William of Ockham, Dialogus,
part 1, book 2, chapters 17-34

Text and translation by John Scott.

Copyright © 1999, The British Academy

 

Capitulum 17

Chapter 17

Discipulus Ista secunda sententia magis mihi apparet consona veritati, sed dic mihi an isti assertores omnes errores pestiferos quos nulli licet Christiano fideli asserere sub istis modis haeresum comprehendant.

Student That second opinion seems more in accord with the truth to me, but tell me whether those who affirm it include under those modes of heresy all the pestiferous errors which no believing christian is permitted to affirm.

Magister Praeter haereses supradictas affirmant esse quosdam alios errores mortiferos qui tamen non debent stricte haereses appellari. Tales errores dicunt esse illos qui cronicis et historiis ecclesiasticis fide dignis ac probatis gestis fidelium obviari noscuntur. Alii adhuc sunt errores qui veritatibus catholicis et cronicis vel historiis ecclesiasticis fide dignis ac gestis quae rationabiliter negari non possunt incompossibiles demonstrantur. Cuiusmodi sunt tales, "Regulae religiosorum non sunt catholicae", "Fides beati Augustini non fuit vera nec fidelis ", et huiusmodi, et istos errores quamvis stricte accipiendo vocabulum haeresis non reputent inter haereses computandos, dicunt tamen quod sapiunt haeresim manifestam, quod non est aliud quam dicere quod ex eis et aliis veris quae negari non possunt sequuntur haereses proprie dictae. Et ideo dicunt quod isti errores possunt large haereses appellari.

Master They say that besides the afore-mentioned heresies there are some other deadly errors which nevertheless should not strictly be called heresies. They say that errors of this kind are those which are known to be opposed to ecclesiastical chronicles and histories worthy of trust and to demonstrated deeds of believers. There are still other errors which are shown to be incompatible with catholic truths together with ecclesiastical chronicles or histories worthy of trust and deeds which can not reasonably be denied. The following are of this kind, "The rules of religious are not catholic", "The faith of blessed Augustine was not true or sincere", and the like; and although taking the word "heresy" strictly they do not reckon that those errors should be counted among the heresies, they say nevertheless that they smack of manifest heresy, which is only to say that heresies properly so called follow from them and [i.e. together with] other truths which can not be denied. And therefore they say that those errors can broadly be called heresies.

Discipulus Enumera generales modos pestiferorum errorum quos secundum istam secundam sententiam nulli licet catholico et fideli pertinaciter defensare.

Student Enumerate the general modes of pestiferous errors which, according to that second opinion, no catholic believer is permitted to defend pertinaciously.

Magister Tales modi generales, quorum aliqui plures sub se modos continent speciales, sunt quinque. Quorum primus est eorum qui solis contentis in Scriptura Divina repugnant et iste plures modos continet speciales, sicut ex praedictis apparet, et omnes isti errores debent haereses appellari. Secundus est eorum qui doctrinae apostolicae extra scripta eorum quoquomodo repugnant, et iste etiam continet plures modos. Tertius est eorum qui revelatis vel inspiratis ecclesiae post apostolos quomodolibet obviarent. Quartus est eorum qui cronicis, historiis et gestis ab ecclesia approbatis contrariantur. Quintus est eorum qui Scripturae Divinae vel doctrinae apostolicae extra scripta eorum vel inspiratis seu revelatis ecclesiae et aliis veris quae negari non possunt incompossibiles demonstrantur, licet ex forma propositionum solis contentis in Scriptura Divina et doctrina apostolica et revelatis seu inspiratis ecclesiae incompossibiles nequaquam appareant, et isti errores proprie possunt dici sapere haeresim manifestam, licet stricte sumendo nomen haeresis non sint haereses nuncupandae. Talis est iste error, "Castitas monachorum castitati non praeeminet coniugali". Nam iste error ex forma propositionis non repugnat alicui contento in Scriptura Divina vel doctrina apostolica, si tunc non fuerunt tales monachi qulaes modo sunt, nec etiam repugnat, ut videtur, alicui revelato vel inspirato ecclesiae. Contentis tamen in Scriptura Divina et isti vero quod nulla potest tergiversatione negari, "Monachi vovent et servant perpetuam continentiam propter Deum", incompossibilis esse dinoscitur, et ideo iste error, licet non videatur stricte sumpto vocabulo haeresis appellanda, sapit tamen haeresim manifestam quia ex ipso et quodam vero aperto sequitur haeresis manifesta.

Master There are five of these general modes, some of which contain several particular modes within them. The first of these consists of those [errors] which conflict with things contained solely in divine scripture, and it contains several particular modes, as is clear from what has been said above, and all those errors should be called heresies. The second consists of those [errors] which conflict in some way with apostolic teaching which is outside their writings, and that [mode] also contains several modes. The third consists of those [errors] which would in some way be opposed to things revealed to or inspired in the church after the apostles. The fourth consists of those [errors] which are contrary to chronicles, histories and deeds approved by the church. The fifth consists of those [errors] which are shown to be incompatible with divine scripture, or with the teaching of the apostles outside their writings, or with things inspired in or revealed to the church and [i.e. together with] other truths which can not be denied, even if by the form of the propositions they do not appear to be incompatible with things solely contained in divine scripture and apostolic teaching and things revealed to and inspired in the church, and those errors can properly be said to smack of manifest heresy, even if they should not be called heresies taking the word "heresy" strictly. An example of the latter is the following error, "The chastity of monks does not excel conjugal chastity". For in the form of its proposition that error does not conflict with anything contained in divine scripture or in apostolic teaching, if there were not monks then such as there are now, nor, as it seems, does it, also, even conflict with anything revealed to or inspired in the church. Yet it is known to be incompatible with things contained in divine scripture and indeed with the following, which can not be denied with any shifting, "Monks vow and observe perpetual continence for the sake of God", and therefore that error, even if it does not seem that it should be called a heresy taking that word strictly, does nevertheless smack of manifest heresy because from it and a certain clear truth manifest heresy does follow.

Capitulum 18

Chapter 18

Discipulus Nunc adverto quam utile fuit inquirere quae veritates debeant catholicae iudicari, quia ex solutione quaestionis illius potest intelligenti patere qui errores debent haereses reputari. Ex investigatis etiam circa catholicas veritates sequi videtur quod omnis haeresis sit damnata, quia, si omnis veritas catholica est per ecclesiam approbata, videtur quod per eandem ecclesiam omnis haeresis est damnata cum omnis haeresis alicui veritati catholicae adversetur. Approbato autem uno contrariorum constat aliud reprobari et damnari. An ergo aliqui literati teneant omnem haeresim esse damnatam nequaquam occultes.

Student I now observe how useful it was to ask which truths should be adjudged catholic, because from the explanation of that question it can be clear to someone with understanding which errors should be regarded as heresies. It seems also to follow from what has been investigated about catholic truths that every heresy has been condemned because if every catholic truth has been approved by the church it seems that every heresy has been condemned by the same church, since every heresy is opposed to some catholic truth. When one of [two] contraries is approved, however, it is certain that the other is rejected and condemned. Therefore do not conceal [from me] whether any learned men hold that every heresy has been condemned.

Has every heresy been condemned already?

Magister Multi tenent et probare conantur quod omnis haeresis est damnata. Hoc enim concilium generale sub Innocentio 3 celebratum, de quo habetur Extra, De haereticis, c. Excommunicamus, sentire videtur. Ait enim, "Excommunicamus et anathematisamus omnem haeresim, extollentem se adversus hanc sanctam, catholicam et orthodoxam fidem quam superius exposuimus." Ex quibus verbis patenter habetur quod omnis haeresis est excommunicata et anathematisata, et per consequens omnis haeresis est damnata.

Master Many hold and try to prove that every heresy has been condemned. For the general council celebrated under Innocent III, about which we read in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus [col.787], seems to think this. For it says, "We excommunicate and anathematise every heresy that exalts itself against this holy, catholic and orthodox faith that we expounded above." It is clearly established from these words that every heresy has been excommunicated and anathematised, and as a consequence every heresy has been condemned.

Discipulus Ex hac auctoritate non videtur quod omnis haeresis sit damnata sed solummodo quod omnis haeresis extollens se adversus fidem quam supra generale concilium exposuit in capitulo quod habetur Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Firmiter, sit damnata.

Student It does not seem from this text that every heresy has been condemned, but only that every heresy exalting itself against the faith that the general council expounded earlier in the Chapter Firmiter found in Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica [col.5] has been condemned.

Magister Isti probant quod per dictum capitulum Excommunicamus omnis haeresis simpliciter sit damnata ex hoc ipso quod omnis haeresis extollens se adversus fidem expositam in dicto capitulo Firmiter sit damnata. Nam in dicto capitulo Firmiter tota fides catholica approbatur. Ergo omnis haeresis simpliciter per capitulum Excommunicamus quod damnat omnem haeresim extollentem se adversus fidem quam exposuit et approbavit in c. Firmiter reprobatur et damnatur. Quod autem c. Firmiter approbet simpliciter totam fidem catholicam patet expresse cum asserendo et approbando dicat "Haec sancta Trinitas, secundum communem essentiam individua et secundum personales proprietates discreta, primo per Moysen et sanctos prophetas aliosque famulos suos iuxta ordinatissimam dispositionem temporum humano generi doctrinam tribuit salutarem. Et tandem unigenitus Dei filius Iesus Christus, a tota Trinitate communiter incarnatus ex Maria semper virgine Spiritu Sancto cooperante conceptus, verus homo factus, ex anima rationali et humana carne compositus, una in duabus naturis persona, viam vitae manifestius demonstravit." Ex his verbis datur intelligi quod totam doctrinam Christi et famulorum suorum qui veritates catholicas humano generi tradiderunt praedictum concilium approbat manifeste. Ergo et per capitulum Excommunicamus simpliciter omnis haeresis est damnata, et hoc glossa 24, q. 1, para. 1. notat, aperte dicens, "Omnis haeresis est damnata et omnis haereticus est excommunicatus quantumcunque sit occultus."

Master They prove that every heresy has simply been condemned by the said chapter Excommunicamus from the fact that every heresy exalting itself against the faith expounded in the said chapter Firmiter has been condemned. For in that chapter Firmiter the whole of catholic faith is approved. Therefore every heresy is rejected and condemned simply by the chapter Excommunicamus which condemns every heresy that exalts itself against the faith that is expounded and approved in the chapter Firmiter. That the Chapter Firmiter approves simply the whole of catholic faith is expressly clear since in its assertion and approval it says: "This holy Trinity, individual according to a common essence and distinct according to their personal properties, has bestowed its salvific teaching on the human race firstly through Moses, the holy prophets and their other servants according to the very well ordered arrangement of time. And at length the only begotten son of God, Jesus Christ, made flesh by the whole Trinity together, was conceived of Mary, ever virgin, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, became a true man, made up of a rational soul and human flesh, one person with two natures, and very clearly demonstrated the way to life." We are given to understand by these words that the aforesaid council clearly approves the whole teaching of Christ and his servants who handed on catholic truths to the human race. Therefore simply every heresy is also condemned by the chapter Excommunicamus, and the gloss on 24, q. 1, para. 1 [s. v. qui vero; col.1382] notes this clearly when it says, "Every heresy has been condemned and every heretic, however hidden he is, has been excommunicated."

Capitulum 19

Chapter 19

Discipulus Apparenter ostenditur quod omnis haeresis est damnata, de quo tamen miror eo quod saepe audierim literatos distinguere inter illos qui incidunt in haeresim iam damnatam et illos qui incidunt in haeresim non damnatam. Unde et Gratianus, ut habetur 24. q. 1. para. 1, eandem distinctionem approbare videtur dicens, "Omnis enim haereticus aut iam damnatam haeresim sequitur aut novam confingit." Cuius distinctionis primum membrum statim prosequitur, secundum vero membrum prosequitur eisdem causa et quaestione para. Si autem, "Si autem ex corde suo novam haeresim confingit " etc. Quocirca dic an praedicti assertores eandem distinctionem simpliciter negent?

Student We are clearly shown that every heresy has been condemned, yet I wonder about this because I have often heard the learned distinguish between those who fall into a heresy that has already been condemned and those who fall into a heresy that has not been condemned. Whence, as we find in 24, q. 1, para. 1 [col.966], Gratian too seems to approve to approve this distinction, saying, "For every heretic either follows an already condemned heresy or invents a new one." He follows up the first part of this distinction at once, while he follows up the second part in the same causa and quaestio, para. Si autem [col. 967], "However, if someone invents a new heresy out of his own heart", etc. Tell me, therefore, do those who make that assertion simply deny that distinction?

Magister Non omnino negant dictam distinctionem sed cum distinctione concedunt, dicentes quod quaedam haereses sunt damnatae explicite, quaedam vero solum damnatae sunt implicite; et ideo concedunt dictam distinctionem sub isto intellectu: quaedam haereses sunt damnatae explicite et quaedam non sunt damnatae explicite.

Master They do not wholly deny that distinction but grant it with a distinction, saying that some heresies have been condemned explicitly, but some have been condemned only implicitly; and therefore they grant the said distinction with the following meaning: some heresies have been condemned explicitly and some have not been condemned explicitly.

Condemnation may be explicit or implicit

Discipulus Quas vocant haereses damnatas explicite?

Student Which heresies do they call explicitly condemned?

Magister Haeresum damnatarum explicite ponunt quatuor modos. Primus est earum quae damnatione speciali in qua de ipsis haeresibus sub forma propria fit mentio specialis condemnatur. Isto modo haereses Arrii, Nestorii, Macedonii, Euticis et Dioscori damnatae fuerunt, sicut ex dist. 15, c. 1 et c. Sicut sancti et c. Sancta Romana patenter habetur. Sic etiam damnatus est error Ioachim Extra, De summa trinitate et fide c. Damnamus et error dicentium Christum non esse aliquid secundum quod homo Extra, De haereticis, c. Cum Christus.

Master They lay down four modes of explicitly condemned heresies. The first is of those which are condemned by a particular condemnation in which particular mention is made of those heresies in that exact form. The heresies of Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Euticis and Dioscorus have been condemned by that mode, as we clearly find in dist. 15, c. 1 [col.34], c. Sicut sancti [col.35] and c. Sancta Romana [col.36]. Also condemned in this way are Joachim's error (Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Damnamus [col.6]) and the error of those who say that Christ is nothing as a man (Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum Christus [col.779]).

Secundus modus haeresum damnatarum explicite est earum quarum contradictoriae sub forma propria asseruntur seu approbantur, quia una contradictoriarum approbata explicite, altera explicite intelligitur reprobata. Tales sunt omnes haereses quae contradicunt veritatibus catholicis quae in symbolis, conciliis generalibus ac decretis et decretalibus epistolis summorum pontificum tanquam catholicae approbantur. Unde ista haeresis, "Deus non est factor omnium visibilium et invisibilium", est haeresis explicite condemnata pro eo quod per symbolum, "Credo in unum Deum", explicite approbatur Deum esse factorem omnium visibilium et invisibilium.

The second mode of explicitly condemned heresies is of those the contradictories of which have been approved in that exact form, because with the explicit approval of one of [two] contradictories the other is understood to have been explicitly condemned. Of this mode are all heresies which contradict the catholic truths which are approved as catholic in the creeds, in general councils and in decrees and decretal letters of the highest pontiffs. Whence the heresy, "God is not the maker of all things visible and invisible", is an explicitly condemned heresy because through [the article of] the creed, "I believe in one God", it is explicitly approved that God is the maker of all things visible and invisible.

Tertius est earum quarum contradictoriae in aliquo volumine vel libro aut tractatu specialiter approbato tanquam catholico sub forma propria continentur. Et isto modo omnes haereses quarum contradictoriae in canone Bibliae confirmato sub forma propria continentur haereses damnatae explicite sunt censendae, quia eo ipso quod canon Bibliae explicite approbatur omnes veritates in ipso inserte explicite approbantur, et per consequens earum contradictoriae explicite reprobantur et damnantur.

The third [mode] consists of those the contradictories of which are contained in that exact form in some volume, book or tractate particularly approved as catholic. And in that way all heresies the contradictories of which are contained in that very form in the confirmed canon of the bible should be considered explicitly condemned heresies because by the very fact that the canon of the bible is explicitly approved all the truths inserted in it are explicitly approved, and, as a consequence, their contradictories are explicitly rejected and condemned.

Quartus est earum ex quibus patenter omnibus, etiam laicis, usum habentibus rationis sequitur aliqua haeresis sub aliquo trium modorum primorum comprehensa.

The fourth [mode] consists of those from which some heresy included under any of the first three modes follows in a way clear to everyone having the use of reason, even laymen.

Discipulus Contra aliqua praedictorum possem dubia multa movere, sed forsitan non essent multum ad rem quia voces sunt ad placitum, et ideo possunt vocare haereses damnatas explicite stricte et large sicut placet eis dummodo hoc auctoribus non inveniatur expresse contrarium. Idcirco dic quas haereses vocant damnatas solum implicite.

Student I could raise many doubts about some of the above, but perhaps they would not be much to the point because words are a matter of opinion and so they can call heresies explicitly condemned strictly or broadly just as they please as long as this is not found to be explicitly contrary to any [authoritative] writers. Tell me therefore which heresies they say are condemned only implicitly.

Magister Haereses de quibus solummodo viris literatis in sacris literis eruditis per subtilem considerationem patet quomodo catholicae veritati contentae in Scripturis Sacris vel doctrina expressa universalis ecclesiae adversantur et quod ex eis sequitur aliqua haeresis aliquo praedictorum modorum damnata explicite dicunt esse damnatas implicite et non explicite. Talis haeresis fuit haeresis Graecorum dicentium Spiritum Sanctum non procedere a Filio antequam damnaretur explicite. Multae etiam haereses de quibus habetur in decretis aliquando fuerunt huiusmodi quae post explicite damnatae fuerunt. Tales sunt haereses nonnullorum doctorum modernorum. Est enim notorium quod moderni theologi circa divina opiniones tenent contrarias quas putant in Scripturis Divinis fundari, quarum altera in rei veritate Scripturae Divinae repugnat, sicut et tenent contrarium opinantes. Unde et eam per Scripturam Divinam improbare nituntur, sicut in scriptis eorum patet aperte, et ita in rei veritate altera earum est damnata implicite, cum veritas contraria sit implicite approbata ex hoc quod doctrina ecclesiae ex qua infertur noscitur approbata.

Master They say that those heresies have been condemned implicitly and not explicitly about which it is clear only by subtle reflection to learned men erudite in sacred letters how they are opposed to the catholic truth contained in the sacred scriptures or in the express teaching of the universal church and that from them some heresy explicitly condemned in any of the aforesaid modes follows. A heresy of this kind was that of the Greeks when they were saying that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son before that was explicitly condemned. Many heresies also which we find in the decretals were once of this kind, which were afterwards condemned explicitly. The heresies of some modern doctors are of this kind. For it is well known that about divine matters modern theologians hold opposing opinions which they believe to be based on the divine scripture. One or other of these is in truth of fact opposed to divine scripture, as those holding these opposing [opinions] do indeed maintain. So it is that each tries to disprove the other through divine scripture, as is quite clear in their writings.Thus in truth of fact one of them has been implicitly condemned, since the opposing truth has been implicitly approved because of the fact that the teaching of the church from which it has been inferred is known to have been approved.

Capitulum 20

Chapter 20

Discipulus Sive isti devient a proprio modo loquendi sive non video quod inter haereses quas dicunt esse damnatas explicite et quas dicunt esse damnata simplicite implicite est aperta distinctio. Sed ad quam utilitatem istam distinctionem assignant ignoro et tamen desidero scire.

Student Either they are deviating from their own way of speaking or I do not see that there is a clear distinction between the heresies that they say have been condemned explicitly and those that they say have been condemned only implicitly. But I do not even know, and yet want to know, what utility they assign to that distinction.

Who has the authority to condemn heresies?

Magister Putant istam distinctionem esse summe necessariam episcopis et inquisitoribus haereticae pravitatis, ut sciant contra quos accusatos de haeresi debeant procedere et contra quos potestatem procedendi non habent. Nam omnes tenentes pertinaciter haeresim aliquo praedictorum modorum damnatam explicite possunt legitime iudicare. Tenentes vero haereses damnatas tantummodo implicite iudicare non possunt nec de talibus haeresibus. Licet eas valeant ventilare et investigando discutere, de eis tamen nequeunt diffinitivam sententiam proferre. Sed huiusmodi haeresim asserens vel defendens summi pontificis vel generalis concilii est reservandus examini.

Master They think that that distinction is of the highest importance to bishops and inquisitors into heretical wickedness so that they may know against which of those accused of heresy they ought to proceed and against which they do not have the power to proceed. For they can legitimately judge all those pertinaciously maintaining a heresy explicitly condemned in any of the above ways. But they can not judge those maintaining heresies condemned only implicitly, nor judge of such heresies. Although they can discuss them and inquire into them by investigation, nevertheless they can not pronounce a definitive sentence about them. On the contrary, anyone affirming or defending a heresy of this kind should be kept for examination by the highest pontiff or a general council.

Discipulus Si isti suam sententiam auctoritate vel ratione valeant confirmare non tardes ostendere.

Student If they can confirm their opinion with an authority or an argument, do not be slow to show me.

Magister Possunt se fundare in una ratione quae talis est. Ad illum solum spectat asserentem damnatam haeresim implicite, de qua nondum innotuit ecclesiae an debeat haeresis reputari, tanquam haereticum condemnare ad quem spectat huiusmodi haereses solenniter condemnare; quod videtur maxime veritatem habere quando inter catholicos literatos in sacra pagina eruditos de tali assertione an debeat censeri haeretica opiniones habentur contrariae. Sed assertionem quae est in rei veritate haeretica, de qua tamen an sit haeretica inter doctos opiniones reperiuntur contrariae, solenniter et explicite condemnare pertinet ad solum summum pontificem et concilium generale et universalem ecclesiam. Ergo ad nullum inferiorem summo pontifice nec aliquod collegium inferius generali concilio spectat assertorem haeresis tanquam haereticum condemnare.

Master They can found themselves on one argument which is the following. The condemnation as a heretic of someone asserting an implicitly condemned heresy about which it has not yet become clear to the church whether it should be regarded as a heresy pertains only to him to whom it pertains solemnly to condemn heresies of this kind; this seems especially to be true when opposing opinions are held among learned catholics well informed about the sacred page about whether an assertion of this kind should be considered heretical. But the solemn and explicit condemnation of an assertion which in truth of fact is heretical yet about which opposing opinions are found among the learned as to whether it is heretical pertains only to the highest pontiff and a general council and the universal church. Therefore it pertains to no one inferior to the highest pontiff nor to any college inferior to a general council to condemn as a heretic one who asserts a heresy of this kind.

Maior istius rationis videtur certa quia qui iudicialiter pronunciat aliquem haereticum potest pronunciare solenniter assertionem pro qua iudicat eum esse haereticum inter haereses computandam.

The major [premise] of this argument seems certain because he who pronounces judicially that someone is a heretic can solemnly pronounce that the assertion on account of which he judges him to be a heretic should be reckoned among the heresies.

Minorem ostendunt auctoritate et ratione. Auctoritate primo Innocentii papae, qui, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Quotiens, ait, "Quotiens fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres et coepiscopos non nisi ad Petrum, id est sui nominis et honoris auctoritatem, referre debere." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod quaestio fidei ad inferiorem summo pontifice referri non debet. Hinc dicit glossa ibidem, "Aliud est quaestionem de fide motam terminare, quod nulli praeterquam Romanae sedi permittitur, sicut hic dicitur. Aliud est ipsam sine diffinitione ventilare, quod patriarchae facere possunt." Et infra, glossa obiiciens, ait, "Videtur contra Extra, De haereticis, Ad abolendam. Nam ibi innuitur quod illi vitandi sunt tanquam haeretici quos episcopi vitandos duxerint ", et respondens ait, "Sed dic quod illud intelligendum est quando tale quid dicunt quod certum est esse haeresim, hic vero ubi dubium est."

They show the minor [premise] by an authority and by an argument. Firstly, by the authority of Pope Innocent who says, as we find in 24, q. 1, c. Quotiens [col.970], "As often as an argument about faith is ventilated, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to no one but Peter, that is to the authority of his name and honour." By these words we are given to understand that a question of faith should not be referred to anyone less than the highest pontiff. Hence the gloss at that place [s. v. fidei; col.1388] says, "It is one thing to determine a question raised about faith, which is not permitted to anyone except the Roman see, as is said here. It is another to ventilate it without determining it, which patriarchs can do." And further on the gloss raises an objection and says, "This seems to be against Extra, De hereticis, c. Ad abolendam. For it is implied there that those whom bishops have said should be avoided, should be avoided as heretics." And in reply it says, "The response is that this should be understood of when they are talking about something that it is certain is a heresy; but this [a case] where there is a doubt."

Istis concordare videtur glossa dist. 80, c. 2, quae super verbo "in fide" ait, "'In fide'", id est fideliter "infra 24, q. 1, Quotiens ubi dicitur quod tantum ad Petrum referenda est quaestio fidei; sed expone hic in fide, id est fideliter. Vel possunt agitare causas fidei sed non procedere ad sententiam, vel distingue qui sunt qui dubitant. Nam si laici, videtur quod episcopi possunt determinare Extra, De haereticis, Ad abolendam; si clerici, papa Extra eodem titulo, Cum Christus." Ex his colligitur quod nullus inferior summo pontifice potest terminare questionem motam de fide, praecipue quando literati dubitant et contrarie opinantur.

The gloss on dist. 80, c. 2 on the words "in fide" seems to agree with these, saying "'in faith'", that is faithfully. "See below, 24, q. 1, c. Quotiens where it is said that a question of faith should be referred only to Peter. But here expound 'in faith', that is faithfully. [The alternatives are] either [that the bishops] are able to carry the case on but not proceed to judgment or we can distinguish who they are who doubt: for if they are laymen, it seems that bishops can make a determination (Extra, De hereticis, c. Ad abolendam), if they are clerics, the pope (the same title, c. Cum Christus)." We gather from these [texts] that no lesser person than the highest pontiff can determine a question raised about the faith, especially when learned men are in doubt and offer opposing opinions.

Quod etiam Innocentius 3, Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, c. Maiores, sentire videtur. Ait enim, "Maiores ecclesiae causas, praesertim articulos fidei contingentes, ad Petri sedem referendas intelliget qui eum quaerenti Domino, quem discipuli dicerent ipsum esse, respondisse notabit, 'Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi.'" Ex quibus verbis patenter habetur quod ad sedem beati Petri est quaestio fidei referenda et ita nec collegium inferius concilio generali nec aliquis episcopus inferior papa potest aliquam haeresim de qua est dubium an sit haeresis condemnare et per consequens nullum talem haeresim asserentem valet tanquam haereticum condemnare. Irrationabile enim videtur omnino quod episcopus vel inquisitor haereticae pravitatis, qui saepe sacrae paginae imperitus existit, opiniones doctorum theologiae posset tanquam haereticas condemnare.

Innocent III seems to think this too in Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, c. Maiores [col.644]. For he says, "He who notes that Peter replied to the Lord when he asked who the disciples said he was, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God", will understand that the church's greater causes, especially those touching on the articles of faith, should be referred to Peter's see." It is clearly established from these words that a question of faith should be referred to the see of blessed Peter, and so no gathering less than a general council and no bishop less than the pope can condemn any heresy about which there is doubt whether it is a heresy, and can not, consequently, condemn as a heretic anyone affirming such a heresy. For it would seem completely irrational that a bishop or inquisitor into heretical wickedness, who is often ignorant of the sacred page, could condemn as heretical the opinions of doctors of theology.

Capitulum 21

Chapter 21

Some problematic cases

Discipulus Quamvis ista sententia videatur fortiter esse probata, tamen contra ipsam urgentes instantias in mente revolvo. Quarum prima est de Universitate Parisiensi quae multas opiniones, etiam Thomae de Aquino, ipso vivente, tanquam erroneas excommunicavit et damnavit. Secunda est de duobus archiepiscopis Cantuariensibus, quorum primus erat doctor theologiae in Ordine Praedicatorum et postea cardinalis, secundus erat etiam doctor theologiae de Ordine Fratrum Minorum, qui plures opiniones Thome excommunicaverunt et damnaverunt. Tertia est de Ordine Fratrum Minorum qui doctrinam Fratris Petri Iohannis damnavit, et ita videtur quod tam ad collegium inferius concilio generali quam ad alias personas inferiores summo pontifice spectat errores a theologis opinatos damnare. Quamobrem qualiter respondetur ad praedictas instantias manifesta.

Student Although that opinion seems to have been proved strongly, yet I am in my mind reflecting on some objections which urge against it. The first of these concerns the University of Paris which excommunicated and condemned as erroneous many opinions, even of Thomas Aquinas while he was still alive. [See E. Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (London, 1955), p. 417] The second concerns two archbishops of Canterbury, the first of whom was a doctor of theology from the Order of Preachers and later a cardinal [Robert Kilwardby]; the second was also a doctor of theology from the Order of Friars Minor [John Pecham]; they excommunicated and condemned many of Thomas's opinions. [See Gilson, pp. 406, 359]. The third concerns the Order of Friars Minor which condemned the teaching of brother Peter John. [See David Burr, Olivi and Franciscan Poverty (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 1989), chapter 4, p. 88ff and pp. 109 and 125. See also Leo Amorós, "Series condemnationum et processuum contra doctrinam et sequaces Petri Ioannis Olivi", Archivum franciscanum historicum, 24 (1931), pp. 399-451 -- a document that may have been composed by Bonagratia of Bergamo, written post 1328. On p. 509 it mentions a Chapter at Marseilles, called by Michael of Cesena in 1319, which examined the errors of Peter John Olivi and condemned them and passed sentence of excommunication against every brother who knowingly held and used his books.] And so it seems that it pertains both to a gathering inferior to a general council and to other persons inferior to the highest pontiff to condemn the errors put forward as opinions by theologians. Make clear, therefore, how reply is made to the above objections.

Magister Ad primam instantiam de Universitate Parisiensi multipliciter respondetur. Uno modo quod multas assertiones temerarie condemnavit, veritates scilicet condemnando. Nullo enim modo potest solenniter veritas absque temeritate damnari. Licet namque absque temeritate damnabili valeat quis veritati contrarium opinari et de veritate dubitare, nunquam tamen veritas solenniter et publice absque damnabili temeritate damnatur. Cum igitur multorum iudicio inter articulos damnatos Parisius contineantur veritates quamplures, sequitur quod eadem universitas plures assertiones temerarie condemnavit. Istius sententiae fuerunt et sunt omnes illi qui extra Universitatem Parisiensem opiniones damnatas Parisius tenuerunt et tenent. Eiusdem etiam sententiae sunt omnes illi qui post revocationem praedictae sententiae quantum ad opiniones Thomae easdem opiniones Thomae prius damnatas nunc Parisius tenent et approbant publice vel occulte.

Master To the first objection, about the University of Paris, many replies are made. One way is that it has condemned many assertions rashly, that is, by condemning truths. For in no way can the truth be solemnly condemned without rashness. For although anyone can without culpable rashness offer an opinion which is opposed to a truth and can doubt its truth, yet a truth is never solemnly and publicly condemned without culpable rashness. Therefore since very many truth are, according to the judgement of many, contained among the articles condemned at Paris, it follows that that university condemned many assertions rashly. Of that opinion have been and are all those outside the University of Paris who have held and hold the opinions condemned at Paris. Also of that way of thinking are all those who, since the revocation of the aforesaid sentence in respect of Thomas's opinions, now publicly or secretly maintain and approve at Paris those same opinions of his that were earlier condemned.

Discipulus Miror quod dicis aliquos ante revocationem sententiae Parisiensis assertiones damnatas Parisius tenuisse, nisi forsitan ignoranter nescientes assertiones fuisse damnatas ibidem.

Student I wonder at your saying that before the revocation of that sentence of Paris some people had maintained the assertions condemned at Paris, unless perhaps in their ignorance they did not know that the assertions had been condemned there.

Magister Volo te scire quod multi scienter nonnullas assertiones damnatas Parisius occulte et publice docuerunt. Unde et per certitudinem scio quendam doctorem de Ordine Praedicatorum assertionem damnatam Parisius publice ante praedictam revocationem determinasse, et cum contra se ipsum obiceret quod dicta assertio quam tenuit erat excommunicata Parisius respondit illam excommunicationem nequaquam mare transisse. Istius etiam sententiae Magister Godfridus de Fontibus fuisse videtur, determinans et in scriptis relinquens quod articuli damnati erant corrigendi.

Master I want you to know that many people have knowingly taught secretly and publicly a number of assertions condemned at Paris. Whence I know as a certainty that a certain doctor of the Order of Preachers had publicly taught an assertion condemned at Paris before the above-mentioned revocation, and when he made the objection against himself that the assertion which he maintained had been excommunicated at Paris he replied that the said excommunication had not crossed the sea. Master Godfrey of Fontaines seems to have been of that opinion too, teaching and leaving it in his writings that the condemned articles should have been corrected.

Capitulum 22

Chapter 22

Discipulus Verba quae refers cogunt me incidentaliter interrogare, si aliquae veritates cum assertoribus earundem fuerunt Parisius excommunicatae, an tenentes Parisius veritates easdem in excommunicationis sententiam inciderunt cum sententia lata ex causa iniqua neminem involvere videatur.

Student The words which you report force me to ask you incidentally whether, if some truths together with those affirming them were excommunicated at Paris, those maintaining those truths at Paris fell under a sentence of excommunication, since a sentence imposed for an unfair reason is seen not to involve anyone.

Magister Nonnulli putant quod si dicta sententia excommunicationis aliquae assertiones catholicae excommunicatae fuerunt, ipsa nullum tenentem veritatem damnatam de facto potuit quoquomodo ligare, nec talis debuit se reputare ligatum, licet alii credentes dictam sententiam non esse iniquam ipsum tanquam excommunicatum vitare debuerunt.

Master Some people think that if some catholic assertions were excommunicated by the said sentence of excommunication, it could in fact in no way have bound anyone holding the condemned truth, nor should such a person have regarded himself as bound, although others who believe that the said sentence was not unfair should have avoided him as an excommunicate.

Hanc assertionem triplici ratione probare nituntur, quarum prima est haec. Secundum Innocentium 3, ut habetur Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, c. Per tuas, sententia excommunicationis continens intolerabilem errorem non ligat; sed excommunicare assertionem catholicam est intolerabilis error; ergo talis sententia nullum ligat.

They try to prove this assertion by three arguments of which this is the first. According to Innocent III, as we find in Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, c. Per tuas [col.906], a sentence of excommunication that contains an intolerable error is not binding; but to excommunicate a catholic assertion is an intolerable error; therefore such a sentence binds no one.

Secunda ratio est haec: nullus potest cogi ad malum; negare autem assertionem catholicam est de se malum; ergo ad hoc per nullam sententiam potest quis cogi, et per consequens sententia ad hoc cogens est nulla. Sententia autem excommunicationis qua excommunicatur catholica veritas, quantum est ex forma sententiae, cogit negare catholicam veritatem; ergo talis sententia nulla est, et per consequens neminem ligat.

The second argument is this: no one can be forced to evil; to deny a catholic assertion, however, is of itself evil; therefore no one can be forced to this by any sentence, and consequently a sentence forcing someone to this is null. However, a sentence of excommunication by which a catholic truth is excommunicated forces the denial of a catholic truth, as far as a formal sentence can do; therefore such a sentence is null and consequently is not binding on anyone.

Tertia ratio est haec: sententia haeretici neminem ligat, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Audivimus; sed si dicta sententia excommunicationis se extendebat ad catholicas veritates, ferentes eandem sententiam fuerunt haeretici, quia si dubius in fide est infidelis multo fortius damnans sententialiter veritatem catholicam haereticus est censendus; si autem ferentes dictam sententiam fuerunt haeretici ipsa nullum omnino ligavit.

 

The third argument is this: the sentence of a heretic is binding on no one, as we find in 24, q. 1, c. Audivimus [col.967]; but if the said sentence of excommunication extended to catholic truths those imposing that sentence were heretics because, if someone who doubts in a matter of faith is an unbeliever, much more is it the case that he who condemns a catholic truth in a sentence should be considered a heretic; if those imposing the said sentence were heretics, however, it did not bind anyone at all.

Capitulum 23

Chapter 23

Discipulus An excommunicantes ignoranter assertionem catholicam sint censendi haeretici postea diligenter inquiram, et ideo ad propositum revertaris et quomodo ad praefatam instantiam de Universitate Parisiensi aliter respondetur enarra.

Student I will carefully inquire later whether those unknowingly excommunicating a catholic assertion should be considered heretics, and so would you return to the argument and tell me in what other way reply is made to the above objection about the University of Paris.

Magister Sunt quidam dicentes quod dicta universitas multas assertiones temerarie excommunicavit, non quia illas assertiones putent sapere catholicam veritatem sed quia quomodo repugnent fidei orthodoxae non apparet. Alii dicunt quod ideo dicta excommunicatio fuit temeraria reputanda, quia excommunicantes potestatem quam non habebant indebite usurparunt, et ideo iuste fuit postea eadem sententia revocata. Adhuc est quarta responsio, quod episcopus Parisiensis auctoritate apostolicae sedis rite eandem tulit sententiam. Damnare autem assertionem catholicam auctoritate sedis apostolicae ad inferiorem summo pontifice potest licite pertinere.

Master There are some people who say that the said university excommunicated many assertions rashly, not because they think that those assertions smack of catholic truth but because it is not clear how they are opposed to orthodox faith. Others say that the said excommunication should have been considered rash because those who pronounced the excommunication usurped without just cause a power that they did not have, and so it was just that the sentence was later revoked. There is yet a fourth response, that the bishop of Paris rightly imposed that sentence with the authority of the apostolic see. To condemn a catholic assertion with the authority of the apostolic see, however, can licitly pertain to someone inferior to the highest pontiff.

Discipulus Si tam damnans solenniter assertionem catholicam quam revocans ritam et iustam damnationem haereticae pravitatis sit iudicandus haereticus, de quo inferius interrogationes tibi proponam, videtur necessario concedendum vel ferentes dictam sententiam excommunicationis contra opiniones Thomae vel postea revocantes eandem sunt inter haereticos computandi.

Student If both someone condemning solemnly a catholic assertion and someone revoking a right and just condemnation of heretical wickedness should be judged heretical - and I will propose some questions to you about this later - it seems that it should be granted necessarily that either those imposing the said sentence of excommunication against the opinions of Thomas or those revoking it later should be reckoned among the heretics.

Magister Quibusdam videtur quod tantum ferentes, aliis quod revocantes sunt haeretici reputandi, sed qui verius dicant sciri non potest nisi praecognito an assertiones damnatae et postea revocatae haereticae vel catholicae sint censendae.

Master It seems to some people that only the sentencers, to others [only] the revokers are be regarded as heretics, but it can not be known who is speaking more truly unless it is first known whether the assertions condemned and later revoked should be considered heretical or catholic.

Capitulum 24

Chapter 24

Discipulus De ista instantia ad praesens te non amplius intromittas, sed dic quomodo ad secundam instantiam respondetur.

Student Do not involve yourself any further with that objection now, but tell me how reply is made to the second objection.

Magister Instantia illa comprehendit duas, quarum prima est de primo archiepiscopo qui fuit Ordinis Praedicatorum. Secunda est de secundo archiepiscopo qui fuit Ordinis Minorum. De primo diversimode dicitur a diversis. Dicunt enim quidam quod damnatio sua temeraria existebat eo quod veritates, ut dicunt, condemnavit. Unde et quidam alius archiepiscopus ipsum de dicta damnatione acriter reprehendit, scribens eidem epistolam in qua manifeste asseruit quod veritates damnaverat. Multi tamen putantes ipsum veritates plures temere condemnasse quod fuerit haereticus nequaquam affirmant, quia, ut dicunt, nullam veritatem catholicam sed plures veritates philosophicas condemnavit. De assertionibus enim grammaticalibus, logicalibus et pure philosophicis in eadem damnatione se, ut asserunt, temere intromisit.

Master That objection comprises two [parts], of which the first concerns the first archbishop who was of the Order of Preachers. The second concerns the second archbishop who was of the Order of Minorites. Different people speak in different ways about the first. For some say that his condemnation was rash in that he condemned what they say are truths. Thus also a certain other archbishop [Peter of Conflans] censured him fiercely for that condemnation, writing a letter to him in which he clearly affirmed that he had condemned truths. Yet many people who think that he rashly condemned many truths do not assert that he was a heretic because, as they say, he did not condemn any catholic truth but many philosophical truths. For they affirm that in that condemnation he rashly involved himself with grammatical, logical and purely philosophical assertions.

Discipulus An iste propter dictam damnationem fuerit haereticus reputandus vel non sciri non posset nisi assertiones discuterentur quas damnavit, quod ad praesens non intendo. Sed posito quod damnasset aliquam assertionem quae in rei veritate est pure philosophica tanquam haereticam, nunquid fuisset haereticus?

Student Whether he should have been regarded as a heretic or not because of that condemnation could not be known unless the assertions which he condemned were discussed, and I do not intend to do this now. But if it is assumed that he had condemned some assertion as heretical which in truth of fact is purely philosophical, would he have been a heretic?

Magister Quidam dicunt quod sic, quia pertinaciter asserens aliquid esse de substantia fidei quod ad fidem non pertinet est haereticus iudicandus.

Master Some people say 'yes', because someone who affirms pertinaciously that something which does not pertain to the faith concerns the substance of faith should be judged a heretic.

Discipulus De hoc postea perscrutabor, et ideo ad propositum revertere principale et dic an aliqui alii praeter archiepiscopum de quo dixisti censuerint fuisse temerariam damnationem praedictam.

Student I will investigate this later, and so return to the main argument and say whether anyone else besides the archbishop you spoke about [i.e. Peter of Conflans] considered that the aforesaid condemnation was rash.

Magister Plures alii ipsam fuisse temerariam reputarunt. Plures enim doctores et scholares Parisienses assertiones damnatas a dicto archiepiscopo publice tenuerunt. Nam opinionem Thomae de unitate formae in homine inter alias condemnavit, et tamen tu scis quod plures Parisius ipsam publice tenent et defendunt ac docent, et ita est de multis aliis.

Master Many others reckoned that it was rash. For many doctors and students at Paris publicly held the assertions condemned by the said archbishop [i.e. Robert of Kilwardby]. For among other opinions of Thomas, he condemned the one about the unity of form in a man, and yet you know that many people in Paris publicly hold, defend, and teach it; and so it is with many others.

Discipulus Dic aliam responsionem ad instantiam secundam.

Student Tell me another response to the second objection.

Magister Alii dicunt quod dictus archiepiscopus articulos illos temere condemnavit non quia inter illos veritates aliquae sint damnatae sed quia sibi potestatem damnandi quam non habuit usurpavit.

Master Others say that the said archbishop condemned those articles rashly not because among them some truths were condemned but because he usurped to himself a power of condemning that he did not have.

Discipulus Isti reprehendendo dictam damnationem primo fundamento solummodo, scilicet quod nullus inferior summo pontifice habet potestatem aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam condemnandi, inniti videntur.

Student In censuring his condemnation they seem to be relying on this one principle only, namely that no one inferior to the highest pontiff has the power to condemn any assertion as heretical.

Magister Non est, ut dicis, quia isti non solum innituntur fundamento praefato, sed etiam asserunt quod assertiones pure philosophicae quae ad theologiam non pertinent non sunt ab aliquo solenniter condemnandae seu interdicendae, quia in talibus quilibet esse debet liber ut libere dicat quid sibi placet; et ideo quia dictus archiepiscopus damnavit et interdixit opiniones grammaticales, logicales et pure philosophicas sua sententia fuit temeraria reputanda.

Master It is not as you say, because they do not rely only on the aforesaid principle, but they also affirm that purely philosophical assertions which do not pertain to theology should not be solemnly condemned or forbidden by anyone, because in connection with such [assertions] anyone at all ought to be free to say freely what pleases him; and therefore because the said archbishop condemned and forbad grammatical, logical and purely philosophical opinions his sentence should be regarded as rash.

Discipulus An liceat alicui tales assertiones damnare nolo ad praesens inquirere, sed indica si ad saepe dictam instantiam aliter respondetur.

Student I do not want to inquire now whether anyone is permitted to condemn such assertions, but indicate if any other reply is made to the often-cited objection.

Magister Sunt quidam dicentes quod quilibet episcopus habet potestatem damnandi haereses, ex quo sibi patenter innotescit quod fidei obviant orthodoxae.

Master Some people say that any bishop has the power to condemn heresies from the fact that it is clear to him that they are opposed to orthodox faith.

Discipulus Isti negant quod prius probasti, scilicet quod sola apostolica sedes potest terminare quaestionem motam de fide. Unde non curo quod plus loquaris de isto archiepiscopo, sed dic quid dicitur de alio.

Student They deny what you proved before, that is, that only the apostolic see can determine a question raised about faith. Therefore I do not care for you to speak further about that archbishop, but set out what is said about the other one [i.e. John Pecham].

Magister Quidam putant ipsum temerarie condemnasse opiniones Thomae quia continent veritatem, quidam autem quia ad eum quamcunque assertionem damnare minime pertinebat. Quidam vero dicunt quod rite damnavit quia illae opiniones fidei obviant orthodoxae, eo quod tota opinio de unitate formae in homine doctrinae ecclesiae manifeste repugnat quae docet quod idem fuit corpus Christi vivum et mortuum. Et quilibet episcopus habet potestatem damnandi assertiones doctrinae ecclesiae repugnantes.

Master Some people think that he condemned Thomas's opinions rashly because they contain the truth, some, however, because it did not pertain to him to condemn any opinion at all. But indeed some say that he condemned them rightly because those opinions are opposed to orthodox faith in that the whole opinion about the unity of form in a man is clearly opposed to the teaching of the church which teaches that Christ's body was the same alive and dead. And any bishop at all has the power to condemn assertions opposed to the teaching of the church.

Capitulum 25

Chapter 25

Discipulus Narra quomodo respondetur ad tertiam instantiam de Ordine Minorum qui damnauit doctrinam Petri Iohannis.

Student Tell me how reply is made to the third objection about the Order of Minorites which condemned the teaching of Peter John.

Magister Ad illam multipliciter respondetur. Ad cuius evidentiam debes scire quod de doctrina Petri Iohannis diversi diversimode sentiunt. Quidam enim putant totam doctrinam suam esse catholicam. Quidam aestimant quod nihil in ea invenitur quod haeresim sapiat manifestam, multa tamen falsa et fantastica continet et praecipue cum futura praedicit. Alii reputant quod haereses continet manifestas.

Master There are many replies to this. To make this clear you should know that different people think differently about Peter John's teaching. For some people think that all his teaching is catholic. Some think that nothing is found in it which smacks of manifest heresy, yet that it contains many false and fantastic features, especially when he predicts future events. Others reckon that it contains manifest heresies.

Primi et secundi tenent quod Ordo Minorum dictam doctrinam temerarie condemnavit, immo nonnulli putant quod damnantes incurrerint haereticam pravitatem quia sententialiter damnare catholicam veritatem efficit damnantem haereticum pertinacem. Tertii variantur, quidam enim licet reputent doctrinam Petri Iohannis esse haereticam, tamen asserunt quod Ordo antedictus temere condemnavit eandem potestatem quam non habuit usurpando. Alii dicunt quod condemnantes nequaquam temere processerunt quia processerunt auctoritate papae. Dicunt enim quod Nicolaus 4 eandem doctrinam mandaverit condemnari. Tertii dicunt specialiter de capitulo Massiliensi quod non temere condemnavit praefatam doctrinam quia solum damnavit, vel potius damnatam declaravit seu pronunciavit, illa quae prius per concilium generale vel per aliquem pontificem Romanum damnata fuerunt vel quae aperte contradicebant Scripturae Divinae.

The first and second groups hold that the Order of Minorites condemned the said teaching rashly, indeed some of them think that the condemners fell into heretical wickedness because to condemn a catholic truth in a sentence makes the condemner a pertinacious heretic. The third group is diversified, for although some of them regard Peter John's teaching as heretical, yet they assert that the aforesaid Order condemned it rashly in usurping a power which it did not have. Others say the condemners did not proceed rashly because they proceeded with the authority of the pope. For they say that Nicholas IV ordered that his teaching be condemned. A third group says about the chapter at Marseilles in particular that it did not condemn that teaching rashly because it condemned, or rather declared or pronounced condemned, only those things which had been condemned previously by a general council or by some Roman pontiff or which were clearly in contradiction with divine scripture.

Discipulus Ista ultima sententia magis mihi placet pro eo praecipue quod nec Ordini antedicto attribuit usurpasse potestatem quam non habuit nec damnationi domini Iohannis papae 22 noscitur obviare, et ideo ipsam quantum potes fulcire nitaris.

Student That last opinion pleases me more, especially because it did not charge that Order with usurping power which it did not have and because it is not known to be opposed to the condemnation by the lord, Pope John XXII, and therefore try to support it as well as you can.

Magister Istam sententiam declarare non possem nisi articulos condemnatos et acta Ordinis saepedicti ac etiam doctrinam praefati Petri de qua dicti articuli sunt accepti haberem. Tu autem scis quod nullum habeo praedictorum, et forte illi de Ordine nollent mihi communicare eadem.

Master I could not make that opinion clear unless I had the condemned articles, the acts of the above Order and also the teaching of Peter from which the said articles have been taken. You know, however, that I have none of those and perhaps the members of the Order would refuse to share them with me.

Capitulum 26

Chapter 26

Discipulus Ex quo istam ultimam sententiam declarare non potes, declarationem eiusdem usque ad aliud tempus, si forte praedicta ab eodem Ordine habere potueris, differamus, et dic an aliqui teneant quod aliquis inferior summo pontifice possit interdicere et praecipere assertiones aliquas non teneri, licet eas damnare non possit.

Student Because you can not make that last opinion clear let us defer its clarification until another time, if by chance you can get the above things from that Order. [See Significant Variants, para. 6.] And tell me whether anyone holds that someone inferior to the highest pontiff can forbid some assertions and order them not to be held, even if he can not condemn them.

Magister Sunt nonnulli putantes quod licet nec aliquod collegium inferius concilio generali nec aliquis inferior summo pontifice valeat licite quamcumque assertionem non damnatam explicite tamquam haereticam excommunicare vel damnare, licet tamen collegiis aliis et praelatis inferioribus papa assertiones erroneas ex causa rationabili interdicere et praecipere quod nullatenus publice defendantur. Et ideo dicunt quod si Universitas Parisiensis et Cantuarienses archiepiscopi saepefati ex causa rationabili opiniones Thomae interdixissent, tantummodo praecipiendo quod publice eas nullus defenderet aut doceret Parisius et ad sententiam excommunicationis et damnationis opinionum earundem nullatenus processissent nil temerarium commisissent.

Master There are some who think that although no gathering less than a general council nor anyone inferior to the highest pontiff can licitly excommunicate or condemn as heretical any assertion that has not been explicitly condemned, yet other gatherings and prelates inferior to the pope are permitted for a reasonable cause to forbid erroneous assertions and to order that they not be defended publicly. And therefore they say that if the University of Paris and the oft-mentioned archbishops of Canterbury had forbidden Thomas's opinions for a reasonable cause, only ordering that no one was to defend or teach them publicly at Paris, and had not proceeded to a sentence of excommunication and condemnation of those opinions, they would have done nothing rash.

Discipulus Quae potest esse causa rationabilis praecipiendi opiniones aliquas publice non teneri?

Student What can be a reasonable cause for ordering that some opinions not be held publicly?

Magister Dicunt quod pro scandalo et schismate aliisque malis et periculis evitandis possunt opiniones aliquae etiam verae quandoque rationibiliter interdici.

Master They say that any opinions, even sometimes true ones, can be reasonably forbidden for the purpose of avoiding scandal, schism and other evils and dangers.

Discipulus Nunquid fuit unquam aliquod scandalum de opinionibus Thomae?

Student Was there ever any scandal about Thomas's opinions?

Magister Saepe audivi a multis Anglicis enarrari quod de opinione Thomae de unitate formae quando conclusiones quae sequuntur ex ipsa explicabantur scandalum fuit in Anglicano populo infinitum.

Master I have often heard it said by many Englishmen that when conclusions which follow from Thomas's opinion about the unity of form were explained there was endless scandal among the English people.

Discipulus Quae fuerunt illae conclusiones sequentes ex opinione de unitate formae quae expresse scandalizabant populum?

Student What were those conclusions following from that opinion about the unity of form which expressly scandalised the people?

Magister Secundum istos subscriptae sunt. Quod corpus Christi non fuit idem numero vivum et mortuum; quod corpus quod iacuit in sepulchro Christi triduo nunquam fuit corpus Christi dum viveret; quod corpora et reliquiae quae a fidelibus pro corporibus sanctorum et reliquiis venerantur nunquam fuerunt corpora nec partes sanctorum dum viverent; quod corpora mortua nunquam fuerunt corpora viventium; quod caro mortua nunquam fuit viva.

Master According to them, they are those written below. That Christ's body was not the same in number alive and dead; that the body that lay in Christ's tomb over the three days was never Christ's body when he was alive; that the bodies and relics that are venerated by believers as the bodies and relics of saints were never the bodies and parts of the saints when they were alive; that dead bodies were never the bodies of people alive; that dead flesh was never living.

Discipulus Satis exemplificasti de conclusionibus sequentibus ex opinione de unitate formae substantialis, et ideo ad propositum redeundo explica rationes, si quae sunt, pro assertione praedicta.

Student You have sufficiently exemplified the conclusions which follow from that opinion about the unity of substantial form, and so returning to our plan set out the arguments for the above assertion, if there are any.

Magister Assertionem suam probant isti tali ratione. Omne illud quod potest licite praetermitti a subditis potest ex causa rationabili a praelatis et iurisdictionem habentibus super subditos interdici; nam qui praeest potest et debet in omnibus utilitati omnium providere et periculis obviare, et in talibus licitis et honestis oportet subditos obedire, ut colligitur ex sacris canonibus 11, q. 3, c. Si autem et c. Si quis et c. Absit; sed opiniones aliquas non defendere nec docere est licitum, imo quandoque necessarium et expediens, ergo et potest a praelatis et collegiis iurisdictionem habentibus ex causa rationabili interdici.

Master They prove their assertion by the following argument. Everything that can licitly be omitted by subjects can for a reasonable cause be forbidden by prelates and by those having jurisdiction over the subjects; for he who is in command can and should make provision for everyone's benefit in all matters and prevent dangers, and it behoves their subjects to obey them in permitted and honest matters of this kind, as we gather from the sacred canons, 11, q. 3, c. Si autem [col.646], c. Si quis [col.646] and c. Absit [col.647]; but there are some opinions which it is permissible, indeed sometimes it is necessary and expedient, not to defend or teach, and therefore this can also be forbidden for a reasonable cause by prelates and colleges having jurisdiction.

Discipulus Secundum hanc rationem liceret quandoque praelatis interdicere veritates. Nam quandoque tacere veritatem est expediens.

Student According to this argument prelates would sometimes be permitted to forbid truths, for it is sometimes expedient to be silent about the truth.

Magister Interdicere veritatem omnibus et pro omni tempore nemini licet secundum istos, aliquibus tamen et pro aliquo tempore imperare ne aliquas veritates docere praesumant licet, sicut dixit Apostolus, "Mulieri docere non permitto", et Dominus in evangelio ait, "Nolite dare sanctum canibus; neque mittatis margaritas ante porcos." Ex quibus colligitur quod nec omnibus nec omni tempore veritatem expedit praedicare aut docere vel defensare.

Master According to them no one is permitted to forbid the truth to everyone and for all time, yet it is permissible to order some people for some time not to presume to teach some truths, just as the Apostle said [1 Tim. 2:12], "I suffer not a woman to teach", and in the gospel [Matt. 7:6] the Lord said, "Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine." We gather from these words that it is not expedient for everyone all the time to preach, teach or defend the truth.

Discipulus Ex hoc videtur quod nulli licet opiniones seu assertiones quas damnare nequit omnibus et pro omni tempore interdicere, licet aliquibus et pro aliquo tempore ipsas licite interdicere possit.

Student It seems from this that no one is permitted to forbid to everyone for all time opinions or assertions which he can not condemn, although he can licitly forbid them to some people for some time.

Magister Hanc conclusionem ipsi concedunt, et ideo signanter dicunt quod ex causa rationabili licet inferioribus aliquas assertiones interdicere, per hoc insinuantes quod cessante causa cesset interdictum.

Master They grant this conclusion, and therefore it is significant that they say that inferiors are permitted to forbid some assertions "for a reasonable cause", implying by this that when the cause ceases the forbidding ceases.

Capitulum 27

Chapter 27

Discipulus Licet circa praedicta mihi multae dubitationes occurrant, illis tamen omissis ad intentum principale revertor. Mihi autem videtur probabile quod nullus inferior papa potest aliquam assertionem non damnatam explicite tanquam haereticam excommunicare vel damnare explicite, sed adhuc ignoro cui fundamento papa vel concilium generale in damnando explicite aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam debet inniti. Unde de hoc quid sentiunt literati dicere non postponas.

Student Although many doubts about the foregoing occur to me, nevertheless I will put them aside and return to the main argument. It seems probable to me, however, that no one inferior to the pope can excommunicate or condemn explicitly as heretical any assertion not explicitly condemned, but I still do not know on what principle a pope or a general council should rely in explicitly condemning some assertion as heretical. Would you therefore not delay telling me what the learned think about this.

On what basis can a doctrine be condemned as heresy?

Magister Circa interrogationem tuam opiniones contrarias recitabo. Sunt enim quidam dicentes quod tantae auctoritatis est papa quod ad placitum potest quamcunque assertionem tanquam haereticam condemnare, et isti videntur esse imitatores sequacium Sergii papae, persecutoris papae Formosi, qui, ut in quodam libro antiquissima litera legitur, in tantum volebant papam extollere quod asserebant papam non posse damnari sed quod quicquid faceret salvaretur. Ita isti dicunt quod quicquid papa diffinit esse tenendum omnes catholicos oportet credere et tenere. Hinc dicit glossa dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum, "Illud quod papa approbat vel reprobat, nos approbare vel reprobare debemus."

Master I will recite opposing opinions about your question. For there are some people who say that the pope is of such great authority that as it pleases him he can condemn any assertion as heretical, and they seem to be imitators of the followers of Pope Sergius, the persecutor of Pope Formosus. As we read in a certain book with a very old script, they wanted to exalt the pope so much that they asserted that a pope can not be damned but would be saved whatever he did. Thus they say that it is necessary for all catholics to believe and hold whatever a pope defines should be held. Hence, the gloss on dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum [s. v. reprobantur; col.80] says, "That of which a pope approves or disapproves, we ought to approve or disapprove."

Discipulus Ista assertio sonat quod papa non potest haereticari, de quo postea interrogationem specialem habebo. Ideo de hoc pro nunc transeas, et narra ut promisisti assertionem contrariam.

Student That assertion suggests that the pope can not be a heretic, a matter about which I will have a particular question later. Would you pass over this now, therefore, and set out the opposing assertion, as you promised.

Magister Alii asserunt manifeste quod papa et concilium generale ac etiam universalis ecclesia, si recte damnet aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam stricte loquendo, de assertione haeretica uni vel pluribus de tribus fundamentis debet inniti et se patenter fundare.

Master Others assert clearly that if a pope, a general council and also the universal church rightly condemn some assertion as heretical strictly speaking, they should rely and clearly base themselves in connection with that heretical assertion on one or more of three principles.

Primum est Scriptura Sacra et isti fundamento innitebantur concilia generalia principalia haereses Arrii, Macedonii, Nestorii, Euticis et Diostori condemnando. Sicut enim aliqua illorum conciliorum, condendo symbola, in auctoritate Scripturae Divinae se fundabant, testante Isidoro qui, ut habetur dist. 15, c. 1, ait, "Sancti patres in concilio Niceno de omni orbe terrarum convenientes iuxta fidem evangelicam et apostolicam secundum post apostolos symbolum tradiderunt", ita haereses damnando pro fundamento sacras literas posuerunt. Sic etiam Alexander 3 damnando assertionem dicentem quod Christus non est aliquid secundum quod homo in hac veritate a Scriptura Divina accepta, "Christus est verus Deus et homo", se fundavit. Sic etiam sancti doctores haereses reprobando ipsas per Scripturas Sacras convincere conabantur, sicut ex libris eorum patenter habetur. Unde et Isidorus, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Quidam autem, plures haereses per Scripturam Sacram arguit evidenter.

The first is sacred scripture, and the earliest general councils relied on this principle in condemning the heresies of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Euticis and Diostorus. For just as some of those councils based themselves on the authority of divine scripture in producing the creeds, as Isidore attests when he says, as we find in dist 15, c. 1 [col.34], "The holy fathers coming together at the council of Nicea from all the lands on earth handed on the second creed after the apostles in accordance with evangelical and apostolic faith", so also in condemning heresies they laid down sacred letters as their principle. So too, in condemning the assertion that says that Christ is nothing as a man Alexander III based himself on this truth taken from divine scripture, "Christ is true God and true man". So too, when refuting heresies holy doctors tried to convict them through the sacred scriptures, as is clearly found from their books. Hence, as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Quidam autem [col.1001], Isidore too clearly censured many heresies through sacred scripture.

Secundum fundamentum est doctrina apostolica, quae in scriptis apostolicis non redacta sed relatione succedentium fidelium vel in scripturis fide dignis ad nos pervenit, et isti fundamento innititur Nicolaus papa qui, ut ex capitulo eius in decretis dist. 22 inserto patenter colligitur, diffinit haereticum fore censendum dicere Romanam ecclesiam non esse caput omnium ecclesiarum. Cum tamen de hoc in Scripturis Sacris mentio minime habeatur sed hoc apostoli tradiderunt et docuerunt fideles, quae doctrina relatione fidelium sibimet succedentium et scripturis sanctorum patrum ad nos pervenit. Pro hoc faciunt rationes ac auctoritates quas supra, cum tractarem interrogationem tuam quae veritates sunt catholicae reputandae, adduxi.

The second principle is apostolic teaching, which has reached us not rendered in apostolic writings but by the account of succeeding believers or in trustworthy writings. As we clearly gather from his Chapter inserted in dist. 22 [c. Omnes, col.73], Pope Nicholas relies on this principle when he determines that it should be considered heretical to say that the Roman church is not the head of all churches. Yet since no mention is found of this in the sacred scriptures, rather the apostles handed this on and taught it to believers, this teaching has reached us in the account of the believers who followed them and in the writings of the holy fathers. The arguments and texts which I brought forward above when I was investigating your question, "Which truths should be regarded as catholic?" tell in favour of this.

Tertium fundamentum est revelatio vel inspiratio nova divina. Si enim aliqua veritas aeterna de his quae pertinent ad salutem de novo revelaretur ecclesiae, illa esset tanquam catholica approbanda et omnem falsitatem ei contrariam posset ecclesia et etiam papa tanquam haereticam condemnare. Et quamvis isti exemplum nesciant invenire, quod unquam ecclesia aliquam haeresim condemnando se in tali revelatione vel inspiratione fundaverit, tamen dicunt quod hoc non est impossibile quia posset Deus, si sibi placeret, multas veritates catholicas noviter revelare vel inspirare.

The third principle is a new divine revelation or inspiration. For if any eternal truth about those things that pertain to salvation were newly revealed to the church it would be approved as catholic, and the church, and also the pope, could condemn as heretical every falsity opposed to it. And although they do not know how to find an example, that in condemning some heresy the church has ever based itself on such a revelation or inspiration, yet they say that this is not impossible because if it were pleasing to him God could newly reveal or inspire many catholic truths.

Discipulus Quid si papa vel generale etiam concilium dicat sibi aliquam veritatem esse revelatam a Deo vel etiam inspiratam? Nunquid alii fideles credere astringuntur?

Student What if a pope or even a general council says that some truth had been revealed to it, or, also, inspired in it, by God? Are other believers bound to believe?

Magister Dicunt isti quod absque miraculo manifesto non est eis credendum quia non sufficit nude asserere quod est eis veritas revelata vel etiam inspirata, sed oportet quod talem revelationem seu inspirationem miraculi operatione confirment aperta.

Master They say that they should not be believed without an obvious miracle, because it is not enough to assert barely that a truth has been revealed to them or even inspired in them, but it is necessary that they confirm a revelation or inspiration of this kind by the clear working of a miracle.

Discipulus Quid dicerent isti si omnes christiani nullo excepto aliquam veritatem tanquam catholicam firmiter acceptarent quam tamen nec ex Scripturis Divinis nec ex aliqua doctrina ecclesiae praecedenti possent ostendere?

Student What would they say if all christians with no exception were firmly to accept some truth as catholic which nevertheless they could not show from the divine scriptures nor from any earlier teaching of the church?

Magister Dicunt quod talis veritas esset tanquam catholica acceptanda quia talis concors adhaesio omnium christianorum nullo excepto alicui assertioni huiusmodi sine miraculo non posset contingere. Cum enim omnes fideles firmissime teneant quod iuxta promissionem Salvatoris Matthaei ultimo, "Vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi", ecclesia universalis nunquam errabit, constat quod sine inspiratione divina speciali nunquam ecclesia universalis assertioni quae non dependet ex doctrina ecclesiae praecedenti firmiter adhaerebit, et ita si unquam tali veritati adhaerebit miraculose adhaerebit, et ideo tunc miraculum fieri esset credendum.

Master They say that such a truth should be accepted as catholic because such a harmonious agreement of all christians with no exception could not occur in connection with any assertion of this kind without a miracle. For since all believers most firmly hold, in accordance with the Saviour's promise in the last chapter of Matthew [28:20], "I am with you always, to the end of the age", that the church universal will never err, it is certain that without special divine inspiration the universal church will never cling firmly to an assertion which does not derive from earlier teaching of the church, and so if it does ever cling to such a truth it will cling miraculously, and therefore it should be believed that a miracle has happened.

Discipulus Quid sentiunt si omnes christiani praeter paucos vel unum assertioni tali quae ex doctrina ecclesiae praecedenti probari non posset noviter adhaererent?

Student What do they think if all christians except a few or one were newly to adhere to an assertion of this kind which could not be proved from the previous teaching of the church?

Magister Dicunt quod si unus solus dissentiret non esset talis veritas acceptanda quia in uno solo potest stare tota fides ecclesiae, quemadmodum tempore mortis Christi tota fides catholica in sola beata virgine remanebat, nec est credendum quod omni tempore post tempora apostolorum sint aliqui magis accepti Deo quam fuerunt apostoli ante mortem Christi. Si igitur Christus post crucifixionem suam permisit cunctos apostolos a fide catholica deviare et solam beatam virginem firmiter permanere in fide temerarium est asserere quod nunquam ante finem mundi Deus permitteret totam multitudinem christianorum praeter unum a fide recedere orthodoxa.

Master They say that if only one person were to dissent, such a truth should not be accepted because the whole faith of the church can abide in one single person, just as in the time of Christ's death the whole catholic faith endured in the blessed virgin alone, and it should not be believed that at any time after the times of the apostles some people were more accepted by God than the apostles were before the death of Christ. If therefore after his crucifixion Christ permitted all the apostles to turn aside from the catholic faith and the blessed virgin alone to endure firmly in the faith it is rash to assert that never before the end of the world would God permit the whole multitude of christians except one to withdraw from orthodox faith.

Discipulus Ista nescio improbare, sed videtur quod ad hoc quod omnes catholici teneantur alicui veritati noviter revelatae firmiter adhaerere non sufficit eam operatione miraculi confirmare cum per malos et infideles fiant miracula, sicut ex verbis evangelii Matthei 7 colligitur, ut apparet Christo dicente, "Multi dicent mihi in illa die, Domine, Domine, nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus, et in nomine tuo daemonia eiecimus, et in nomine tuo virtutes multas fecimus? Et tunc confitebor illis, quia nunquam novi vos," hoc est nunquam approbavi vos. Huic etiam concordat glossa Extra, De haereticis, c. Cum ex iniuncto dicens, "Quandoque miracula fiunt per malos."

Student I do not know how to disprove these things, but it seems that for all catholics to be bound to adhere firmly to some newly revealed truth it is not enough to confirm it with the working of a miracle since miracles are performed by the wicked and by unbelievers, as we gather, so it seems, from the words of the gospel of Matthew, 7[:22-3] when Christ says, "Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out demons in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?' And then I will profess unto them, 'I never knew you.'", that is I never approved you. The gloss on Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum ex iniuncto [col.1678, s.v. miraculi] agrees with this too, saying, "Sometimes miracles are performed by the wicked."

Magister Ad istam obiectionem respondent dicentes quod, licet per malos fiant miracula, nunquam tamen fit verum miraculum ad confirmationem falsitatis asserte per malos; et ideo quando docent aliquem errorem, ad confirmationem illius erroris nunquam fit verum miraculum; sed si praedicant veritatem quamvis sint mali fiunt aliquando miracula ad confirmationem veritatis. Sic Iudas proditor quamvis fuerit malus quia tamen docuit veritatem miracula faciebat. Quando ergo fit miraculum verum ad assertionem aliquam confirmandam tenendum est indubie quod talis assertio pro vera debet haberi sive illi quibus revelata fuerit inter bonos sive inter malos fuerint computandi.

Master They reply to that objection by saying that although miracles are performed by the wicked, yet a true miracle is never performed to confirm a falsity asserted by the wicked; and therefore when they teach some error a true miracle is never performed to confirm it; but if they preach the truth they sometimes perform miracles to confirm this truth even if they are evil. So although the traitor Judas was evil he nevertheless performed miracles because he taught the truth. Therefore when a true miracle is performed to confirm some assertion, it should be held without doubt that such an assertion should be considered the truth whether those to whom it was revealed should be reckoned among the good or among the evil.

Discipulus Ista responsio est apparens. Unde quae dixisti de ista secunda sententia sufficiant; sed si nosti alios aliter dicere non differas indicare.

Student That reply is clear. Let what you have said about that second opinion be enough, therefore; but do not postpone making known to me if you know that others say something else.

Magister Nonnulli putant quod tam concilium generale quam etiam papa in damnando aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam in sola Scriptura Sacra debet se fundare, quia solae veritates in Scriptura Sacra contentae et quae sequuntur ex eis catholicae sunt censendae. De hac sententia tractatus praecedens te poterit informare.

Master Some people think that both a general council and also a pope should base themselves on sacred scripture alone when condemning some assertion as heretical because only truths contained in sacred scripture and those which follow from them should be considered catholic. The preceding treatment can inform you about this opinion.

Capitulum 28

Chapter 28

Discipulus Satis adverto ex praecedentibus quomodo ista sententia fulciri poterit et quomodo etiam poterit improbari, et ideo ad quaestionem aliam me converto. Adhuc enim nescio an ad hoc quod catholici aliquam assertionem habere debeant pro damnata explicite oporteat in damnatione talem vel aequipollentem modificationem seu specificationem vel determinationem tanquam haereticam vel contrariam catholica veritati adiungere taliter vel aequipollenter proferendo sententiam, "Talem assertionem tanquam haereticam vel catholicae veritati inimicam damnamus." Unde circa hoc unam vel plures narra sententias.

Student I perceive sufficiently from what you have said how that opinion can be strengthened and also how it can be disproved, and so I turn to another question. For I still do not know whether, in order for catholics to have to consider some assertion as explicitly condemned, it is necessary in the condemnation to add this or some equivalent modification, specification or determination of it as "heretical" or "opposed to catholic truth", by publishing a sentence like the following, or something equivalent, "We condemn such an assertion as heretical or as dangerous to catholic truth." Tell me therefore one or more opinions about this.

Magister Ad hoc dupliciter respondetur. Quidam enim dicunt quod talis determinatio vel modificatio seu specificatio in sententia est ponenda ad hoc ut assertio improbata pro haeresi damnata explicite habeatur, quia dicunt quod assertio quae non est damnata tanquam haeretica pro haeretica haberi non debet. Alii dicunt quod ad hoc quod aliqua assertio pro haeretica habeatur sufficit absque tali determinatione vocali quod ipsa falsa assertio reprobetur vel veritas contraria explicite approbetur et quod talis approbatio vel reprobatio fundetur in catholica veritate. Sic Alexander 3 reprobans et interdicens ne aliquis dicat Christum non esse aliquid secundum quod homo suam reprobationem fundavit in veritate catholica ista, videlicet Christus est verus Deus et verus homo. Et ideo voluit quod dicta assertio pro haeretica haberetur licet talem determinationem tanquam haereticam condemnamus vocaliter in sua prohibitione nequaquam expresserit.

Master This is replied to in two ways. For some people say that such a determination, modification or specification should be put in the sentence in order that the rejected assertion be considered as an explicitly condemned heresy, because they say that an assertion that has not been condemned as heretical should not be considered as heretical. Others say that for some assertion to be considered as heretical it is enough that the false assertion itself be rejected or its opposing truth explicitly be approved without such a determination in words and that such an approval or rejection be based on catholic truth. So when Alexander III forbad and rejected anyone's saying that Christ is nothing as a man, he based his rejection on this catholic truth, that Christ is true God and true man. And therefore he wanted the said assertion to be considered heretical, although in his prohibition he did not vocally express a determination such as, "We condemn it as heretical".

Hoc etiam ratione probatur. Nam veritas explicite approbata et in veritate catholica fundata pro catholica debet haberi; ergo et falsitas contraria debet haeretica iudicari; sed sive approbetur veritas sive damnetur contraria falsitas, semper veritas approbatur quia reprobatio unius contradictoriarum est alterius approbatio et econverso; ergo talis assertio contraria veritati in fide fundatae catholica haeretica est censenda et pro damnata explicite est habenda.

This is also proved by argument. For an explicitly approved truth which is based on catholic truth should be considered as catholic; its opposing falsehood therefore should be judged as heretical; but whether a truth be approved or its opposing falsehood condemned, the truth is always approved because the rejection of one of [a pair] of contradictories involves the approval of the other, and vice versa; therefore an assertion of a kind that is opposed to a truth based on catholic faith, should be considered heretical and accounted condemned.

Capitulum 29

Chapter 29

Discipulus Adhuc habeo quod de haeresum damnatione interrogem. Mihi enim apparet quod omnis error qualitercunque sive patenter sive latenter Scripturae Divinae obvians et repugnans numero haeresum aggregetur; constat autem quod theologi de his quae spectant ad Scripturam Sacram contrarie opinantur, qui tamen omnes opiniones suas Scriptura Divina fulcire nituntur et per eandem Scripturam Sacram opiniones contrarias reprobare moliuntur; ergo aliquae dictarum opinionum contrariarum numero haeresum aggregantur. Nunquid ergo papa damnabiliter peccat negligendo huiusmodi haereses condemnare?

Student There is something further I will ask about the condemnation of heresies. For it seems to me that every error that is opposed to and inconsistent with divine scripture in any way at all, whether openly or secretly, may be added to the number of the heresies; it is certain however that theologians offer opposed opinions about those matters that pertain to sacred scripture, while nonetheless striving to support all their opinions with divine scripture and trying to reject opposed opinions through the same sacred scripture; some of these said opposed opinions, therefore, are added to the number of the heresies. Does a pope sin culpably, therefore, by neglecting to condemn heresies of this kind?

Is a pope to blame if he does not condemn the heresies of well-intentioned theologians?

Magister Quidam dicunt quod papa in nullo peccat permittendo theologos huiusmodi assertiones quae sunt in rei veritate haereticae opinando tenere, quod tali ratione videtur posse probari. Permittere licita non est peccatum, cum quandoque absque peccato illicita permittantur; sed huiusmodi errores qui non sunt damnati explicite opinando tenere est licitum, quia talis opinio, quamdiu opinans paratus est corrigi, opinantem non reddit haereticum; ergo absque peccato permittit papa theologos huiusmodi errores qui in rei veritate sunt haereses opinando tenere.

Master Some people say that the pope does not sin at all in allowing theologians to hold as their opinion assertions of this kind which are in truth of fact heretical, and this seems provable by the following argument. It is not heretical to allow what is permissible since sometimes what is impermissible is allowed without sin; but it is permissible to hold as an opinion errors of this kind which have not been condemned explicitly because such an opinion does not make the one who holds it a heretic as long as he is prepared to be corrected; [See Significant Variants, para. 7.] the pope is without sin, therefore, in allowing theologians to hold as their opinion errors of this kind which are in truth of fact heresies.

Alii sentiunt quod plures summi pontifices damnabiliter in hoc peccaverunt permittendo haereses huiusmodi etiam opinando teneri. Quod probant primo sic: non solum haeretici sed etiam haereses sunt de ecclesia exstirpandae teste concilio generali quod, prout habetur Extra, De haereticis, c. Excommunicamus, episcopos indicat deponendos qui super expurgando de suis diocesibus haereticae pravitatis fermento negligentes fuerint vel remissi; ille ergo ad quem spectat ex officio sibi iniuncto haereses exstirpare si negligens fuerit vel remissus de damnabili remissione vel negligentia excusari non potest; sed ad summum pontificem spectat totam ecclesiam de haeresibus non solum iam damnatis explicite sed etiam aliis quibuscunque purgare; ergo qui tales haereses sustinuerunt teneri vel doceri damnabiliter peccaverunt.

Others think that many highest pontiffs have sinned culpably in allowing heresies of this kind to be held even as an opinion. They prove this first as follows: not only should heretics be rooted out of the church but also heresies, as the general council found in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus [col.1685] attests; it indicates that bishops who have been negligent or remiss about purging their dioceses of the leaven of heretical wickedness should be deposed; if therefore he to whom it pertains in accordance with the office with which he is charged to root out heresies has been negligent or remiss, he can not be excused from culpable negligence or laxness; but it pertains to the highest pontiff to purge the whole church of heresies, not only those already explicitly condemned but also any others at all; those who have supported the holding or teaching of such heresies, therefore, have sinned culpably.

Discipulus Non videtur quod papa teneatur de novis haeresibus quae non sunt damnatae explicite purgare ecclesiam; sed sufficit sibi quod eam purget vel purgatam conservet ab omni pravitate haeretica explicite iam damnata.

Student It does not seem that the pope is bound to purge the church of new heresies that have not been condemned explicitly, but it is enough for him to purge it or keep it purged of every heretical wickedness already condemned explicitly.

Magister Hoc improbant isti, dicentes quod papa qui haereses insurgentes de novo negligit improbare et damnare apostolos et sanctos patres qui haereses pullulantes celerrime damnaverunt nullatenus imitatur, quorum tamen vestigiis inhaerere oportet Romanum pontificem si eis vult in coelesti patria aggregari. Peccaverunt ergo summi pontifices qui damnare huiusmodi haereses neglexerunt.

Master They reject this, saying that a pope who neglects to oppose and condemn heresies which newly rise up is not imitating the apostles and holy fathers who very swiftly condemned heresies as they came forth. Yet it is necessary for the Roman pontiff to cleave to their footsteps if he wants to join them in the heavenly homeland. Highest pontiffs who have neglected to condemn heresies of this kind, therefore, have sinned.

Discipulus Apostoli et sancti patres ideo haereses damnaverunt quia invenerunt pertinaces huiusmodi haeresum assertores. Cum ergo theologi haeresum quas putant veritati catholicae minime obviare pertinaces non fuerunt assertores, non fuerunt haereses quas opinando solummodo docuerunt per Romanos pontifices condemnandae.

Student The apostles and holy fathers condemned heresies because they found pertinacious assertors of heresies of this kind. Therefore since theologians have not been pertinacious assertors of heresies which they think are not opposed to catholic truth, the heresies which they have taught only as an opinion should not be condemned by Roman pontiffs.

Magister Istam excusationem Romanorum pontificum isti dupliciter impugnare. Primo quia nescierunt an theologi suis opinionibus haereticalibus pertinaciter adhaererent ex quo de hoc nullam inquisitionem omnino fecerunt; ergo in inquirendo veritatem ut periculis fidei obviarent negligentes vel remissi fuerunt. Secundo sic: maiori periculo est fortius ac diligentius et celerius obviandum; sed ex haeresibus publice opinatis et dogmatizatis maius imminet periculum religioni christianae quam ex consuetudinibus onerosis et pravis quia, esto quod dogmatizantes suis opinionibus minime pertinaciter adhaererent, tamen timendum est ne simplices discipuli audientes assertiones huiusmodi a magnis doctoribus edoceri et pro eis fortiter allegari et a catholicis nullatenus condemnari ex apparentia rationum quas nesciunt solvere in adhaesionem pertinacem eisdem haeresibus inducantur, et ne errores pestiferi pro veritatibus catholicis incipiant venerari et pertinaciter defensari; sed consuetudines onerosae et pravae sunt celerrime comprimendae ne in privilegiorum ius ab impiis assumantur, ut asserit Nicolaus papa, prout habetur dist. 8, c. Mala; ergo multo fortius haereses qualitercunque pullulaverint sunt evellendae radicitus et damnandae ne a simplicibus et seducibilibus pro veritatibus catholicis approbentur.

Master They try to attack in two ways that excuse for the Roman pontiffs. Firstly, because the latter have not known whether theologians would cling pertinaciously to their heretical opinions because they have not made any inquiry about this at all; they have been negligent or remiss, therefore, in inquiring about the truth in order to resist dangers to the church. The second is as follows: a greater danger should be resisted more strongly, diligently and swiftly; but a greater danger threatens the christian religion from heresies held publicly as an opinion and propounded than from burdensome and evil customs because, even if those propounding their opinions were not to adhere to them pertinaciously, it should nevertheless be feared lest simple students hearing assertions of this kind taught by great doctors and argued for strongly and not condemned by catholics be induced by the plausibility of arguments they do not know how to refute to a pertinacious adherence to those heresies, and lest pestiferous errors begin to be venerated and defended pertinaciously as catholic truths; but burdensome and evil customs should be very quickly repressed lest they be adopted by the impious as a right and privilege, as Pope Nicholas affirms, as we find in dist. 8, c. Mala [col.14]; it is much more the case, therefore, that howsoever heresies come forth they should be completely rooted out and condemned lest they be approved as catholic truths by those who are simple and may be misled.

Discipulus Ista ratio ultima est apparens, sed prima omni apparentia carere videtur quia secundum sacros canones non est de aliquo inquisitio facienda nisi prius fuerit diffamatus, ut habetur Extra, De accusationibus, c. Qualiter et quando et in multis aliis locis; sed theologi de haeresibus nullatenus diffamati fuerunt; ergo de eis summi pontifices non debuerunt inquirere.

Student That last argument is clear; but the first seems to lack all plausibility because according to the sacred canons an inquisition should not be made into anyone unless he has first been accused, as we find in Extra, De accusationibus, c. Qualiter et quando [col.745] and in many other places; but theologians have not been accused about heresies; therefore, highest pontiffs should not have made an inquisition into them.

Magister Dicunt isti quod ista excusatio non est sufficiens, quia, licet theologi non fuerint diffamati quod essent haeretici, diffamabantur tamen quod haereses docuerunt; unde et multi theologi nunc putant quod alii theologi haereses dogmatizent quamvis nollent asserere quod sint inter haereticos computandi. Multi enim etiam forte cum assertione putant quod omnes opiniones Thomae quae quondam fuerunt damnatae Parisius sunt haereticae iudicandae. Nonnulli etiam credunt omnes opiniones suas quas Cantuarienses archiepiscopi damnaverunt inter haereses computandas. Quidam enim firmissime credunt quod dicere voluntatem nihil posse velle contra actuale iudicium rationis sapiat haeresim manifestam quia, ut dicunt, omne meritum tollit et demeritum. Quidam etiam credunt quod dicere in homine non esse nisi unam formam substantialem veritati obviat orthodoxae. Quidam etiam putant quod multae opiniones Scoti sint inter haereses numerandae. Dicere enim quod sapienta Dei ab essentia Dei ex natura rei quomodolibet distinguatur putant simplicitati divinae et per consequens veritati catholicae repugnare. Idem sentiunt de unitate minori, unitate numerali et prioritatibus quas ponit in Deo et de aliis quae opinatur quasi innumeris. Hoc idem de multis opinionibus Egidii multi existimant. Est ergo notorium quod theologi haereses dogmatizare notantur quamvis haeretici minime reputentur. Propter talem ergo famam debuerunt summi pontifices pro inquisitione facienda moveri.

Master They say that that is not an adequate excuse, because although theologians have not been accused of having been heretics yet they were accused of having taught heresies; so indeed many theologians now think that other theologians teach heresies as doctrine, even if they would not want to affirm that they should be reckoned among heretics. For together with this affirmation many also think perhaps that all Thomas's opinions which were once condemned at Paris should be judged as heretical. Some also believe that all his opinions which the archbishops of Canterbury condemned should be reckoned among the heresies. For some people most firmly believe that to say that the will can will nothing against the actual judgement of reason smacks of manifest heresy, because, as they say, it [this doctrine] takes away every merit and demerit. Some people also believe that to say that there is nothing in man except one substantial form conflicts with orthodox truth. Some people also think that many of Scotus's opinions should be reckoned among the heresies. For they think that to say that the wisdom of God may in some way be distinguished in reality from the essence of God contradicts the divine simplicity and, consequently, conflicts with catholic truth. They think the same about lesser unity, numeral unity and the priorities which he locates in God and about practically numberless other opinions he holds. Many think the same about many of Egidius's [Giles of Rome's] opinions. It is notorious therefore that theologians are well known to teach heresies as doctrine, although they are not regarded as heretics. Because of this reputation, therefore, highest pontiffs ought to have been moved to have had an inquiry made.

Discipulus Forte talis fama ad summos pontifices non pervenit.

Student Perhaps such a reputation had not reached the highest pontiffs.

Magister Dicunt isti quod hoc omni probabilitate caret, quia nullam verisimilitudinem habet quod damnationes opinionum Thomae et aliorum, quae solenniter et publice pluries factae fuerunt Parisius et in Anglia, summos pontifices latuissent, praesertim cum quidam de Ordine Praedicatorum contra damnationem latam in Anglia ab archiepiscopo Cantuariensi contra quasdam opiniones Thomae ad curiam Romanam appellaverint et illa de causa accesserint ad eandem. Dicunt ergo quod quamvis fama quod opinantes essent haeretici non pervenerit ad Romanos pontifices, ipsos tamen non latuit quod opiniones eorum damnatae fuerunt Parisius et in Anglia. Quare ad inquisitionem faciendam procedere debuerunt, exemplo sanctorum patrum qui, antequam Arrius, Eumonius, Macedonius, Nestorius et alii multi pertinaces convincerentur haeresum defensores, de ipsis et eorum dogmatibus inquisitionem fecere solertem, exemplo etiam Innocentii 3, qui, ut habetur Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholia, c. Damnamus, quamvis Ioachim sui erroris nunquam fuerit pertinax defensator et licet eidem errori solemnissimus tunc temporis doctor Ricardus de sancto Victore adhaeserit, quamvis non pertinaciter, ad inquisitionem et damnationem faciendas processit.

Master They say that this lacks all probability because it is not at all plausible that the condemnations of the opinions of Thomas and of others, which were often solemnly and publicly pronounced at Paris and in England, had been unknown to the highest pontiffs, especially since some members of the Order of Preachers appealed to the Roman curia against the condemnation published in England by the archbishop of Canterbury of some of Thomas's opinions and for that reason they [the appellants] had gone to Rome. Therefore they say that even if the report that those opiners were heretics did not reach the Roman pontiffs, it was nevertheless not unknown to them that their opinions had been condemned in Paris and in England. Therefore they ought to have proceeded to the making of an inquisition, on the example of the holy fathers who made an expert inquisition into Arius, Eumonius, Macedonius, Nestorius and many others and their teachings before they were convicted as pertinacious defenders of heresies, and on the example too of Innocent III who, as we find in Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Damnamus [col.6], proceeded to the making of an inquisition and a condemnation although Joachim was never a pertinacious defender of his error and although a most fully qualified doctor of that time, Richard of St. Victor, adhered, but not pertinaciously, to the same error.

Capitulum 30

Chapter 30

Discipulus Ista exempla animum meum fortiter angunt, unde cupio scire si aliqui aliter dictos summos pontifices excusare nitantur.

Student Those examples greatly distress my mind and so I want to know whether some people try to excuse the said highest pontiffs in some other way.

Magister Quidam per simplicitatem et imperitiam Scripturarum eos excusant, dicentes quod a tempore Innocentii 3 non fuerunt aliqui summi pontifices in sacrarum literarum peritia excellentes, et ideo de intricatis et difficilibus quaestionibus se intromittere nullatenus voluerunt, sed talia discutienda theologis reliquerunt, contenti his quae explicite approbata noscuntur. De opinionibus vero novis magis voluerunt iuxta consilium beati Hieronymi pie dubitare quam aliquid temere diffinire.

Master Some people excuse them by their simplicity and ignorance of the scriptures, saying that since the time of Innocent III there have been no highest pontiffs who excelled in knowledge of sacred letters, and so they have not wanted to involve themselves in perplexing and difficult questions but have left such matters to be discussed by theologians, contenting themselves with those matters that are known to have been explicitly approved. About new opinions, however, they have wanted rather to doubt them piously, in accordance with the advice of blessed Jerome {actually Peter Comestor, Historia Scholastica, PL 198, col.1643], than to define something rashly.

Discipulus Ista sententia concordare videtur cum illis qui dicunt quod non ad canonistas sed ad theologos principaliter pertinet inter assertiones haereticales et catholicas veritates iudicare. Plures enim post tempora Innocentii 3 fuerunt summi pontifices qui peritissimi in iure canonico extiterunt, licet in theologia non fuerint excellentes. Quare si ad canonistas principaliter pertineret inter veritates catholicas et haereses iudicare ipsi de non damnando haereses inter theologos dogmatizatas modo praedicto excusari nequirent. Sed nunquid si fuissent magistri in theologia excusari valerent?

Student That opinion seems to agree with those who say that it pertains chiefly to theologians not to canonists to judge between heretical and catholic assertions. For there have been many highest pontiffs after the times of Innocent III who have been very learned in canon law, although they have not been outstanding in theology. If it were chiefly to pertain to canonists, therefore, to judge between catholic and heretical truths they would not be able to be excused in the aforesaid way for not condemning heresies taught among theologians as doctrine. But would they have been able to be excused if they had been masters in theology?

Magister Dicunt isti quod sic, quia multi, ut asserunt, sunt in theologia doctoris nomen habentes per favores humanos et procurationes indebitas ac ambitiones diabolicas ad magisterium exaltati qui sacrarum litterarum sunt penitus imperiti.

Master They say 'yes', because there are many people, they affirm, who have the name of doctor in theology who have been raised to the position of master through human favours, undue patronage and devilish ambitions and who are wholly ignorant of sacred letters.

Capitulum 31

Chapter 31

Can, and must, the pope follow expert advice in condemning doctrine as heresy?

Discipulus Licet summi pontifices Scripturae Sacrae notitiam non habuerint excellentem, tamen per hoc non videntur aliqualiter excusandi quia poterant doctos consulere et peritos. Qui autem potest habere copiam peritorum non potest per ignorantiam excusari. Talis ergo ignorantia Scripturae Divinae eos nequaquam excusat, nisi forte dicatur quod, quia in theologia et in philosophia antequam ad papatum essent assumpti nequaquam exercitati fuerunt, non poterant ad intelligendum tam subtiles difficultates theologiae etiam per informationem peritorum attingere. Sed et hoc sufficere non videtur, quia quamvis non potuissent intelligere informationes circa huiusmodi debebant tamen credere informationibus aliorum, ut apparet, et per consequens iuxta informationem peritorum, quamvis eas per intellectum non caperent, ad condemnationem haeresum procedere debuerunt. Unde et de hoc ultimo, an scilicet si summus pontifex Sacrarum Scripturarum ignarus aliquam haeresim promulgatam, quamvis videre nequeat quomodo catholicae veritati adversatur, de consilio peritorum debeat condemnare quid teneant homines manifesta.

Student Even if the highest pontiffs did not have excellent knowledge of sacred scripture, it does not seem nevertheless that they should in any way be excused because of this since they could have consulted the learned and the experts. He who can have access to experts, however, can not be excused through ignorance. Such ignorance of divine scripture does not excuse them, therefore, unless it is said perhaps that because they had not been trained in theology and philosophy before they had been raised to the papacy they could not attain an understanding of such subtle theological difficulties even with the instruction of experts. But this also does not seem adequate, because even if they had not been able to understand instruction about these things they should nevertheless have believed the instruction of others, it seems, and consequently they should have proceeded in accordance with the instruction of experts to condemn the heresies even if they did not understand them. Would you therefore make clear what people hold about this last issue, that is whether a highest pontiff ignorant of the sacred scriptures should on the advice of experts condemn some heresy that has been promulgated even if he can not see how it is opposed to catholic truth?

Magister Quidam dicunt quod summus pontifex in hoc casu debet credere eruditis in Scriptura Sacra et iuxta eorum consilium, quamvis non videat quomodo haeresis dogmatizata veritati repugnat, ad damnationem eiusdem procedere. Alii vero astruunt manifeste quod a quibuscunque et quotcumque papae dicatur aliquam assertionem haereticam esse censendam ipse ad damnationem solemnem eiusdem nullo modo debet procedere nisi ipsemet aperte consideret vel divina inspiratione vel propria meditatione vel librorum inspectione aut aliorum informatione vel aliquo alio modo quod talis assertio veritati obviat orthodoxae. Dicunt etiam quod si omnes in generali concilio congregati praeter ipsum assererent talem assertionem esse haereticam, nisi suam sententiam miraculo confirmarent vel per informationes suas facerent ipsum advertere quomodo catholicae obviat veritati, non deberet eam, quantumcunque omnes instarent, solenniter condemnare, sed spectare teneretur quousque vel per revelationem divinam vel per miraculi operationem facti ad talem haeresim reprobandam vel propria meditatione vel aliena informatione aut quovis modo sibi innotesceret manifeste quod talis assertio veritati repugnat catholicae.

Master Some say that in this case a highest pontiff ought to believe those who are learned in sacred scripture and in accord with their advice to proceed to the condemnation of a heresy even if he does not see how the heresy that has been taught as doctrine is opposed to the truth. Others, however, argue openly that by whomever and however often it is said to a pope that some assertion should be considered heretical he should in no way proceed to a solemn condemnation of it unless he himself clearly sees, through divine inspiration, his own meditation, the reading of books, the instruction of others or some other way, that the assertion conflicts with orthodox truth. They also say that if everyone gathered together in a general council except him were to assert that such an assertion is heretical he should not solemnly condemn it, however much they all insist, unless they confirm their opinion with a miracle or by their instruction they bring him to understand how it conflicts with catholic truth, but he would be bound to wait until it became clearly known to him either by divine revelation, by the working of a miracle directed to the disproving of that heresy, by his own meditation, by someone else's instruction or by some other means that such an assertion is opposed to catholic truth.

Discipulus Miror quomodo isti dogmatizare praesumunt quod unus homo mortalis quacunque praeditus dignitate magis debet adhaerere propriae fantasiae quam omnibus viris literatis et sanctis ad generale concilium convocatis.

Student I wonder how they presume to teach as doctrine that one mortal man, endowed with whatever dignity, ought to cling to his own fantasy rather than to all the holy and learned men called together for a general council.

Magister Sententiam praedictam non capis, ut video. Non enim dicunt quod debet papa fantasiae propriae adhaerere, sed dicunt quod non debet propter verba hominum aliquam assertionem contra conscientiam vel praeter conscientiam propriam condemnare.

Master You do not understand that opinion, it seems to me. For they do not say that a pope ought to cling to his own fantasy, but they say that because of the words of men he should not condemn any assertion against or beyond his own conscience.

Discipulus Videtur quod papa in hoc casu tenetur conscientiam suam secundum conscientiam tot et tantorum virorum formare.

Student It seems that in this case a pope is bound to fashion his own conscience according to the conscience of so many great men.

Magister Dicunt quod in his quae fidei sunt non debet papa inniti conscientiis hominum sed soli auctoritati divinae.

Master They say that in those matters that concern the faith the pope should not rely on the consciences of men but only on divine authority.

Capitulum 32

Chapter 32

Discipulus Incipio magis advertere sententiam memoratam. Unde ipsam auctoritatibus vel rationibus munire coneris?

Student I am beginning to give more attention to that opinion. Would you therefore try to support it with authorities or arguments?

Magister Pro ista sententia plures rationes auctoritatibus communitae possunt adduci, quarum prima est haec. Omnes praeter papam in generali concilio congregati non sunt maioris auctoritatis quam Christus nec omnibus illis magis est credendum quam Christo; sed si Christus venisset et veritatem catholicam inauditam praedicasset et ad confirmandum suam doctrinam nullum fecisset miraculum, Iudaei, licet suae praedicationi minime credidissent, peccatum nullatenus habuissent; ergo multo fortius potest papa absque peccato sententiae omnium aliorum in generali concilio existentium, si per eos nullum fit miraculum ad suam sententiam confirmandam, nec ipsi faciunt eum intelligere quomodo sua sententia in veritate catholica est fundata, minime adhaerere, et per consequens non tenetur eos in eadem sententia sequi. Maior istius rationis est omni catholico manifesta. Minor auctoritate ipsius Christi probatur qui, ut legitur Iohannis 15, loquens de Iudaeis ait, "Si opera non fecissem in eis, quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent," mihi scilicet non credendo. "Nunc autem et viderunt," miracula manifesta quae feci, "et oderunt me et patrem meum." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod si Christus miracula non fecisset Iudaei non credendo peccatum minime habuissent.

Master Many arguments fortified by authorities can be brought forward in support of that opinion. The first of them is this. All the people except the pope who are gathered together in a general council are not of greater authority than Christ nor should all of them be believed more than Christ; but if Christ had come and preached an unheard of catholic truth and had not performed any miracle to confirm his teaching, the Jews would not have had sin even if they had not believed his preaching; much more is it the case, therefore, that without sin the pope is able not to adhere to an opinion of everyone else in a general council if no miracle is done by them to confirm their opinion and if they do not make him understand how their opinion is based on catholic truth; and consequently he is not bound to follow them in that opinion. The major [premise] of this argument is obvious to any catholic. The minor [premise] is proved by the authority of Christ himself, who, speaking of the Jews, says, as we read in John 15[:24], "If I had not done among them works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin," in not believing me, that is; "But now they have both seen" the obvious miracles that I performed, "and hated both me and my father." We gather from these words that if Christ had not performed miracles, the Jews would not have had sin in not believing.

Discipulus Si ista ratio concluderet sequeretur quod toti ecclesiae universali fides minime esset adhibenda. Immo posset aliquis absque peccato assertionem quam hactenus praedicavit universalis ecclesia si non videret quomodo esset consona Scripturae Divinae negare, cum tota congregatio quorumcunque mortalium non sit tantae auctoritatis quantae solus Christus. Et ita si Christo non fuit credendum absque miraculo nec toti ecclesiae est credendum nisi sententia ecclesiae aperto miraculo confirmetur.

Student If that argument were conclusive it would follow that faith would not have to be put in the whole universal church. Indeed anyone could without sin deny an assertion which the universal church has hitherto preached if he did not see how it was in harmony with divine scripture, since the whole gathering of any mortals at all is not of such great authority as is Christ alone. And so if Christ did not have to be believed without a miracle nor should the whole church be believed unless the opinion of the church is confirmed by an obvious miracle.

Magister Ad istam obiectionem tuam dicerent illi qui praedictam tenent sententiam quod adhaerendo sententiae universalis ecclesiae nemine discrepante, quando eadem sententia aliquo miraculo minime confirmatur, principaliter creditur Christo cuius doctrina tota est miraculis innumeris confirmata. Invenitur enim expresse quod Christus promisit fidem suam usque ad finem saeculi duraturam. Ex quo sequitur quod nunquam ecclesia universalis errabit contra veritatem catholicam. Quare si ecclesia universalis nemine discrepante docet aliquid esse tenendum tamquam catholicum, hoc firmiter est tenendum propter auctoritatem Christi et non principaliter propter auctoritatem ecclesiae, licet quodammodo etiam propter auctoritatem ecclesiae sit tenendum, inquantum firma fide tenetur quod Christus docuit ecclesiam nunquam a fide catholica recessuram.

Master Those who hold the above opinion would say to that objection of yours that to adhere to an opinion of the universal church with which no one disagreed, when that opinion is not confirmed by some miracle, is to place one's chief faith in Christ whose teaching has been confirmed by innumerable miracles. For we find expressly that Christ promised that his faith would last till the end of the age. It follows from this that the universal church will never err against catholic truth. Therefore if the universal church, with no one disagreeing, teaches that something should be held as catholic, it should be held firmly because of Christ's authority and not chiefly because of the church's authority, although it should in some way also be held because of the church's authority, in so far as it is held with firm faith that Christ taught that the church would never fall away from the catholic faith.

Discipulus Hic possem quaerere multa de ecclesia quae errare non potest et de concilio generali, sed illa omnia duxi ad tempus aliud differenda. Et ideo ad principale propositum revertaris et rationes compleas in quibus potest praedicta sententia se fundare?

Student I could ask many things here about the church that can not err and about a general council, but I have considered that all those things should be postponed to another time. Would you return to the main plan, therefore, and complete the arguments on which the above opinion can base itself?

Magister Secunda ratio pro praedicta opinione est haec. Qui non propter miraculum aliquod nec propter auctoritatem Scripturae Divinae nec propter aliquam aliam auctoritatem quam videat sed ad instantiam hominum aliquam assertionem damnat solenniter eandem damnationem in sapientia aut voluntate hominum vel instantia fundare videtur. Damnatio autem pravitatis haereticae et approbatio catholicae veritatis eidem fundamento debent inniti. Ergo licet papae approbando aliquam catholicam veritatem in sapientia hominum vel voluntate aut instantia se fundare, quod doctrinae apostolicae manifeste repugnat. Ait enim Apostolus 1 ad Corinthios 2, "Praedicatio mea non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis sed in ostensione spiritus et virtutis, ut fides vestra non sit in sapientia hominum sed in virtute Dei." Ex quibus verbis patenter habetur quod fides papae non in sapientia hominum, et per consequens multo magis nec in voluntate seu instantia hominum, debet consistere. Quare nec approbatio catholicae veritatis in sapientia hominum nec in voluntate aut instantia debet fundari; et eadem ratione damnatio heretice pravitatis non debet fundari in aliquo predictorum. Papa igitur ad hoc quod rite damnet haereticam falsitatem debet ad hoc vel per miraculum apertum induci vel oportet eum cognoscere manifeste quomodo talis falsitas veritati catholicae adversatur, ne fidem suam in sapientia hominum vel voluntate constituat.

Master A second argument for that opinion is this. He who solemnly condemns some assertion not because of some miracle or the authority of divine scripture or some other authority that he sees but at the insistence of men seems to base that condemnation on the wisdom, will or insistence of men. The condemnation of heretical wickedness, however, and the approval of catholic truth, ought to rest on the same foundation. Therefore it is licit for the pope in approving some catholic truth to base himself on the wisdom, will or insistence of men; and this is clearly opposed to apostolic teaching. For in 1 Cor. 2[:4-5] the apostle says, "My preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in showing of the Spirit and power, that your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." We clearly find from these words that the faith of the pope should not take its stand on the wisdom of men and, consequently, even more not on the will or insistence of men. Nor should the approval of catholic truth, therefore, be based on the wisdom of men, nor on their will or insistence; and by the same argument the condemnation of heretical wickedness ought not be based on any of those things. For the pope to condemn heretical falsity in a proper way, therefore, either he should be led to this by an obvious miracle or he must know clearly how such a falsity is opposed to catholic truth, so that he does not establish his faith on the wisdom or will of men.

Tertia ratio est haec. Propter illos qui possunt contra fidem errare non est aliqua assertio neque tanquam catholica approbanda neque tanquam haeretica condemnanda. Sed omnes magistri in theologia et etiam omnes alii a papa in generali concilio congregati possunt contra fidem errare, quia nec magistri in theologia nec omnes alii a papa in generali concilio congregati sunt tota illa ecclesia pro qua Christus oravit ne fides eius deficeret, licet si sint catholici sint pars eiusdem ecclesiae, sicut quilibet christianus est pars illius ecclesiae. Ergo propter omnes illos non debet papa aliquam assertionem neque tanquam catholicam approbare neque tanquam haereticam condemnare nisi aperte ostendatur papae vel per operationem miraculi vel per testimonium catholicae veritatis quod a veritate nequaquam exorbitant.

[See Significant Variants, para. 8.] A third argument is this. No assertion should be approved as catholic or condemned as heretical on account of people who can err against the faith. But all masters in theology and even all others gathered together by the pope in a general council can err against the faith, because neither masters in theology nor all the others gathered together by the pope in a general council make up that whole church for which Christ prayed that its faith would not fail, although if they are catholics they are part of that church just as any christian is part of that church. The pope should not, therefore, because of all these approve any assertion as catholic or condemn it as heretical unless it is clearly shown to him by the working of a miracle or by the testimony of catholic truth that they are not deviating from the truth.

Quarta ratio est haec. Papa non debet aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam solenniter condemnare nisi quam scit demonstrative vel firmissime credit esse haereticam. Qui autem scit demonstrative aliquam assertionem haereticam esse rationi innititur. Qui vero credit innititur auctoritati. Papa ergo in damnando aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam vel innititur rationi vel auctoritati. Sed papa qui non videt quomodo damnanda assertio fidei obviat orthodoxae rationi inniti non potest, sicut omni intelligenti constat. Ergo oportet quod innitatur auctoritati. Aut ergo innititur auctoritati divinae aut humanae; non divinae quia non videt quomodo talis assertio auctoritati divinae repugnat. Ergo papa si damnaret praedicto modo aliquam assertionem tanquam haereticam inniteretur auctoritati humanae. Sed auctoritati humanae in his quae fidei sunt est minime innitendum quia fides nostra est super intellectum humanum. Ergo humano intellectui in huiusmodi est nullatenus inhaerendum.

A fourth argument is this. A pope should not solemnly condemn any assertion as heretical unless he knows demonstratively or believes most firmly that it is heretical. He who knows demonstratively that some assertion is heretical, however, relies on reason, but he who believes relies on authority. In condemning some assertion as heretical, therefore, the pope relies either on reason or on authority. But a pope who does not see how an assertion to be condemned is opposed to orthodox faith can not rely on reason, as is clear to anyone with understanding. Therefore it is necessary for him to rely on authority. He relies, therefore, either on divine or on human authority; not on divine authority because he does not see how such an assertion is opposed to divine authority. Therefore if the pope were to condemn some assertion as heretical in the aforesaid way he would be relying on human authority. But human authority should not be relied on in matters of faith because our faith is above human understanding. Therefore in matters of this kind we should not adhere to human understanding.

Quinta ratio est haec. Omnes alii a papa in generali concilio congregati non sunt maioris auctoritatis quam fuerint apostoli et Moyses in veteri lege; sed apostoli et Moyses doctrinam suam miraculis vel testimoniis auctenticis ab auditoribus iam receptis, ut redderetur credibilis, confirmaverunt nec aliter eis populi credidissent. Ergo papa non tenetur illis adhibere fidem qui nec miraculo nec testimonio catholicae veritatis sibi notae faciunt eum de sua sententia certum. Si igitur omnes alii in generali concilio nec miraculo nec auctoritate catholica ostenderent papae assertionem damnandam esse haereticam, non deberet papa ipsam tamquam haereticam condemnare. Maior istius rationis videtur aperta. Minor ostenditur manifeste per exemplum de beato Paulo, qui doctrinam suam tam miraculis quam Scripturarum testimoniis confirmavit. Unde ad Romanos 15 ait, "Non enim audeo aliquid loqui eorum quae per me non efficit. Christus in obedientiam gentium, verbo et factis, in virtute signorum et prodigiorum." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod beatus Paulus doctrinam suam signis et prodigiis confirmavit. De Scripturarum testimoniis etiam quae adduxit beatus Paulus patet ad Romanos 9 et 10 et 11 et 1 ad Corinthios 2 et 3, ad Hebreos 1, 2 et 3 et in multis aliis locis epistolarum suarum. Quod etiam omnes apostoli confirmaverint praedicationem suam testatur Marcus in Evangelii sui capitulo ultimo dicens, "Illi autem profecti praedicaverunt ubique, Domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante, sequentibus signis." Beatus etiam Petrus, ut patet Actuum 1, auctoritatibus receptarum scripturarum a Iudaeis coram ipsis suam doctrinam confirmavit. Moysi quoque dixit Dominus, ut legitur Exodi 4, "Si nec duobus quidem signis his crediderint neque audierint vocem tuam, sume aquam fluminis et funde eam super aridam et quicquid hauseris de fluvio vertetur in sanguinem." Ex quibus aliisque quampluribus patet aperte quod illi per quos Deus docuit populum catholicam veritatem ad confirmationem suae doctrinae vel Scripturarum testimonia adduxerunt vel cooperatione miraculi veritatem ostenderunt, nec eis aliter populi credere artabantur.

A fifth argument is this. All the others gathered together by the pope in a general council are not of greater authority than were the apostles and, under the old law, Moses; but, so that their teaching would be rendered credible, the apostles and Moses confirmed it with miracles or authentic testimonies already accepted by their hearers, and the people would not have believed them otherwise. Therefore the pope is not bound to show faith in those who do not make him sure about their opinion with a miracle or with the testimony of a catholic truth known to him. If all the others in a general council, therefore, were not to show to the pope either with a miracle or with catholic authority that an assertion should be condemned as heretical, the pope ought not to condemn it as heretical. The major [premise] of this argument seems obvious. The minor [premise] is shown clearly by the example of blessed Paul who confirmed his teaching with both miracles and testimonies from the scriptures. Whence he says in Romans 15[:18-9], "For I dare not speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the gentiles, by word and deed, by the virtue of signs and wonders." We gather from these words that blessed Paul confirmed his teaching with signs and wonders. That he also brought forward testimonies from the scriptures is clear from Romans 9, 10 and 11, 1 Corinthians 2 and 3, Hebrews 1, 2 and 3 and many other places in his letters. That all the apostles also confirmed their preaching with miracles Mark attests in the last chapter of his gospel [16:20] saying, "But they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed." As is clear from Acts 1, blessed Peter also confirmed his teaching before the Jews through texts of the scriptures that they accepted. The Lord also said to Moses, as we read in Exod. 4[:9], "But if they will not even believe these two signs nor hear thy voice, take of the river water and pour it out upon the dry land, and whatsoever thou drawest out of the river shall be turned into blood." It is quite clear from these and very many others that those through whom God taught people catholic truth either brought forward testimonies from the scriptures to confirm their teaching or demonstrated its truth by the working of a miracle, and the people were not constrained to believe them in any other way.

Discipulus Ista responsio videtur probare tantummodo quod papa non tenetur sequi alios in damnando haeresim quando nec miraculum faciunt nec pro se Scripturam adducunt, sed si probant assertionem quam petunt damnari esse haereticam videtur quod papa damnare debet eandem, nec per hoc quod non intelligit valet aliqualiter excusari. Sic enim possent multi haeretici excusari qui videre non possunt quomodo haereses suae fidei obvient orthodoxae.

Student That reply seems to prove only that the pope is not bound to follow others in condemning a heresy when they do not perform a miracle or bring forward scripture in their support, but if they prove that the assertion they are seeking to have condemned is heretical it seems that the pope ought to condemn it, and he can not be excused in any way by the fact that he does not understand it. For in this way many heretics could be excused who can not see how their heresies are opposed to orthodox faith.

Magister Ad hoc alii respondent quod si papa informationi catholicorum per Scripturam probantium manifeste aliquam assertionem veritati obviare catholicae pertinaci animositate, quia scilicet alicui errori irrevocabiliter adhaereret, nollet acquiescere, esset haereticus vel fautor haereticae pravitatis iudicandus; sed si ex sola simplicitate, quia non esset capax informationis qua ostenditur talem assertionem esse haereticam, minime consentiret, non esset reprehensibilis iudicandus nisi recusaret de veritate informari.

Master Others reply to this that if the pope were to refuse with pertinacious ill will to agree with the instruction of catholics who clearly prove through scripture that some assertion is opposed to catholic truth, because, that is, he was clinging irrevocably to some error, he should be judged a heretic or a supporter of heretical wickedness; but if he were not to agree out of simplicity alone, because he was not capable of [understanding] the instruction by which it is shown that the assertion is heretical, he should not be judged reprehensible unless he were to refuse to be instructed about the truth.

Discipulus Quis sit censendus haereticus postea indagabo. Ideo alias rationes, si quas cogitasti, pro principali proposito adducas?

Student I will investigate later who should be considered a heretic. Would you therefore bring forward other arguments for the main proposition if you have thought of any?

Magister Sexta ratio pro praedicta sententia est haec. Non minus debet intelligere sententiam suam seu diffinitionem summus pontifex qua damnat haereticam pravitatem quam debet iudex intelligere sententiam qua damnat aliquem de crimine qualicunque; sed iudici damnanti quemcumque de crimine non sufficit credere consiliariis suis, sed debet videre et considerare per seipsum quomodo sententia sua iustitiam et aequitatem contineat. Ergo similiter papa in damnando haereticam pravitatem non debet solummodo credere aliis, sed etiam oportet eum intelligere quomodo damnanda assertio repugnat catholicae veritati. Maior est manifesta quia in maioribus causis maior est adhibenda cautela. Minor probatur quia nisi iudex deberet intelligere quam dictat sententiam non requireretur sapientia in iudicante, sed sufficeret quod esset bonae fidei sapientum acquiescens consiliis. Sed hoc est contra illud Apostoli 1 ad Corinthios 6, "Non est inter vos sapiens quisquam qui possit iudicare inter fratrem et fratrem." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod nullus nisi sapiens debet iudicare inter fratrem et fratrem. Et ita qui iudicat debet habere saltem iudicandi peritiam ut sententiam quam dictat intelligat. Aliter enim posset simplex et fatuus quicunque esse iudex esse.

Master A sixth argument for the above opinion is this. A highest pontiff should not understand any less the sentence or definition by which he condemns heretical wickedness than a judge should understand the sentence by which he condemns someone for any kind of crime; but it is not enough for a judge condemning anyone of a crime to believe his counsellors; rather he should see and contemplate for himself how his opinion preserves justice and equity. Similarly therefore, in condemning heretical wickedness a pope should not only believe others, but it is also necessary for him to understand how the assertion to be condemned is opposed to catholic truth. The major [premise] is obvious because greater caution should be employed in greater causes. The minor [premise] is proved, because if a judge were not obliged to understand the sentence which he pronounces, wisdom would not be required in one judging, but it would be enough that he was of good faith and agreed with the advice of those who are wise. But this is against what the apostle says in 1 Cor. 6[:5], "Is it so that there is not among you any one wise man, that is able to judge between his brethren?" We are given to understand by these words that only he who is wise should judge between one brother and another. And so he who judges should have at least the skill in judging such that he understands the sentence which he pronounces. For otherwise any simple and stupid person could be a judge.

Septima ratio est haec. Qui potest contradicere congregatis in concilio generali non tenetur acquiescere eorum sententiae; sed unus etiam inferior papa potest contradicere omnibus aliis in generali concilio congregatis; ergo non tenetur acquiescere eorum sententiae. Ergo multo magis papa si omnium aliorum in generali concilio existentium videret erroneam esse sententiam vel non intelligeret eam esse catholicam atque sanam eos sequi non deberet. Maior est manifesta. Minor ostenditur exemplo Pannutii qui aliis in Nicena synodo contradixit et ad partem suam traxit, ut habetur dist. 31, c. Nicena synodus. Ubi glossa super verbo "sententiam" ait, "Unus ergo potest contradicere toti universitati si habeat causam rationabilem." Et sequitur: "Nam unus potest trahere alios ad partem suam." Unus igitur potest omnibus aliis in concilio generali contradicere et eos trahere ad partem suam. Ergo papa non debet omnes alios sequi nisi cognoverit eos a iustitia et veritate nullatenus aberrare. Ex praedictis concludunt isti quod si papa omnes alios in generali concilio congregatos sequi non debet ut aliquam assertionem condemnet tanquam haereticam nisi viderit quomodo dicta assertio catholicae veritati obviat, multo magis si papa cognoverit aliquos theologos aliquam assertionem reputare catholicam non debet propter informationem vel instantiam omnium aliorum talem assertionem tanquam haereticam condemnare nisi aperte cognoverit quomodo fidei obviat orthodoxae.

A seventh argument is this. He who can contradict those gathered together at a general council is not bound to agree with their opinion; but one man, even someone inferior to the pope, can contradict everyone else gathered in a general council; therefore he is not bound to agree with their opinion. Much more is it the case, therefore, that if a pope were to see that an opinion of everyone else in a general council was wrong or were not to understand that it is catholic and sound he should not follow them. The major premise is obvious. The minor [premise] is shown by the example of Pannutius who contradicted the others at the synod of Nicea and led them to his side, as we find in dist. 31, c. Nicena synodus [col.114]. The gloss here on the word "sentence" says [col.153], "Therefore one man can contradict the whole collectivity if he has a reasonable cause.... For one person can lead others to his side." Therefore one man can contradict all the others in a general council and lead them to his side. A pope should not follow all the others, therefore, unless he knows that they have not strayed from justice and truth. They conclude from the above that if the pope should not follow all the others gathered in a general council in condemning some assertion as heretical unless he sees how the said assertion is opposed to catholic truth, much more is it the case that he should not, if he knows that some theologians regard some assertion as catholic, condemn such an assertion as heretical because of the instruction or insistence of all the others unless he knows clearly how it is opposed to orthodox faith.

Discipulus Rationes praedictae videntur difficiles ad solvendum, quas tamen nolo nunc amplius pertractari quia postquam totum praesens opus compleveris et ego cum summo studio cogitavero volo tecum istas rationes et omnia alia retractare et mentem tuam de omnibus perscrutari. Sed dic an isti sentiant quod liceat papae aliquam assertionem de qua non constat sibi an catholica vel haeretica sit censenda interdicere et praecipere quod minime publice dogmatizetur.

Student The above arguments seem difficult to refute, but I do not want them to be investigated any further now because after you have completed the whole of this present work and I have pondered it with the greatest zeal I want to reconsider with you those arguments and everything else and to investigate your understanding of all those matters. But tell me whether they think that it is permissible for the pope to forbid some assertion about which it is not evident to him whether it should be considered catholic or heretical and to order that it not be publicly taught as doctrine.

Magister Dicunt quod in casu si ex dogmatisatione alicuius assertionis magnum scandalum esset exortum vel timeretur quod multitudo pertinaciter adhaereret liceret papae praecipere a tali assertione cessare quousque innotesceret an inter veritates vel haereses computari deberet.

Master They say that in a particular case, if a great scandal had arisen from the teaching of some assertion as doctrine or if it were feared that a large number of people would cling to it pertinaciously, it would be permissible for the pope to order the cessation of such an assertion until such time as it were to become known whether it should be reckoned as among the truths or the heresies.

Capitulum 33

Chapter 33

Discipulus Multa de damnatione haeresum retulisti. Nunc peto quatenus de damnatione aliorum errorum aliqua narrare digneris. Cupio enim scire an literati putent quod liceat papae alios errores quam haereses damnare.

Student You have reported many views about the condemnation of heresies. Now I ask that you would see fit to say some things about the condemnation of other errors. For I want to know whether the learned think that it is permissible for the pope to condemn other errors apart from heresies.

The condemnation of errors that are not heresies

Magister Errores alii sunt in triplici differentia. Quidam enim nec contrariantur his quae pertinent ad fidem et bonos mores nec eos tenere aliquod animae affert periculum. Tales sunt errores in puris philosophicis et etiam errores aliqui circa aliqua dicta divina de quibus inveniri non potest quid indubie sit tenendum. De talibus loquitur Augustinus in Encheridion dicens, "In rebus in quibus nihil interest ad capescendum Dei regnum errare nullum aut minimum est peccatum." De huiusmodi etiam intelligit Anselmus in lib. 1 Cur Deus homo c. 18 dicens, "In his rebus de quibus diversa sentiri possunt sine periculo, sicuti est istud unde nunc agimus. Si enim nescimus utrum plures homines eligendi sunt quam sunt angeli perditi, an non alterum horum existimamus plusquam alterum, nullum puto esse animae periculum Si, inquam, in huiusmodi rebus sic exposuimus divina dicta ut diversis sententiis favere videantur, nec alicubi invenitur ut quid indubitanter tenendum sit determinetur non arbitror reprehendi debere." Tales errores secundum multos non licet papae damnare quia damnando animas laquearet obligando fideles ad credendum aliqua forte contra conscientiam vel negandum quod tenere vel negare nullum parit periculum.

Master There are three kinds of other errors. For some neither are opposed to those things that pertain to faith and good morals nor is it reported of them that they hold anything of danger to the soul. Errors of this kind are those which concern purely philosophical matters and also some errors about divine sayings about which it can not be discovered what should be held without doubt. Augustine speaks about such matters in his Enchiridion, saying, "It is no sin or the slightest sin to err in those matters which do not at all pertain to the taking hold of God's kingdom." Anselm also means things of this kind when he says in chapter 18 of book 1 of Cur deus homo, "... in those matters about which different things can without danger be thought, like the matter we are now considering. For if we do not know whether more men are to be chosen than there are lost angels, I do not think there is any danger to the soul whether or not we think the one of these more than the other. If, I say, we have expounded divine sayings in matters of this kind in such a way that they seem to favour various opinions, and it is nowhere found that it is determined what should be held indubitably, I do not think that this should be censured." According to many people it is not permissible for the pope to condemn such errors because in condemning them he would entangle souls by obliging believers to believe things that are perhaps against their conscience or to deny what it produces no danger to hold or to deny.

Alii sunt errores repugnantes his quae in gestis fidelium, cronicis, vel historiis fide dignis habentur. Et de istis dicunt nonnulli quod ipsos potest papa damnare non tanquam hereticos sed tanquam periculosos et ecclesiae perniciosos. Damna enim permaxima et pericula tam corporalia quam spiritualia possent fideles incurrere si quaecunque contenta in gestis, historiis, et cronicis cuilibet negare liceret. Cum ergo papa damnis et periculis fidelium debeat obviare, potest tales errores damnare et errantes debitae subdere ultioni.

There are other errors which are opposed to what is found in accounts of the deeds of believers, in chronicles, or in histories worthy of trust. Some people say about these that the pope can condemn them not as heretical but as dangerous and pernicious to the church. For believers could incur the greatest damage and dangers both corporal and spiritual if anyone at all were permitted to deny whatever is contained in accounts of deeds, histories and chronicles. Since a pope is obliged to prevent damage and dangers to believers, therefore, he can condemn such errors and subject those erring to the appropriate punishment.

Alii sunt errores, de quibus est dictum prius, ex quibus et aliis veris quae negari non possunt contingit aliquam haereticam pravitatem inferre, qui proprie dicuntur sapere haeresim manifestam et large possunt haereses appellari. Et tales errores non tanquam haereticos stricte loquendo sed tanquam sapientes haeresim manifestam licet papae damnare. Unde si quis diceret castitatem quam moniales vovent non esse altiorem castitate coniugali, deberet papa tam asserentem pertinaciter quam assertionem damnare. Sic quidam errores negantes Fratres Praedicatores et Minores posse audire confessiones sunt damnati. Sic summi pontifices Alexander 4 et Innocentius 4 quosdam magistros Parisienses et errores eorum contra statum et vitam Praedicatorum et Minorum solenniter damnaverunt.

There are other errors of which we spoke above, from which and [i.e.together with] other truths which can not be denied it is possible to infer some heretical wickedness. These are properly said to smack of manifest heresy and can be broadly called heresies. And it is licit for the pope to condemn such errors, not as heretical strictly speaking, but as smacking of manifest heresy. If someone were to say, therefore, that the chastity vowed by nuns is not more noble than conjugal chastity, the pope ought to condemn both the one asserting this pertinaciously and the assertion. Certain errors denying that the preaching friars and the friars minor can hear confessions have been condemned in this way. The highest pontiffs Alexander IV and Innocent IV solemnly condemned in this way certain Parisian masters and their errors against the state and life of [the Orders of] preachers and minorites.

Capitulum 34

Chapter 34

Discipulus Haec probabilia mihi videntur, sed videturne aliquibus quod liceat alicui alii inferiori papa errores huiusmodi condemnare?

Student These seem probable to me, but does it seem to some people that it is licit for someone else inferior to the pope to condemn errors of this kind?

Magister Sunt quidam dicentes quod hoc inferiori papa non licet quia, ex quo non licet eis damnare haereses, quae magis quam quicunque alii errores religioni adversantur et nocent christianae, multo fortius non licet eis errores alios condemnare. Et haec ratio videtur confirmari. Nam maiori periculo est fortius resistendum; sed haereses sunt magis periculosae fidei christianae quam alii errores; cui ergo non licet haereses condemnare de aliis erroribus se intromittere minime debet.

Master There are some people who say that this is not licit for anyone inferior to the pope because, since it is not licit for them to condemn heresies, which are opposed to and harm the christian religion more than any other errors, it is much more the case that it is not licit for them to condemn other errors. And this argument seems to be confirmed. For a greater danger should be resisted more stoutly; but heresies are more dangerous to the christian faith than are other errors; he who is not permitted to condemn heresies, therefore, should not involve himself in other errors.

Alii autem dicunt quod inferioribus praelatis licet errores huiusmodi condemnare. Pro hac assertione sic arguitur. Quod aliquando licuit praelatis inferioribus et non est per summum pontificem nec per generale concilium revocatum adhuc licet eisdem; sed damnare errores huiusmodi licuit aliquando praelatis aliis et non est revocatum; ergo etc. Maior est patens. Minor probatur. Nam cui licet veritates aliquas approbare eidem licet assertiones falsas contrarias reprobare. Sed quondam licuit praelatis inferioribus veritatem asserentem aliquem esse sanctum et tanquam sanctum venerandum a fidelibus approbare quia licuit eis sanctos novos catalogo sanctorum asscribere. Ergo licuit eis assertionem falsam quod tales non essent sancti nec venerandi a fidelibus reprobare et solenniter condemnare. Ergo adhuc licet eis errores aliquos condemnare.

Other people say, however, that it is licit for inferior prelates to condemn errors of this kind. They argue as follows for this assertion. What has been licit for inferior prelates at any time and has not been revoked by the highest pontiff or by a general council is still licit for them; but it was once licit for other prelates to condemn errors of this kind, and this has not been revoked; therefore, etc. The major [premise] is clear; the minor [premise] is proved. For it is licit for anyone who is permitted to approve some truths to reject opposing false assertions. But it has sometimes been licit for inferior prelates to approve someone asserting a truth as holy, and as worthy of veneration as being holy by believers, because it has been licit for them to enter new saints in the catalogue of saints. Therefore it has been licit for them to reject and solemnly to condemn a false assertion that such people were not saints and should not be venerated by believers. It is, therefore, still licit for them to condemn some errors.

Discipulus Ista ratio non videtur concludere contra istos, quia probat tantummodo quod aliquando licuit eis errorem dicentem talem non esse sanctum condemnare. Sed modo non licet eis talem errorem damnare, sicut nec modo licet eis aliquem catalogo sanctorum asscribere.

Student That argument does not seem to be conclusive against them because it proves only that it was at some time licit for them to condemn the error that says that such a person is not a saint. But it is not now licit for them to condemn such an error, just as it is not now licit for them to enter anyone into the catalogue of saints.

Magister Non plene intelligis rationem eorum. Non enim intendunt probare quod modo liceat inferioribus papa asserentem vel assertionem eius quod aliquis pro quo dicitur Deus facere miracula non est sanctus damnare, sed intendunt arguere quod qua ratione licuit eis talem errorem damnare licuit etiam eis alios errores, ex quibus et aliis veris manifestis potest concludi haeresis manifesta, damnare. Potestas autem super alios errores non est revocata. Ergo adhuc possunt errores alios condemnare, licet modo asserentem aliquem pro quo dicunt miracula fieri non esse sanctum nequeant condemnare.

Master You do not fully understand their argument. For they do not intend to prove that it would now be licit for those inferior to the pope to condemn someone who asserts, or his assertion, that someone on behalf of whom God is said to perform miracles is not a saint, but they intend to argue that for the reason for which it was licit for them to condemn such an error it was also licit for them to condemn other errors from which, with the addition of other obvious truths, a manifest heresy can be inferred. Their power over other errors, however, has not been revoked. Therefore they can still condemn other errors, although they can not now condemn anyone asserting that someone for whom they say miracles have been performed is not a saint.

Discipulus Dictam rationem magis adverto, et ideo quomodo ad motivum aliorum respondetur expone.

Student I understand the said argument more, and so explain how it replies to the argument of the others.

Magister Dicitur quod licet non valeant haereses condemnare, possunt tamen alios errores multos minores haeresibus condemnare quia inferiores possunt minora quibus tamen maiora negocia interdicta noscuntur, quia, ut ex lege divina Deuteronomii 1 colligitur, maiora negocia ad maiores oportet referre. Nec tamen est dicendum quin praelati haeresibus resistere teneantur, sed non debent eis resistere condemnando sed eas summo pontifici vel generali concilio nunciando.

Master It is said that although they can not condemn heresies, they can nevertheless condemn many other errors more minor than heresies, because inferiors to whom greater affairs are known to be forbidden can undertake lesser ones since, as we gather from the divine law in Deuteronomy 1, it is necessary to refer greater affairs to greater men. Yet it should not be said that prelates are not bound to resist heresies, but they should not resist them by condemning them, but by announcing them to the highest pontiff or to a general council.

Return to Table of Contents