to Table of Contents