|
| |
Capitulum 22 |
Chapter 22 |
|
Discipulus Omissa ista materia de principatu Romane ecclesie, ad propositum principale revertere et motiva tenencium quod Romana ecclesia que est distincta a congregacione fidelium sicut caput a corpore possit contra fidem errare adducas in medium. |
Student: Leaving aside this matter of the dominion of the Roman church would you revert to our main purpose and bring into the open the arguments of those who maintain that the Roman church which is distinct from the congregation of believers as a head from a body can err against faith. |
(B) That the Roman Church that is part of the wider church can err |
|
|
Magister Ad probandum ecclesiam Romanam posse errare nonnulli plures raciones adducunt. Quorundam autem racio fundamentalis est quedam racio sepe tacta superius ad asserciones alias ostendendas, que talis est. Illud quod promittitur toti et nulli parti non debet alicui parti attribui eciam principaliori. Sed numquam errare contra fidem toti congregacioni fidelium promissum fuit a Christo, et nulli parti fuit hoc promissum. Ergo non debet hoc alicui particulari ecclesie catholicorum attribui. Cum ergo ecclesia Romana sit pars ecclesie et non sit tota ecclesia, non posse errare contra fidem non est attribuendum Romane ecclesie. |
Master: Some people bring forward many arguments to prove that the Roman church can err. Their basic argument, however, is an argument often touched on above [chapters 7, 8] for showing other assertions, and it runs as follows. That which is promised to a whole and not to any part should not be attributed to any part, even to the chief part. But Christ's promise that it would never err against faith was made to the whole congregation of believers, and not to any part of it. This ought not be attributed, therefore, to any particular church of catholics. Since the Roman church is part of the church, therefore, and is not the whole church an inability to err against faith chould not be attributed to it. |
|
Discipulus Nonne quando Christus dixit Petro, "Ego pro te rogavi Petre ut non deficiat fides tua", promisit ecclesie cuius Petrus futurus fuit caput quod numquam fides sua deficeret? |
Student: When Christ said to Peter [Luke 22:32], "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not", did he promise the church of which Peter would be the head that its faith would never fail? |
|
Magister Dicunt quod hoc dixit Christus Petro non in persona alicuius ecclesie particularis sed pro ecclesia universali. Cuius racionem assignant, dicentes quod quando Christus dixit verba predicta Petro, Petrus non magis fuit caput Romane ecclesie quam Anciochene, sed tunc habiturus erat primo sedem in Anciochia et postea in Roma. Cum ergo in verbis predictis non plus fiat mencio de Roma quam de Anciochia non plus intelligi debent de Roma quam de Anciochia, quia verba generalia ad omnia particularia eque se habent. Sed verba predicta non debent intelligi de Anciochia, quia fides illius ecclesie iam defecit, ergo nec de Romana ecclesia debent intelligi. |
Master: They say that Christ said this to Peter not in the character of any particular church but on behalf of the universal church. They provide an argument for this by saying that when Christ said the above words to Peter, Peter was no more head of the Roman church than he was of the church at Antioch, and that at the time he was going to have his see first at Antioch and later in Rome. Since there is no more mention of Rome than of Antioch in the above words, therefore, they should not be understood of Rome any more than of Antioch, because general terms apply equally to all particulars; but the above words should not be understood of Antioch, because the faith of that church has already failed, and so, therefore they should not be understood of the Roman church. |
|
Discipulus Quomodo dicunt quod fides Anciochene ecclesie defecit cum adhuc sit patriarcha Anciochenus qui potest vocari ecclesia Anciochena? |
Student: How can they say that the faith of the church of Antioch has failed when there is still a patriarch of Antioch who can be called the church of Antioch? |
|
Magister Quod sit aliquis patriarcha Anciochenus non est ex promissione Christi sed ex voluntaria ordinacione summi pontificis qui creat patriarcham talem, licet ecclesia Anciochena defecerit; et sepe accidit quod nullus est patriarcha Anciochenus. |
Master: That there may be some patriarch of Antioch is not due to Christ's promise but to a voluntary arrangement by the highest pontiff who creates such a patriarch even if the church of Antioch has failed; and it often happens that there is no patriarch of Antioch. |
|
Discipulus Licet moriatur patriarcha Anciochenus, non tamen moritur ecclesia Anciochena, quia adhuc remanet aliquis qui potest creari in patriarcham Anciochenum. |
Student: Even if the patriarch of Antioch dies, the church of Antioch does not die because there is still someone who can be created patriarch of Antioch. |
|
Magister Per talem modum posset dici quod numquam potest deficere fides ecclesie Massiliensis, quia semper erit aliquis qui poterit creari in episcopum Massiliensem, eciam si omnes de Massilia converterentur ad Machometum, vel semper erunt aliqui qui poterunt eligere illum qui poterit creari in episcopum Massiliensem. Dicunt ergo isti quod cum ex solis Scripturis Divinis teneatur quod ecclesia numquam errabit contra fidem, quia semper erunt aliqui in ecclesia Christi fideles, et verba Scripture Divine ex quibus colligitur quod ecclesia numquam errabit contra fidem nullam de ecclesia Romana faciant penitus mencionem non plus quam de ecclesia Anciochena, sicut temerarium fuit asserere quod ecclesia Anciochena non errabit contra fidem, ita nunc temerarium est asserere quod Romana ecclesia numquam errabit contra fidem. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 35.] Master: It could be said in this way that the faith of the church of Marseilles can never fail because there will always be someone who can be created bishop of Marseilles, even if everyone from Marseilles was converted to Islam, or there will always be some people who could choose him who could be created bishop of Marseilles. They say, therefore, that since it is maintained only on the basis of the divine scriptures that the church will never err against faith, because there will always be some believers in the church of Christ, and since the words of divine scripture by which it is inferred that the church will never err against faith do not make any mention at all of the Roman church, no more than of the church of Antioch, it is rash to affirm now that the Roman church will never err against faith just as it was rash to affirm that the church of Antioch will not err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Licet Scriptura Divina, cum insinuat quod ecclesia numquam errabit contra fidem, de Romana ecclesia vocalem non faciat mencionem, tamen de Romana ecclesia verba illa scripture debent intelligi, quia Scriptura Divina intelligenda est sicut a sanctis patribus est exposita. Sancti autem intelligunt verba scripture illius de Romana ecclesia. Unde et asserunt quod Romana ecclesia numquam contra fidem errabit. |
Student: Although divine scripture makes no explicit mention of the Roman church when it declares that the church will never err against faith, those words of scripture should nevertheless be understood of the Roman church because divine scripture should be understood in the way it has been expounded by the holy fathers. However the saints understand those words of scripture to refer to the Roman church. So it is that they affirm that the Roman church will never err against faith. |
|
Magister Ad hoc tripliciter respondetur quod sancti non exponunt verba illa scripture de Romana ecclesia prout Romana ecclesia est pars distincta contra alias ecclesias, sed exponunt verba scripture de materia illa loquencia de ecclesia catholica et apostolica que comprehendit omnem ecclesiam tenentem fidem apostolorum, sive Rome, sive in Yspania, sive in Gallia, sive in Germania. Nec dicunt quod Romana ecclesia que est Rome vel de facto se gerit pro Romana ecclesia non possit errare vel numquam errabit contra fidem, licet aliquando affirment quod non inveniatur errasse secundum se totam, quamvis aliquando pro maiori parte erraverit. Tempore enim Liberii pape, postquam consensit perfidie Arriane, maior pars Christianorum Rome consensit heretice pravitati. Tunc enim pauci Romani imperatori et Liberio resistebant, et illi pauci clerici qui erant contrarii Liberio occidebantur. Licet autem sancti asseruerint quod ecclesia Romana secundum se totam in tempore preterito non erraverit contra fidem, numquam tamen affirmant quod non errabit in futuro. |
Master: It is replied to this in a three-fold way that the saints do not expound those words of scripture about the Roman church in so far as the Roman church is a part distinguished from other churches, but the words of scripture that talk about that matter they expound about the catholic and apostolic church which comprises every church holding the faith of the apostles, whether in Rome, Spain, France or Germany. Nor do they say that the Roman church which is at Rome or which acts de facto as the Roman church can not err or will never err against faith, although sometimes they affirm that it will not be found to have erred as a totality even if sometimes a greater part of it has erred. For in the time of Pope Liberius the greater part of the Christians of Rome agreed with heretical wickedness after he agreed to the Arian perfidy. For then few Romans resisted the emperor and Liberius, and those few clerics who were opposed to Liberius were killed. However, although the saints have asserted that the Roman church as a totality has not erred against faith in time past, yet they never affirm that it will not err in the future. |
|
Discipulus Hii errant aperte, quia, sicut allegasti prius, beatus Hieronimus loquitur de futuro, dicens beato Petro opem ferente in futuro seculo permanebit sine ulla hereticorum insultacione. |
Student: These people are obviously wrong because, as you argued earlier, bessed Jerome is speaking of the future when he says that with blessed Peter bringing it help [the Roman church] in future ages will remain free from the insolence of heretics. |
|
Magister Dicunt te decipi per sermonem ambiguum cuius sensus nescis distinguere. Verba enim beati Hieronimi secundum unum sensum equivalent condicionali tali: si beatus Petrus opem feret in futuro seculo permanebit etc. Et iste sensus est verus, licet temerarium sit asserere quod beatus Petrus opem feret, quia nescitur an Deus et similiter beatus Petrus deseret Romanam ecclesiam, quemadmodum a multis temporibus deseruit ecclesiam Anciochenam. Alius sensus equivalet causali tali: quia beatus Petrus opem feret in futuro seculo permanebit etc., et sic non intellexit Ieronimus. Tercius sensus est temporalis talis: dum beatus Petrus opem feret etc., et iste eciam sensus est verus. Sed nescitur quanto tempore beatus Petrus opem feret Romane ecclesie contra insultacionem hereticorum. Et ideo temerarium est asserere quod usque ad finem seculi opem feret ecclesie Romane que est pars ecclesie universalis contra hereticos. |
Master: They say that you are deceived by an ambiguous word the senses of which you are unable distinguish. For in one sense the words of blessed Jerome are equivalent to the following conditional, if blessed Peter brings it help [the Roman church] in future ages will remain etc, and that sense is true, although it is rash to assert that blessed Peter will bring help because it is not known whether God, and likewise blessed Peter, will abandon the Roman church, just as he abandoned the church of Antioch a long time ago. Another sense is equivalent to the following causal [statement], because blessed Peter will bring help, [the Roman church] in future ages will remain etc, and Jerome did not mean it in that sense. A third sense is the following temporal [statement], when blessed Peter brings help etc., and that sense is also true. But it is not known for how long a time blessed Peter will bring help to the Roman church against the insolence of heretics. And it is rash to assert, therefore, that until the end of the age he will bring help against heretics to the Roman church which is part of the universal church. |
Capitulum 23 |
Chapter 23 |
|
Discipulus Vellem scire an isti aliis racionibus satagant se munire. |
Student: I would like to know whether they try to defend themselves with other arguments. |
|
Magister Pluribus aliis racionibus suam assercionem fulcire nituntur. Unde secunda racio eorum talis est. Omnis ecclesia que incepit post ascensionem Christi potest contra fidem errare, quia illa ecclesia quam predixit Christus in fide usque ad finem seculi permansuram fuit etiam pro sui parte ante ascensionem Christi. Christus enim, predicens ecclesiam suam usque ad finem seculi mansuram in fide cum dixit Matthei ultimo, "Vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummacionem seculi", non solum intelligebat de ecclesia futura post suam ascensionem, sed intelligebat quod nullo tempore, nec ante ascensionem nec post, erat tota ecclesia Christianorum a fide catholica recessura. Non ergo intellexit de ecclesia que incepit post ascensionem; sed ecclesia Romana incepit post ascensionem Domini, quia apostoli et alii discipuli Christi post ascensionem prius predicaverunt in aliis locis quam Rome. Ergo verba Christi de ecclesia in fide usque ad finem seculi permansura non debent de ecclesia Romana determinate intelligi, sed sub disiunccione et in communi de Romana ecclesia et aliis debent intelligi, quia fides catholica in ecclesia Romana vel in ecclesia Pisana vel in alia usque ad finem seculi permanebit. Semper enim erit aliquis catholicus et fidelis. |
Master: They try to fortify their assertion with many other arguments. Thus their second argument, for example, is the following. Every church which began after Christ's ascension can err against faith because that church which Christ predicted would continue in faith until the end of the age also existed independently before Christ's ascension. For when, in predicting that his church would continue in faith to the end of the age, Christ said in the last chapter of Matthew [28:20], "I am with you always till the end of the age", he did not mean only the future church after his ascension but also meant that at no time, either before or after his ascension, would the whole church of Christians withdraw from catholic faith. Therefore he did not mean a church that began after the ascension. But the Roman church began after the Lord's ascension because the apostles and other disciples preached in other places before Rome after Christ's ascension. Therefore Christ's words about the church's remaining in faith until the end of the age should not be understood specifically of the Roman church but should be understood as part of a disjunction and in general concerning the Roman church and other [churches], because the catholic faith will remain until the end of the age in the Roman church or in the Pisan church or in some other church. For there will always be someone who is a believing catholic. |
|
Tercia racio eorum est hec. Ecclesia Romana postquam inchoata fuit potuit contra fidem errare; igitur adhuc potest errare contra fidem. Antecedens patet quia ante adventum beati Petri Romam ecclesia inchoata ibidem potuit errare contra fidem, non enim tunc magis erat confirmata in fide quam alie ecclesie. Consequencia patet quia non legitur quod in fide fuerit postea confirmata. Ergo temerarium est asserere quod errare non potuerit. |
Their third argument is this. After it began the Roman church was able to err against faith; therefore it is still able to err against faith. The antecedent is clear because before the arrival in Rome of blessed Peter the church which had begun there was able to err against faith. For it had not been more confirmed in faith at that time than other churches. The consequence is clear because we do not read that it was afterwards confirmed in faith. It is rash to assert, therefore, that it could not err. |
|
Discipulus Videtur quod ex quo apostoli Petrus et Paulus consecraverunt et fundaverunt Romanam ecclesiam errare non potuit. |
Student: It seems that because the apostles Peter and Paul founded and consecrated the Roman church it was not able to err. |
|
Magister Hoc non videtur secundum istos veritatem habere, quia apostoli Petrus et Paulus non aliter fundaverunt Romanam ecclesiam nisi Romanos in fide sollicite instruendo, et eos ad fidem et bona opera doctrina et exemplis hortando, doctrinamque suam miraculis confirmando, et tandem civitatem Romanam suo martirio consecrando. Sed predicta omnia fecit Christus Hierosolymitane ecclesie, quia ipsam diligenter in fide instruxit ipsamque ad fidem et bona opera doctrina exemplis et miraculis hortabatur; pro qua eciam, sicut et ceteris, mortem accepit, et sic Hierosolymam sua morte et passione consecravit. Et tamen per omnia ista ecclesia Hierosolymitana in fide minime extitit confirmata, cum tamen opera, doctrina, vita et mors Christi multo maioris efficacie fuerint quam opera, vita, doctrina et martirium apostolorum Petri et Pauli. Petrus eciam et alii apostoli fundaverunt ecclesiam Anciochenam. Beatus eciam Paulus plures fundavit ecclesias. Alii eciam apostoli alias ecclesias suo martirio consecraverunt, et tamen nulla earum in fide extitit confirmata. Ergo consimiliter nichil apparet fuisse factum in Romana ecclesia unde in fide reputari debeat confirmata. Multa enim maiora ad stabilimentum fidei facta fuerunt Hierosolymis et in Iudea quam in Roma. Si ergo nec Hierosolyma nec Iudea fuit in fide confirmata, temerarium est dicere quod ecclesia Romana confirmata sit in fide. |
Master: This does not seem to be true according to them, because the apostles Peter and Paul founded the Roman church only by instructing the Romans carefully in faith, by encouraging them to faith and good works by teaching and examples, by confirming their teaching with miracles and, finally, by consecrating the city of Rome by their own martyrdom. But Christ did all those things for the church of Jerusalem because he diligently instructed it in faith and encouraged it to faith and good works by teaching, examples and miracles; he also accepted death on its behalf, as on behalf of the rest too, and in this way consecrated Jerusalem by his death and passion. And yet the Jerusalem church was not confirmed in faith by all these [acts] despite the work, teaching, life and death of Christ being of greater efficacy than the work, life, teaching and martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul. In addition Peter and other apostles founded the church of Antioch. Blessed Paul also founded many churches. Other apostles consecrated other churches too by their martyrdom, and yet none of them was confirmed in faith. Similarly, therefore, nothing seems to have been done in the Roman church as a result of which it should be regarded as confirmed in faith. For many greater things were done for the support of faith at Jerusalem and in Judea than in Rome. If therefore neither Jerusalem nor Judea was confirmed in faith it is rash to say that the Roman church has been confirmed in faith. |
|
Unde et ex hoc quarta racio sic formatur. Non magis fuit electa a Deo ecclesia Romana quam ecclesia Hierosolymitana; sed Deus permisit ecclesiam Hierosolymitanam totam a fide recedere; ergo temerarium est dicere quod Deus numquam permittet omnes Romanos a fide recedere. Et ita Romana ecclesia errare poterit contra fidem. |
And so from this [point] the fourth argument is also fashioned as follows. The Roman church was not more chosen by God than was the Jerusalem church; but God permitted the whole Jerusalem church to withdraw from the faith; it is rash to say, therefore, that God will never permit all the Romans to withdraw from the faith. And so the Roman church will be able to err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Quamvis omnes Romani qui conversantur Rome contra fidem errarent, Romana tamen ecclesia non erraret, quia tunc Romana ecclesia non esset Rome sed alibi, sicut modo Romana ecclesia est apud Avinionem. |
Student: Even if all the Romans who live in Rome were to err against faith, the Roman church would nevertheless not err, because then the Roman church would not be at Rome but elsewhere, just as the Roman church is now at Avignon. |
|
Magister Dicunt isti quod in hoc cavillose per equivocacionem conaris procedere, quia, querunt, quam ecclesiam vocas Romanam ecclesiam? Populum seu multitudinem Romanorum, sive clericorum sive laicorum, in partibus Romanis degencium vel domicilia ibidem habencium? Aut vocas ecclesiam Romanam clericos titulos habentes in Roma? Aut vocas ecclesiam Romanam papam cum cardinalibus, vel papam solum, vel solum collegium cardinalium? Aut vocas ecclesiam Romanam illos qui tenent fidem quam apostoli fundaverunt et predicaverunt Rome? |
Master: They say that using an ambiguity you are trying to proceed in this argument by a quibble, because, they ask, what church are you calling the Roman church? The people or multitude of Romans, either clerics or laypeople, living in the area of Rome or having their dwellings there? Or are you calling the Roman church the clerics who have titular churches in Rome? Or are you calling the Roman church the pope together with the cardinals or the pope alone or the college of cardinals alone? Or are you calling the Roman church those who maintain the faith which the apostles founded and preached at Rome? |
|
Si primo modo vocas ecclesiam Romanam, stat argumentum quia omnes Romani habentes domicilia Rome possent contra fidem errare, sicut et omnes Hierosolymitani aliquando erraverunt. |
If you are using 'Roman church' in the first way, the argument stands because all Romans having their dwelling in Rome could err against faith, just as all the inhabitants of Jerusalem did indeed err at one time. |
|
Si secundo modo, adhuc stat argumentum quia non magis sunt electi a Deo clerici habentes titulos in Roma quam fuerint clerici habentes titulos in Hierosolymis; illi autem omnes erraverunt, ergo et omnes habentes titulos in Roma possent errare. Item temerarium est dicere quod non possent omnes habentes titulos in Roma a paganis vel aliis malis occidi; ergo tunc non esset fides in clericis titulos Rome habentibus, et tamen non deficeret fides. Ergo de illis non sunt intelligenda verba Christi quibus promisit fidem usque ad finem seculi duraturam. |
If [you are using it] in the second way, the argument still stands because clerics having churches in Rome have not been more chosen by God than were the clerics who had churches in Jerusalem; all of them erred, however, and so all those having churches in Rome could err. It is also rash to say that all those having titular churches in Rome could not be killed by pagans or by other evil people. In that case there would then be no faith in clerics having titular churches in Rome, and yet faith would not fail. Therefore Christ's words promising that the faith would last until the end of the age should not be understood of those people. |
|
Si vero vocas ecclesiam Romanam papam cum cardinalibus vel papam solum vel collegium cardinalium solum, adhuc potest errare, quia temerarium est dicere papam cum duobus cardinalibus, si non essent plures, non posse errare contra fidem. |
But if you are calling the Roman church the pope together with the cardinals or the pope alone or the college of cardinals alone, still it can err, because it is rash to say that the pope together with two cardinals, if there were not more, can not err against faith. |
|
Si autem vocas Romanam ecclesiam illam ecclesiam que tenet fidem quam apostoli fundaverunt et predicaverunt Rome, sic concedunt quod Romana ecclesia errare non potest; sed illa Romana ecclesia est universalis ecclesia ubicumque fuerint catholici et fideles. Et hec ecclesia que vocatur catholica et apostolica que errare non potest ita comprehendit Pisanos et Lumbardos, Gallicos, Yspanos, Marchianos et Germanos sicut Romanos; et de ista ecclesia sola concedunt isti quod errare non potest. |
If however you are calling the Roman church that church which maintains the faith which the apostles founded and preached at Rome they grant in that case that the Roman church can not err; but that Roman church is the church universal wherever there have been believing catholics. And this church which is called catholic and apostolic and which can not err comprises Pisans and Lombards, French and Spaniards, those from Ancona and Germans, as well as Romans. And of this church only do they grant that it can not err. |
|
Quinta racio eorum est hec. Ecclesia Romana que est una ecclesia particularis sive comprehendat omnes Romanos sive clerum Romanum tantummodo sive papam cum cardinalibus. Non est magis electa a Deo quam fuerit gens Iudeorum, de qua Christus fuit carnem suscepturus humanam, quam principaliter salvare venerat, ipso dicente Matthei 15, "Non sum missus nisi ad oves que perierunt domus Israel"; sed gens illa non fuit confirmata in fide quin potuit errare. Ergo nec ecclesia Romana est confirmata in fide quin possit errare. |
Their fifth argument is this. The Roman church which is one particular church is comprised either of all Romans or of the Roman clergy only or of the pope with the cardinals. It has not been more chosen by God than was the nation of the Jews, as a member of which Christ was to receive human flesh and which principally he had come to save, as he himself said in Matthew 15[:24], "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel"; but that nation was not confirmed in faith so that it was not able to err. The church of Rome, therefore, has not been confirmed in faith either so that it is not able to err. |
|
Discipulus Per istam racionem probaretur quod tota multitudo Christianorum posset contra fidem errare, sicut tota multitudo gentis Iudeorum errare potuit contra fidem. |
Student: It would be proved by that argument that the whole multitude of Christians could err against faith, just as the whole multitude of the nation of the Jews was able to err against faith. |
|
Magister Respondetur quod argumentum non procedit de tota multitudine Christianorum sicut de Romana ecclesia, quia extra universalem ecclesiam non potest esse salus, eo quod Christus numquam aliam legem preter Christianam est daturus, quemadmodum daturus fuit aliam legem preter legem Iudeorum. Extra autem ecclesiam Romanam que est ecclesia particularis potest esse salus. Multi enim preter Romanos salvantur, et ideo licet argumentum predictum concludat de ecclesia Romana, que potest errare sicut potuit errare multitudo Iudeorum, non tamen concludit de ecclesia universali. |
Master: It is replied that the argument is not valid of the whole multitude of Christians as it is of the Roman church because there can not be salvation outside the universal church, in that Christ will never provide another law in addition to the Christian law in the way that he was going to provide another law in addition to the law of the Jews. There can be salvation, however, outside the Roman church which is a particular church, for many people are saved apart from Romans. And therefore although the above argument is conclusive of the Roman church, which can err just as the multitude of Jews was able to err, it is nevertheless not conclusive of the universal church. |
|
Sexta eorum racio accipitur ex predictis, quia omnis ecclesia extra quam potest esse salus potest contra fidem errare. Extra ecclesiam autem Romanam potest esse salus, quemadmodum post ascensionem Christi fuit salus antequam Romana fuerit ecclesia. Ergo ecclesia Romana potest contra fidem errare. |
Their sixth argument is taken from the preceding [remarks], because every church outside which there can be salvation can err against faith. There can be salvation outside the Roman church, however, as there was after Christ's ascension before there was a Roman church. Therefore the Roman church can err against faith. |
|
Septima eorum racio est hec. Illa ecclesia que contra fidem errare non potest non indiget aliorum consilio pro questionibus fidei terminandis. Ecclesia autem Romana indiget aliorum consilio in questionibus fidei terminandis, aliter enim ad terminandas et diffiniendas questiones motas de fide congregarentur inutiliter generalia concilia. Ergo ecclesia Romana potest errare contra fidem. |
Their seventh argument is this. That church which can not err against faith does not need the advice of others to determine questions of faith. However the Roman church does need the advice of others in determining questions of faith, for otherwise it would be useless to assemble general councils to determine and define questions raised about the faith. Therefore the Roman church can err against faith. |
|
Octava racio est hec. Illa ecclesia que potest fieri auctoritate pape inferior aliis ecclesiis potest contra fidem errare. Illa enim ecclesia que non potest contra fidem errare non habet aliam ecclesiam particularem superiorem. Ecclesia autem Romana auctoritate pape potest fieri inferior aliis ecclesiis. posset enim papa transferre sedem papalem de Roma ad aliam civitatem, quo facto Romana ecclesia alteri esset subiecta. Ergo Romana ecclesia potest contra fidem errare. |
An eighth argument is this. That church which by the pope's authority can be made inferior to other churches can err against faith. For that church which can not err against faith does not have another particular church superior to it. By the pope's authority, however, the Roman church can be made inferior to other churches, for the pope could transfer the papal see from Rome to another city. If this were done the Roman church would be subject to another [church]. Therefore the Roman church can err against faith. |
|
Nona eorum racio est hec. Temerarium est dicere illam gentem non posse contra fidem errare que est ante diem iudicii peritura; sed gens Romanorum ante diem extremam peribit. Sic enim legitur Numerorum 24, "Venient in trieribus de Ytalia, superabunt Assirios vastabuntque Hebreos, et ad extremum eciam peribunt." Ista verba de solis Romanis possunt intelligi. Ergo Romani peribunt, et per consequens temerarium est dicere quod inter Romanos fides usque ad finem seculi remanebit. |
Their ninth argument is this. It is rash to say that a people which will perish before the day of judgement can not err against faith, but the Roman people will perish before the final day. For we read as follows in Numbers 24[:24], "They shall come in galleys from Italy, they shall overcome the Assyrians, and shall waste the Hebrews, and at the last they themselves shall perish." Those words can be understood only of the Romans. Therefore the Romans will perish and, as a consequence, it is rash to say that faith will remain until the end of the age among the Romans. |
|
Discipulus Verba ista possunt intelligi de Romanorum Imperio temporali, quia illud peribit, sed non oportet quod intelligantur de ecclesia Romanorum. |
Student: Those words can be understood of the temporal empire of the Romans, because that will perish, but it is not proper that they be understood of the church of the Romans. |
|
Magister Isti non intelligunt predicta verba de ecclesia Romana quia, sicut reputant temerarium dicere quod ecclesia Romana numquam contra fidem errabit, ita reputant temerarium dicere quod ecclesia Romana errabit contra fidem, quia neutra pars istius contradiccionis ex scripturis autenticis potest inferri. Et verba predicta Numerorum 24 de potencia temporali Romanorum intelligunt, ex hoc arguentes quod temerarium est asserere ecclesiam nullatenus de Roma desituram, quia licet Deus possit sola sua potencia loca fidelium contra infidelium potenciam conservare, tamen temerarium est dicere quod Deus de facto aliquem locum vel civitatem fidelium miraculose contra irruentes potencias infidelium conservabit, maxime tempore Antichristi quando pseudochristi et pseudoprophete Antichristi dabunt signa magna et prodigia et electi non habebunt graciam faciendi miracula sicut habuerunt apostoli et martyres Christi. Temerarium igitur est asserere quod Deus civitatem Romanam miraculose a iugo infidelium preservabit. Quare cum potencia temporalis Romanorum inceperit dudum deficere et continue magis ac magis deficiat et potencia infidelium et malorum prevaleat, non apparet quin civitas Romana possit infidelibus subiugari, quemadmodum antiquitus Romana civitas sibi alias provincias subiugavit. Quare sicut sine temeritate nequaquam asseritur quod civitas Romana ad dominium veniet paganorum, ita temerarie divinando de futuris nobis incognitis affirmatur quod numquam infideles sunt civitatem occupaturi Romanam et cunctos de eadem civitate expulsuri fideles, et ita temerarium est dicere quod numquam de Roma omnes catholici expellentur. Et sicut temerarium est dicere quod numquam omnes Christiani expellentur de civitate Romana nequaquam amplius reversuri, ita temerarium est dicere quod si per potenciam infidelium omnes Christiani Romani preter decem vel duodecim essent expulsi de Roma numquam in perpetuum reversuri quod illi decem vel duodecem remanentes non possent contra fidem errare nec ad sectam occupancium Romam converti. |
Master: They do not understand the above words of the Roman church because, just as they regard it as rash to say that the Roman church will never err against faith, they regard it as rash in the same way to say that the Roman church will err against faith, since neither side of that contradiction can be deduced from the authoritative writings. And they understand the above words from Numbers 24 of the temporal power of the Romans, arguing from them that it is rash to affirm that the church will not cease in Rome because although God can by his own power alone preserve the regions where believers live against the power of unbelievers, it is nevertheless rash to say that God will in fact miraculously preserve some [particular] place or city where believers live against the invading power of unbelievers, especially in the time of anti-Christ when false messiahs and false prophets of the anti-Christ will produce great signs and omens and the chosen ones will not have grace to perform miracles as the apostles and martyrs of Christ had. It is rash to affirm, therefore, that God will miraculously preserve the city of Rome from the yoke of unbelievers. Therefore since the temporal power of the Romans began to fail some time ago and continues to fail more and more, while the power of unbelievers and the wicked is becoming greater, it is not clear that the city of Rome can not be made subject to unbelievers, just as in ancient times the city of Rome made other provinces subject to it. Just as it is not asserted without rashness, therefore, that the city of Rome will come under the dominion of pagans, so it is rash to affirm by prophesying concerning future events that are unknown to us that unbelievers will never occupy the city of Rome and expel all the believers from the city; and so it is rash to say that all the catholics will never be driven out of Rome. [See Significant Variants, para. 36.]And just as it is rash to say that all the Christians will never be driven out of the city of Rome not to return again, so it is rash to say that if by the power of unbelievers all the Roman Christians except for ten or twelve were driven out of Rome never again to return, those ten or twelve who remain could not err against faith or be converted to the sect of those occupying Rome. |
|
Discipulus Si omnes modo Christiani de civitate Romana per potenciam infidelium expellerentur non propter hoc ecclesia Romana desineret, sicut nec expulsi desinerent esse Romani. |
Student: If all Christians were driven out of the city of Rome now by the power of unbelievers, the Roman church would not on that account cease, just as those who were driven out would not fail to be Romans. |
|
Magister Concedunt quod propter hoc non desineret Romana ecclesia; expulsis tamen mortuis sine prole, quod non esset impossibile, et desineret Romana ecclesia et amplius non essent Romani aliqui Christiani. |
Master: They grant that the Roman church would not cease on that account, but if those who were driven out died without issue, which would not be impossible, the Roman church would cease and there would no longer be any Roman Christians. |
|
Discipulus Mortuis omnibus illis sine prole adhuc possent aliqui ordinari clerici loco priorum, et illud collegium clericorum posset vocari Romana ecclesia. |
Student: If they did all die without issue some clerics could still be ordained in place of the earlier ones, and that college of clerics could be called the Roman church. |
|
Magister Hoc impugnatur dupliciter: primo, quia per talem modum posset dici quod ecclesia Pisana non posset contra fidem errare, quia sive omnes Pisani expellerentur de Pisis sive omnes fierent heretici sive universi morerentur, possent clerici ordinari et vocaliter tituli priorum Pisanorum deputari eisdem. Secundo, quia dicunt nonnulli quod fides ecclesie posset remanere in puris laicis; ymmo dicunt quidam quod posset salvari in mulieribus, quemadmodum tempore passionis Christi salvata fuit in sola matre Christi. |
Master: This is attacked in two ways. [It is attacked] first because by that means it could be said that the Pisan church could not err against faith because whether all the Pisans were driven out of Pisa or all were to become heretics or all were to die, clerics could be ordained and the former Pisan titular churches could be allotted to them explicitly. [It is attacked] secondly because some people say that the faith of the church could remain in mere laypeople; indeed some say that it could be preserved in women, as at the time of Christ's passion it was preserved only in Christ's mother. |
|
Discipulus Dic aliam racionem istorum, si quam habent, pro assercione sua principali. |
Student: Tell me another argument for their main assertion, if they have one.. |
|
Magister Decima racio eorum est hec. Ecclesia militans non est magis accepta a Deo quam fuerit tota multitudo angelorum ante confirmacionem bonorum et casum malorum; sed nulla pars tocius multitudinis angelorum ante confirmacionem bonorum et casum malorum sic a Deo extitit preservata quin quecumque pars illius tocius multitudinis labi potuerit in peccatum et eternaliter condemnari, licet Deus ordinaverit quod tota multitudo angelorum nullatenus laberetur. Ergo consimiliter nulla pars militantis ecclesie sic preservatur a Deo quin possit contra fidem errare, licet Deus numquam permittet totam militantem ecclesiam contra fidem errare. Romana autem ecclesia est pars militantis ecclesie. Ergo Romana ecclesia que est pars ecclesie potest contra fidem errare. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 37.]Master: Their tenth argument is this. The church militant has not been accepted by God more than was the whole multitude of angels before the confirmation of the good ones and the fall of the bad ones; but before the confirmation of the good angels and the fall of the bad, no part of the whole multitude of angels was so kept safe by God that no part of that whole multitude was unable to fall into sin and be eternally condemned, although God ordained that the whole multitude of angels would not fall. In a similar way, therefore, no part of the church militant is so kept safe by God that it can not err against faith, although God will never permit the whole church militant to err against faith. However the Roman church is part of the church militant. Therefore the Roman church that is part of the church militant can err against faith. |
Capitulum 24 |
Chapter 24 |
|
Discipulus Licet firmiter teneam quod ecclesia Romana contra fidem errare non possit secundum quod raciones et auctoritates prius inducte probant aperte, tamen quomodo asserentes Romanam ecclesiam posse contra fidem errare respondent ad eas velis exponere. Cum responsiones eorum ad ipsas irracionabiles esse cognovero magis virtutem earum intelligam. |
Student: Although I firmly maintain that the Roman church can not err against faith, according to what the arguments and texts brought forward above clearly prove, would you nevertheless like to explain how those who affirm that the Roman church can err against faith reply to them. When I have learnt that their replies to them are unreasonable I will better understand their strength. |
Replies to arguments that the Roman Church cannot err |
|
|
Magister Ad primam earum respondent dicentes istam esse falsam: illa ecclesia que voce evangelica Domini et salvatoris nostri ceteris ecclesiis est prelata contra fidem errare non potest. Nam ecclesia Anciochena ita fuit ecclesiis aliis voce evangelica Domini et salvatoris nostri prelata sicut Romana ecclesia, quia non invenitur quod aliter Romana ecclesia voce salvatoris fuerit prelata aliis ecclesiis nisi quia beatus Petrus a Domino nostro cunctis prelatus fidelibus sedem tenebat in Roma. Sed beatus Petrus primo sedem habebat Anciochie et postea Rome. Ergo pro illo tempore quo beatus Petrus sedit Anciochie ecclesia Anciochena voce evangelica Domini et salvatoris nostri fuit cunctis prelata ecclesiis, sicut postea Romana fuit cunctis prelata ecclesiis. Sed ecclesia Anciochena non fuit confirmata in fide sed errare potuit contra fidem. Ergo non obstante quod ecclesia Romana voce evangelica Domini et salvatoris nostri sit prelata ecclesiis universis, ipsa tamen non est confirmata in fide sed contra fidem posset errare. Et ideo dicunt quod temerarium est dicere quod numquam errabit contra fidem, et eciam temerarium est dicere quod errabit, quia utrunque est nobis incognitum quia nec alterum eorum est revelatum a Deo. |
Master: They reply to the first of them by saying that the following is false: that church which has been preferred to other churches by the gospel word of our Lord and Saviour can not err against faith. For the Antioch church was preferred to other churches by the gospel word of our Lord and Saviour just as the Roman church was, because we do not find that the Roman church was preferred to other churches by the Saviour's word in any way except that blessed Peter, having been set above the rest of the believers by our Lord, had his see in Rome. But blessed Peter had his see first in Antioch and later in Rome. For the time when blessed Peter sat at Antioch, therefore, the Antioch church was preferred to the rest of the churches by the gospel word of our Lord and Saviour, just as later the Roman church was preferred to the rest of the churches. But the Antioch church was not confirmed in faith but was able to err against faith. Notwithstanding, therefore, that the Roman church was preferred to all churches by the gospel word of our Lord and Saviour, it was nevertheless not confirmed in faith but was able to err against faith. And they say, therefore, that it is rash to claim that it will never err against faith, and also rash to claim that it will so err, because each of these is unknown to us since neither of them has been revealed by God. |
|
Cum vero dicitur quod opus Dei ab hominibus dissolvi non potest, respondent quod multa opera Dei ab hominibus possunt dissolvi. Charitas enim et alie virtutes infuse viatori sunt opera Dei, et tamen per liberum arbitrium dissolvi possunt, quia habens primo charitatem et virtutes potest peccare mortaliter. Per peccatum autem mortale caritas expellitur. Sic dicunt de Romana ecclesia quod licet in beato Petro acceperit principatum, tota tamen Roma potest ab infidelibus usque ad finem seculi occupari. Nec scitur an infideles totam Romam sint umquam capturi usque ad finem seculi retenturi. Posset eciam tota Roma et omnes Christiani in ipsa ad aliam sectam converti. Nec scit aliquis, nisi cui Deus revelasset, an tota Roma tempore Antichristi convertetur ad ipsum; ymmo nescitur an aliquando tota Roma et omnes habitantes in ipsa convertentur ad sectam Machometi vel ad aliquam aliam hereticam pravitatem. |
But when it is said that the work of God can not be destroyed by men, they reply that many works of God can be destroyed by men. For charity and other virtues infused in a pilgrim are works of God and yet they can be destroyed by free will because someone who at first has charity and virtues can sin mortally. Charity is driven out by mortal sin however. In this way they say of the Roman church that although it received dominion in [the person of] blessed Peter, the whole of Rome can nevertheless be occupied by unbelievers until the end of the age. Nor is it known whether unbelievers will ever capture the whole of Rome and keep it until the end of the age. The whole of Rome and all the Christians in it could also be converted to another sect. Nor does anyone know, unless God has revealed it to someone, whether in the time of anti-Christ the whole of Rome will be converted to him; indeed it is not known whether the whole of Rome and everyone living in it will be converted to the sect of Mohammed or to some other heretical wickedness. |
|
Cum autem in eadem racione accipitur quod si illa ecclesia que voce divina ceteris ecclesiis est prelata contra fidem erraret desineret esse caput aliarum ecclesiarum, respondent quod si tota Roma converteretur ad sectam Sarracenorum vel ad aliam hereticam pravitatem et papa et omnes cardinales et omnes clerici Rome titulos habentes in pravitatem hereticam laberentur, adhuc posset dici quod Romana ecclesia aliquo modo non desineret esse caput aliarum ecclesiarum, non quod tunc de facto esset aliquis papa vel aliquod collegium aut aliqua persona extra omnem aliam ecclesiam particularem qui vel quod vel que esset caput aliarum ecclesiarum, sed quia eligendus esset summus pontifex per catholicos, quando possent convenienter, qui pater esset omnium catholicorum et de iure licet non de facto sedem Rome tenere deberet, quemadmodum nunc creantur patriarche Alexandrinus, Anciochenus et Hierosolymitanus qui de iure in predictis civitatibus sedere deberent. Et ideo quemadmodum nunc dicitur quod ecclesia Constantinopolitana est secunda ecclesia post Romanam et Alexandrina tercia et Anciochena quarta et Hierosolymitana quinta, quia si civitates predicte essent a fidelibus occupate prefate ecclesie talem ordinem haberent, et de facto patriarche a predictis civitatibus appellati quando creantur talem ordinem retinent inter se, ita si omnes Romani essent aversi a fide adhuc summus pontifex esset fidelium caput, et, si Roma converteretur ad fidem, deberet primitatem respectu aliarum ecclesiarum habere. |
When it is assumed in the same argument, however, that if that church which has been preferred to the rest of the churches by divine word were to err against faith it would cease to be head of the other churches, they reply that if the whole of Rome were converted to the sect of the Saracens or to some other heretical wickedness and the pope, all the cardinals and all the clergy having titular churches in Rome were to fall into heretical wickedness it could still be said that in some way the Roman church did not cease to be head of the other churches. This is not because there would then in fact be some pope or some college or some person outside every other particular church who or which would be the head of other churches, but because a highest pontiff would be bound to be chosen by catholics, when they could do so conveniently, and he would be father of all catholics and by right, although not in fact, should hold the see of Rome, just as patriarchs are now appointed for Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem who by right ought to have their see in those cities. And therefore just as it is now said that the church of Constantinople is the second church after the Roman one, the church of Alexandria the third, the church of Antioch the fourth and the church of Jerusalem the fifth, because if those cities were occupied by believers their churches would have that order, and the patriarchs named after those cities when they are appointed in fact retain that order among themselves, so if all the Romans were turned away from the faith the highest pontiff would still be the head of believers and, if Rome were converted to the faith, he should have preeminence with respect to other churches. |
|
Discipulus Si tota Roma esset ab infidelibus occupata vel ad aliam sectam conversa, nunquid secundum istos oporteret creare clericos loco priorum qui fuerunt Rome, sicut oporteret creare summum pontificem qui de iure deberet Rome sedem habere? |
Student: If the whole of Rome were occupied by unbelievers or converted to another sect, would it be proper, according to them, to appoint clergy in place of the earlier ones who had been at Rome, in the same way as it would be proper to appoint a highest pontiff who should by right have his see at Rome? |
|
Magister Respondent quod sufficeret solum summum pontificem eligere, quia alii tituli Rome preter papatum possunt variari, augeri et minui. Unde et modo sunt plures quam fuerint temporibus apostolorum, nec forte aliquis istorum fuit tempore beati Petri, et ideo si tota Roma esset aversa a fide sufficeret catholicis eligere papam Romanum, quemadmodum nunc creatur patriarcha Anciochenus, nec titulos alios Rome oporteret aliis clericis assignare, sicut nec modo clerici titulis qui quondam fuerunt in civitatibus patriarchalibus deputantur. |
Master: They reply that it would be enough to choose a highest pontiff only because except for the papacy the other titular churches at Rome can be varied, increased or reduced. So it is that there are now more [churches] than there were in the times of the apostles, and perhaps some of them did not exist in blessed Peter's day. If the whole of Rome were turned away from the faith, therefore, it would be enough for catholics to choose a Roman pope, just as a patriarch of Antioch is now appointed, and it would not be proper to assign the other titular churches of Rome to other clerics, just as clerics are not allotted now to the churches which once existed in those cities with patriarchs. |
|
Concedunt igitur isti quod verba Pelagii continent veritatem quod sancta Romana ecclesia, catholica et apostolica, nullis synodicis constitutis principaliter sed evangelica voce Domini et salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit in Petro quando Dominus prefecit beatum Petrum fidelibus universis. Nec per alium modum obtinuit principatum super alias ecclesias nisi quia Dominus beatum Petrum pretulit omnibus, nullam tunc de Romana ecclesia faciens mencionem. Sed beatus Petrus postea ibi sedem elegit, et ideo ex tunc auctoritate Dei, qui voluit illam sedem quam Petrus eligeret esse primam, Romana ecclesia primatum obtinuit. |
They grant, therefore, that the words of Pelagius contain the truth that the holy Roman church, catholic and apostolic, acquired primacy in [the person of] Peter not mainly by the decrees of a synod but by the gospel word of our Lord and Saviour when the Lord set Peter above all the believers. And he did not acquire dominion over other churches by any other means except because the Lord preferred blessed Peter to everyone, making no mention at that time of the Roman church. But blessed Peter later chose that place for his see and therefore forthwith the Roman church acquired primacy by the authority of God who wanted that see which Peter chose to be first. |
|
Ad secundam racionem multipliciter respondetur. Uno modo dicitur quod Romana ecclesia privilegium super alias ecclesias posset amittere quia posset papa transferre sedem papalem de Roma ad aliam civitatem, sicut Beatus Petrus transtulit de Anciochia sedem in Romam. Aliter dicitur quod licet Romana ecclesia possit ad tempus et de facto amittere privilegium super alias ecclesias, non tamen simpliciter, quia si Romana ecclesia rediret ad fidem ipsa recuperaret idem privilegium quod habuit ante. Tercio dicitur quod Romana ecclesia, distinguendo ipsam contra papam qui gubernat ipsam, potest simpliciter amittere privilegium absque translacione sedis, quia illud privilegium consistit principaliter in potestate eligendi summum pontificem et ordinandi apostolicam sedem. Sed hoc privilegium potest amittere absque translacione sedis, sicut quondam amisit. Nam, sicut habetur dist. 63, c. Adrianus, hoc ius habuit Karolus magnus, et postea obtinuit Otto primus rex Theotonicorum, sicut legitur eadem dist. c. In synodo. Ergo ecclesia Romana privilegium suum potest amittere. |
There are many replies to the second argument. In one way it is said that the Roman church could lose its privilege over other churches because the pope could transfer the papal see from Rome to another city, just as blessed Peter transferred his see from Antioch to Rome. In another way it is said that although the Roman church can for a time and in fact lose its privilege over other churches yet it does not do so utterly because if the Roman church were to return to the faith it would recover the same privilege it had before. In a third way it is said that, by distinguishing it from the pope who governs it, the Roman church can lose its privilege simply without the translation of its see, because that privilege consists principally in the power to choose the highest pontiff and to ordain to the apostolic see. But it can lose this privilege without its see being transferred, just as it did lose it once. For as we find in dist. 63, c. Adrianus [col.241], Charlemagne had this right, and later Otto, the first king of the Germans, acquired it, as we read in c. In synodo of the same distinction [col.241]. Therefore the Roman church can lose its privilege. |
|
Ad auctoritatem autem Nicolai pape dicitur quod Nicolaus loquitur de ecclesia Romana que est papa, quia illi soli ecclesie Romane que est papa in beato Petro immediate a Christo fuit traditum privilegium. Illa autem ecclesia Romana que est subiecta Pape nullum privilegium habet nisi a papa, quod papa potest, quando sibi placet, auferre. Vult ergo Nicolaus papa asserere quod qui Romane ecclesie que est papa privilegium conatur auferre, asserendo videlicet ipsum non esse prelatum omnium Christianorum, hereticus est, quia incidit in assercionem erroneam que sapit heresim manifestam, quia ex ipsa et quibusdam veris que nulla possunt tergiversacione negari sequitur heresis manifesta quod beatus Petrus non fuit a Christo omnibus prelatus fidelibus. Et ideo illi qui dicunt quod papa non potest transferre sedem papalem de Roma dicunt quod talis sic nitens auferre privilegium Romane ecclesie que est papa est hereticus, stricte sumpto heretico. Qui autem dicunt quod papa potest transferre sedem dicunt quod est hereticus large sumpto heretico, secundum quod aliquis dicitur hereticus qui pertinaciter tenet assercionem que non est heresis stricte sumpta heresi sed est heresis secundum quod omnis assercio sapiens heresim manifestam heresis appellatur. Qualiter autem tales asserciones distinguantur ex superioribus ubi tactum est de heresibus patere potest. |
To the text from Pope Nicholas, however, it is said that Nicholas is speaking of the Roman church that is the pope, because only to that Roman church that is the pope, in the person of blessed Peter, was that privilege directly handed over by Christ. That Roman church which is subject to the pope, however, has no privilege except from the pope and the pope can take it away whenever it pleases him. Pope Nicholas wants to affirm, therefore, that whoever tries to take away the privilege of the Roman church that is the pope, by asserting, that is, that he was not set above all Christians, is a heretic because he has fallen into an erroneous assertion which smacks of manifest heresy since from it and certain truths which can not be denied without subterfuge follows the manifest heresy that blessed Peter was not set by Christ above all believers. And therefore those who say that the pope can not transfer the papal see from Rome are saying that someone striving in this way to take away the privilege of the Roman church which is the pope is a heretic, taking the word 'heretic' strictly. Those who say that the pope can transfer his see, however, are saying that [such a person] is a heretic, taking the word 'heretic' broadly in the sense that someone is called a heretic who pertinaciously maintains an assertion which is not a heresy with the word 'heresy' taken strictly but is a heresy in the sense that any assertion which smacks of manifest heresy is called a heresy. How such assertions are distinguished, however, is evident from earlier remarks where heresies were touched on. |
|
Ad racionem terciam respondetur quod sine Romana ecclesia que est subiecta pape et que non est papa posset regi universalis ecclesia. |
It is replied to the third argument that the universal church could be ruled without the Roman church which is subject to the pope and which is not the pope. |
|
Ad auctoritatem autem beati Anacleti respondetur quod apostolicam sedem vocat summum pontificem quia summus pontifex, sive sit Rome sive Esculi, est caput et cardo quo omnes ecclesie, Domino disponente, reguntur, quando est verus papa. Hec tamen ecclesia contra fidem errare potest quia papa potest incurrere hereticam pravitatem. Sed tunc substituendus est ei alius catholicus qui ecclesiam regat catholicam, sive fuerit in Ytalia, sive in Gallia, sive in Yspania, sive Germania. |
The reply to the text from blessed Anacletus is that he calls the apostolic see the highest pontiff because the highest pontiff, when he is a true pope, whether he is at Rome or at Ascoli, is the head and hinge by which all churches, with the Lord arranging matters, are ruled. Nevertheless this church can err against faith because the pope can fall into heretical wickedness. But then another catholic should be substituted for him who will rule the catholic church whether he be in Italy, in France, in Spain or in Germany. |
|
Ad quartam racionem dicitur quod hec est falsa: illa ecclesia non potest errare contra fidem a qua quicumque dissentit non est inter catholicos episcopos numerandus. Sed illa de inesse est vera. Illa ecclesia non errat contra fidem a qua quicumque dissentit, etc. Et ideo quamdiu Romana ecclesia non errat contra fidem quicumque dissentit ab ea in fide non est inter catholicos computandus; sed si erraret contra fidem non haberet veritatem. Beatus autem Ambrosius loquebatur pro tempore suo quando ecclesia Romana firma mansit in fide. Si autem erraret contra fidem, dissencientes ab ea essent inter catholicos numerandi. |
It is said to the fourth argument that this is false, namely, that the church from which anyone who dissents should no longer be numbered among catholic bishops can not err against faith. But this is true as a factual statement: the church from which anyone who dissents, etc., does not err against faith. And therefore as long as the Roman church does not err against faith whoever dissents from it in faith should not be counted among catholics; but if it were to err against faith, this would not be true. However blessed Ambrose was talking for his own time when the Roman church remained firm in faith. If it were to err against faith, however, those dissenting from it should be numbered among catholics. |
|
Ad quintam racionem dicitur quod aliquem esse extra Romanam ecclesiam dupliciter potest intelligi: vel quia est contrarius pertinaciter quantum ad ea que fidei sunt, vel quia non est Romanus sed est de alia ecclesia particulari. Qui primo modo est extra Romanam ecclesiam, quamdiu Romana ecclesia non errat, non potest nisi redierit salvari, et sic loquitur Hieronimus. Qui secundo modo est extra ecclesiam Romanam salvari potest. Hieronimus autem principaliter loquitur de papa successore beati Petri catholico, et de illo habet veritatem, quia quicumque est sibi contrarius pertinaciter in hiis que fidei sunt salvari non potest. |
It is said to the fifth argument that someone's being outside the Roman church can be understood in two ways: either he is pertinaciously opposed [to it] with respect to matters of faith, or he is not a Roman but is from some other particular church. As long as the Roman church does not err, whoever is outside it in the first way can not be saved unless he returns to it, and Jerome is speaking in this sense. Someone outside the Roman church in the second way can be saved. But Jerome is mainly speaking about a pope who is a catholic successor to blessed Peter, and it is true about him, because whoever is pertinaciously opposed to him in matters of faith can not be saved. |
|
Ad sextam racionem dicitur quod beatus Cyprianus loquitur de cathedra Petri que est summus pontifex catholicus tenens fidem beati Petri, sive fuerit Rome, sive Anciochie. Innocencius autem 3, ut de se patet, loquitur de successoribus beati Petri catholicis. |
It is said to the sixth argument that blessed Cyprian is speaking about the see of Peter which is the highest pontiff maintaining as a catholic the faith of blessed Peter, whether at Rome or Antioch. Moreover, as is patently obvious, Innocent III is speaking about catholic successors of blessed Peter. |
|
Ad septimam dicitur quod licet quantum ad multa sit similitudo inter corpus Christi mysticum quod est ecclesia et corpus materiale hominis, non tamen est quantum ad omnia simile. Corpus enim hominis nec ad tempus manet vivum sine capite; corpus autem Christi mysticum absque capite in terris ad tempus vivum manere potest. Sepe enim caret capite in terris, quamvis tunc habeat caput in celis, scilicet Christum qui est ecclesie caput, ut habetur ad Ephesios 1. Crebro enim caret summo pontifice qui est caput ecclesie, nec tamen tunc desinit esse spiritualiter viva, ymmo vivit vita gracie. Debet tamen quando convenienter poterit sibi constituere caput. Corpus igitur Christi mysticum potest esse sine multis membris, quelibet enim ecclesia particularis est membrum ecclesie. Unde ecclesie Parisiensis, Lugdunensis, Lucenensis, Ianuensis sunt membra ecclesie, et tamen sine istis posset esse corpus Christi mysticum. Quamvis enim predicte ecclesie a fide discederent, non propter hoc corpus Christi mysticum deperiret. Et ideo quamvis Romana ecclesia post papam sit principale membrum ecclesie, tamen sine ipsa posset esse ecclesia. |
It is said to the seventh that although there is a likeness in many ways between the mystical body of Christ which is the church and the material body of a person, yet they are not alike in all ways. For without a head the body of a person does not remain alive for any time, but the mystical body of Christ can remain alive for a time without a head on earth. For it often lacks a head on earth, although then it does have a head in heaven, namely Christ who is the head of the church, as we find in Ephesians 1. For it frequently does lack the highest pontiff who is the head of the church, and yet then it does not fail to be alive spiritually -- in fact it lives with the life of grace. Nevertheless it should appoint a head for itself when it can do so conveniently. The mystical body of Christ can exist without many members, therefore, because every particular church is a member of the church. So, the churches of Paris, Lyons, Lucca and Genoa are members of the church and yet the mystical body of Christ could exist without them. For even if those churches were to abandon the faith, the mystical body of Christ would not on that account perish. And therefore although the Roman church is the main member of the church after the pope, there could nevertheless be a church without it. |
|
Ad octavam dicitur quod Romanam ecclesiam malicia posset extinguere. Cum vero dicit Pelagius papa quod nulla alia ecclesia nisi que in apostolica est radice fundata, hanc concedunt quia omnis ecclesia catholica, sive sit Romana, sive Pisana, sive Neapolitana, in apostolica est radice fundata, quia in doctrina apostolorum. |
It is said to the eighth that evil could destroy the Roman church. But when Pope Pelagius says that there is no other church except that which is founded from an apostolic source, they grant this because every catholic church, whether it is at Rome or at Pisa or at Naples, has been founded from an apostolic source since [it is founded] on apostolic teaching. |
|
Cum vero allegat Augustinum respondetur per idem quod ecclesiam constitutam in radice apostolice sedis per successiones episcoporum, hoc est ecclesiam tenentem doctrinam apostolicam quam rexerunt succedentes episcopi, quamvis aliquando tale regimen fuerit interruptum, et regent in futurum, licet forte cum magna interrupcione regiminis, nulla malicia hominum valebit extinguere. Et illa ecclesia, sive fuerit Rome, sive Florencie, sive in Yspania, sive alibi, non poterit esse nulla, quamvis omnes Romani et tota Ytalia ac Francia et Yspania ac Alamania a fide catholica recederet, quia si non fuerit in regionibus supradictis erit in Syria, vel in Egipto, vel in Ethiopia, vel in India, vel alibi ubi Deo placuerit. |
When Augustine is quoted, it is replied in the same way that no human evil will be able to destroy the church founded from the source of the apostolic see by successions of bishops, that is the church maintaining the apostolic teaching and which succeeding bishops have ruled -- even if sometimes such rule has been interrupted -- and will rule in the future, although perhaps with a large interruption in rule. And that church, whether it is in Rome, Florence, Spain or elsewhere, can not become null, even if all the Romans and the whole of Italy, France, Spain and Germany were to abandon the catholic faith, because if it is not in those regions it will be in Syria, in Egypt, in Ethiopia, in India or anywhere else where God pleases. |
|
Ad auctoritatem primam Hieronimi respondetur quod beatus Hieronimus loquitur pro tempore preterito ante tempora sua et non loquitur pro futuris temporibus. Et si loqueretur pro futuris temporibus posset intelligi sane quod loqueretur de ecclesia apostolica que fidem sequitur apostolorum. Ad aliam auctoritatem Hieronimi responsum est supra; que verba Hieronimi intelligenda sunt sub condicione si beatus Petrus opem ferret, etc. |
To the first text from Jerome the answer is that blessed Jerome is talking about past time before his own time and is not talking about the future. And if he were talking about the future it could be understood soundly that he was talking about the apostolic church which follows the faith of the apostles. A reply was given above to the other text from Jerome, that his words should be understood with the condition that if blessed Peter brings help etc. |
Capitulum 25 |
Chapter 25 |
|
Discipulus Satis quantum desidero pro opere isto disseruimus de Romana ecclesia an valeat hereticari. Ideo nunc de generali concilio conferamus an queat labi in hereticam pravitatem. |
Student: We have discussed as much as I want in this work whether the Roman church can become heretical. So let us now consider whether a general council can fall into heretical wickedness. |
CAN A GENERAL COUNCIL BECOME HERETICAL? |
|
|
Magister De generali concilio sunt asserciones contrarie. Una est quod hereticari non potest, alia est quod heretica potest labe respergi. |
Master: There are opposing assertions about a general council, one that it can not become heretical, the other that it can be defiled by the stain of heresy. |
|
Discipulus Quamvis firmissime putem quod concilium generale hereticari non potest, tamen raciones pro assercione contraria libenti animo auscultabo. |
Student: Although I most firmly believe that a general council can not become heretical, I will nevertheless listen with a willing mind to arguments for the opposing assertion. |
That a General Council can err |
|
|
Magister Quod concilium generale possit errare contra fidem racionibus et exemplis videtur posse probari. Prima autem racio, que eciam ad alias asserciones superius est inducta, talis est. Una sola ecclesia militans est que contra fidem errare non potest, quia de sola militante universali ecclesia invenitur in scripturis authenticis quod errare non potest. Concilium autem generale, licet sit pars ecclesie universalis, non tamen est ecclesia universalis. Ergo temerarium est dicere quod concilium generale contra fidem errare non potest. |
Master: That a general council can err against faith seems provable by arguments and examples. Now the first argument, which was also brought forward above in connection with other assertions, is as follows. There is only one church militant which can not err against faith because only of the universal church militant do we find in the authentic scriptures that it can not err. A general council, however, although it is part of the church militant, is nevertheless not the universal church. It is rash to say, therefore, that a general council can not err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Licet concilium generale non sit ecclesia universalis, tamen representat ecclesiam universalem et eius vices gerit, et ideo, sicut ecclesia universalis contra fidem errare non potest, ita eciam concilium generale contra fidem errare non potest. |
Student: Although a general council is not the universal church, it does nonetheless represent the universal church and acts in its place. And therefore just as the universal church can not err against faith, so also a general council can not err against faith. |
|
Magister Hec responsio impugnatur primo quia, sicut concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem et eius vices gerit, ita eciam papa representat ecclesiam universalem et eius vices gerit quia est persona publica tocius communitatis gerens vices et curam. Sed papa hoc non obstante potest contra fidem errare. Ergo et generale concilium hoc non obstante poterit contra fidem errare. Secundo quia non omni prerogativa gaudet persona vel collegium que vel quod gerit vices alterius qua gaudet communitas cuius vicem gerit. Ergo ex hoc quod ecclesia universalis non potest contra fidem errare inferri non potest quod concilium generale non potest contra fidem errare, licet gerat vices universalis ecclesie. |
Master: This reply is attacked firstly because just as a general council represents the universal church and acts in its place, so the pope too represents the universal church and acts in its place because he is a public person acting in place of and having oversight over the whole community. But notwithstanding this the pope can err against faith. Therefore a general council too, notwithstanding this, can err against faith. [It is attacked] secondly because a person or college who or which acts in the place of another does not enjoy every prerogative which the community in whose place he or it acts enjoys. From the fact that the universal church can not err against faith, therefore, it can not be inferred that a general council can not err against faith, though it does act in place of the universal church. |
|
Secunda racio est hec. Illa congregacio que potest voluntate humana dissolvi potest contra fidem errare, quia illa ecclesia que contra fidem errare non potest usque ad finem seculi permanebit iuxta promissionem Christi Matthei ultim. Sed concilium generale potest voluntate humana dissolvi, sicut et dissolvitur. Ergo generale concilium potest contra fidem errare. |
A second argument is this. That congregation that can be dissolved by human will can err against faith because that church which can not err against faith will last until the end of the age according to Christ's promise in the last chapter of Matthew [28:28]. But a general council can be dissolved by human will, as indeed it is dissolved. Therefore a general council can err against faith. |
|
Tercia racio est hec. Ille persone que in diversis locis existentes possunt contra fidem errare, eciam si ad eundem locum convenerint, poterunt contra fidem errare, quia concursus ad eundum locum non reddit aliquos inobliquabiles a fide, quia, sicut locus non sanctificat homines, ita locus nullos confirmat in fide. Sed omnes ad generale concilium convenientes antequam convenirent poterant contra fidem errare, quia si conveniunt 100 vel 200 episcopi constat quod omnes ex arbitrio voluntatis poterant hereticam incidere pravitatem. Ergo et postquam convenerint poterunt labi in hereticam pravitatem. |
A third argument is this. Those people living in various places who can err against faith will be able to err against faith even if they gather together in the same place, since coming together in the same place does not make anyone unable to turn aside from faith, because, just as a place does not sanctify people, so a place does not confirm anyone in faith. But all those who come together at a general council were able to err against faith before they came together because if 100 or 200 bishops come together it is certain that all of them could have fallen into heretical wickedness by a choice of their will. Therefore they will also be able to fall into heretical wickedness after they have come together. |
|
Discipulus Ista racio non procedit quia Deus specialiter congregatis in unum assistit, ipsa veritate testante que ait Matthei 18 c., "Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi ego sum in medio eorum." Et ideo licet convenientes ad concilium generale ante potuerint contra fidem errare, postquam tamen convenerint et simul remanserint in nomine Christi errare non poterunt. |
Student: That argument is not valid because God particularly helps those who have come together as one, as the Truth himself testifies when he says in Matthew 18[:20], "Where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." And therefore even though those coming together at a general council were able to err against faith beforehand, nevertheless after they have come together and remained together in Christ's name they will not be able to err. |
|
Magister Ista responsio impugnatur, quia licet Deus assistat specialiter congregatis in unum in nomine Christi, ipsi tamen in gracia et in fide minime confirmantur, eciam dum simul remanserint, quin possint per liberum voluntatis arbitrium, eciam dum simul localiter manserint, a gracia Dei et fide recedere. Et ideo quamvis Deus specialiter assistat ad generale concilium congregatis in nomine Christi, tamen per talem assistenciam divinam in fide nullatenus confirmantur quin possint labi in errorem. Unde per istam responsionem haberetur quod nullum provinciale concilium posset errare contra fidem, quia si, cum in unum convenerint in nomine Christi in provinciali concilio congregati, Deus specialiter assistit eisdem, sequeretur eciam per idem medium quod generale vel provinciale capitulum monachorum vel religiosorum mendicancium non posset contra fidem errare quia nonnumquam in nomine Christi congregantur. |
Master: That reply is attacked, because although God especially helps those who have gathered together as one in Christ's name they are nevertheless, even while they remain together, not confirmed in grace and faith so that by the free judgement of their will they can not withdraw from God's grace and from faith even while they remain together in that place. And therefore although God especially helps those who have gathered together at a general council in Christ's name, they are nevertheless not confirmed in faith by such divine help so that they can not fall into error. So, it would be held by that reply that no provincial council could err against faith because, if God especially helps those who have gathered together as one in Christ's name in a provincial council, it would also follow by the same means that a general or provincial Chapter of monks or mendicant religious could not err against faith because they sometimes gather together in Christ's name. |
|
Quarta racio eorum est hec. Nulla vocacio humana certarum personarum, nec eciam aliqua humana commissio facta specialibus personis, potest eas in fide confirmare vel eciam ab errore preservare, quia sola potencia Dei ecclesia catholica ab erroribus preservatur. Sed certe persone congregate in generali concilio non vocantur nisi vocacione humana, nec aliquam auctoritatem vel potestatem recipiunt nisi ex commissione humana. Ergo per hoc quod in generali concilio convenerunt nec confirmantur in fide nec ab erroribus necessario preservantur. Ergo ita poterunt postquam ad generale concilium fuerint congregati incidere in hereticam pravitatem sicut ante potuerunt. |
Their fourth argument is this. No human summoning of particular people, nor also any human commissioning directed towards particular people, can confirm them in faith or even preserve them from error, because the catholic church is preserved from errors only by the power of God. But particular people who have gathered together in a general council are called only by a human summons and do not receive any authority or power except by human commission. From the fact that they have come together in a general council, therefore, they are neither confirmed in faith nor necessarily preserved from errors. In the same way, therefore, they will be able to fall into heretical wickedness after they have gathered together in a general council just as they could before. |
|
Quinta racio eorum est hec. Si in generali concilio congregati contra fidem errare non possunt, aut hoc est racione sapiencie qua prefulgent, aut racione sanctitatis qua pollent, aut racione auctoritatis seu potestatis quam habent, aut racione promissionis Christi qua promisit apostolis fidem usque ad finem seculi duraturam. Non propter primum, tum quia sepe multi sapientes catholici inveniuntur extra concilium generale qui possunt defendere fidem licet omnes errarent in concilio generali congregati, tum quia sepe Deus revelat parvulis que a sapientibus et prudentibus absconduntur. Licet ergo in generali concilio omnes errarent, et soli parvuli et illiterati ad concilium minime convenirent, non esset aliquatenus desperandum quin Deus veritatem catholicam parvulis revelaret vel eisdem veritatem notam defendere inspiraret. Hoc enim esset ad gloriam Dei qui in hoc ostenderet fidem nostram non esse in sapiencia hominum ad generale concilium vocatorum sed in virtute Dei qui nonnumquam que stulta sunt mundi eligit ut confundat sapientes. Nec propter sanctitatem ad concilium generale vocatorum est dicendum quod non possunt errare contra fidem, tum quia interdum ad generale concilium sancciores nequaquam conveniunt, tum quia sanctitas in ecclesia militante nullos confirmat in fide. Nec propter tercium est dicendum quod non possunt errare contra fidem quia auctoritas vel potestas in hac vita nullos confirmat in fide, sicut per auctoritates superius inductas, ubi inquisitum est si papa potest contra fidem errare, sufficienter videtur ostensum. Nec propter quartum, quia Christus promittendo apostolis fidem usque ad finem seculi duraturam de generali concilio nullam penitus facit mencionem. |
Their fifth argument is this. If those gathered together in a general council can not err against faith this is either by reason of the wisdom by which they shine, by reason of the holiness in which they are strong, by reason of the authority or power which they have or by reason of Christ's promise by which he promised the apostles that the faith would last until the end of the age. It is not on account of the first [reason], both because many wise catholics are often found outside a general council who can defend the faith even if all those gathered together in a general council were to err, and because God often reveals to children what is hidden from the wise and prudent. Even if all those in a general council were to err, therefore, and only children and the unlearned were not gathered in the council, there should not be any lack of hope that God would not reveal the catholic truth to the children or inspire them to defend the known truth. For this would be to the glory of God who would in this way show that our faith does not rest on the wisdom of humans gathered together in a general council but on the strength of God who sometimes chooses those who are foolish in the world to confound the wise. Nor should it be said that those called to a general council can not err on account of their holiness, both because sometimes holier people do not come together in a general council and because holiness does not confirm anyone in the church militant in faith. Nor should it be said that they can not err against faith on account of the third [reason] because authority or power in this life does not confirm anyone in faith, as seems sufficiently shown by the texts brought forward above where it was asked whether the pope can err against faith. Nor [should it be said] on account of the fourth [reason] because in promising the apostles that the faith would last until the end of the age, Christ made no mention at all of a general council. |
Capitulum 26 |
Chapter 26 |
|
Magister Secundo ostendunt exemplis quod generale concilium potest contra fidem errare. Primum exemplum est de synodo Stephani pape 7 que erronee omnes ordinaciones factas per Formosum papam irritas esse decrevit. Unde et postea synodo celebrata Ravenne per Iohannem papam 9 extitit reprobata. Ergo concilium generale potest errare, quia constat quod altera illarum synodorum, quarum una alteram reprobavit, erravit. |
Master: Secondly, they show by examples that a general council can err against faith. The first example is of a synod of Pope Stephen VII which erroneously declared invalid all the ordinations carried out by Pope Formosus. As a result, it [the synod] was later condemned at a synod celebrated at Ravenna by Pope John IX. A general council can err, therefore, because it is certain that one of those synods, one of which condemned the other, did err. |
|
Discipulus Altera illarum synodorum erravit sed non contra fidem, quia erravit tantummodo circa ordinaciones Formosi pape. |
Student: One of those synods erred, but not against faith, because it erred only about the ordinations of Pope Formosus. |
|
Magister Hec responsio impugnatur quia omnis congregacio que potest errare contra bonos mores potest errare contra fidem, quia mali mores excecant intellectum et ita qui potest peccare potest incidere in errorem eciam contra fidem. Si ergo altera illarum synodorum contra mores erravit, impie et inique approbando vel reprobando ordinaciones factas per Formosum papam, sequitur quod eciam poterat contra fidem errare. |
Master: This reply is attacked because every congregation which can err against good morals can err against faith, since bad morals blind the understanding, and so he who can sin can also fall into an error against faith. If one of those synods erred against morals, therefore, by impiously and wickedly approving or condemning ordinations carried out by Pope Formosus, it follows that it was also able to err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Aliter potest responderi ad exemplum premissum quod synodus celebrata per Stephanum 7 non fuit concilium generale, sed fuit quedam synodus particularis quorundam episcoporum ad synodum particularem per eundem Stephanum vocatorum. |
Student: Another reply to the example just given is possible, that the synod celebrated by Stephen VII was not a general council but was a particular synod of certain bishops summoned to a special synod by the same Stephen. |
|
Magister Hoc, ut videtur aliis, stare non potest quia omnis synodus auctoritate pape congregata concilium generale vocatur. Unde notat glossa dist. 17, para. 1. quod "conciliorum quedam sunt generalia, quedam particularia sive provincialia, quedam episcopalia. Universale est quod a papa vel eius legato cum omnibus episcopis", scilicet presentibus, "statuitur." Numquam enim legitur ad aliquod concilium generale omnes episcopos venisse. Cum ergo synodus Stephani auctoritate pape fuerit celebrata, sequitur quod generale concilium debuit appellari. |
Master: It seems to others that this can not hold good because every synod gathered together on the authority of a pope is called a general council. Hence the gloss on dist. 17, para. 1 [s. v. generalia concilia; col.68] notes that "some councils are general, some are special or provincial, some are episcopal. A universal [council] is one which is constituted by the pope or his legate and with all the bishops", (that is, those who were present. For we never read that all the bishops came to any general council.) Since, therefore, Stephen's synod was celebrated on the authority of a pope, it follows that it ought to be called a general council. |
|
Discipulus Adducuntne plura exempla quod concilium generale potest errare? |
Student: Do they bring forward more examples of a general council's being able to err? |
|
Magister Adducunt eciam in exemplum synodum Ephesinam secundam que erravit et ideo "reprobata fuit", secundum quod notat glossa dist. 15, c. 1. |
Master: They also bring forward as an example the second synod of Ephesus which erred and so "was condemned", according to what the gloss on dist. 15, c. 1 notes [s. v. Ephesina; col.53]. |
|
Tercium exemplum eorum est de generali concilio Lugdunensi sub Gregorio 10 celebrato quod contra bonos mores erravit, ordines Predicatorum et Minorum, ut habetur Extra De regularibus c. Religionum, approbando. Quod enim erravit probant ex hoc quod status Minorum est illicitus, secundum quod ex constitucionibus domini Iohannis 22 Ad conditorem et Quia quorundam et Quia vir reprobus constat aperte. |
Their third example is of the general council at Lyons celebrated under Gregory X which erred against good morals by approving the Preaching and Minorite orders, as we find in Extra, De regularibus, c. Religionum [wrong reference]. For that it erred they prove from the fact that the status of the Minorites is unlawful, according to what is manifestly certain from the constitutions of the lord John XXII, Ad conditorem, Quia quorundam and Quia vir reprobus. |
|
Quartum exemplum est de concilio Viennensi quod erravit constitucionem Nicolai 3 que incipit Exiit qui seminat approbando. Quod eciam per constituciones domini Iohannis 22 probare nituntur. |
A fourth example is of the council of Vienne which erred by approving the constitution of Nicholas III beginning Exiit qui seminat. They try to prove this too from the constitutions of the lord John XXII. |
Capitulum 27 |
Chapter 27 |
|
Discipulus De istis duobus ultimis exemplis, que tangunt constituciones domini Iohanni, tecum quando te interrogabo de tota doctrina eiusdem Iohannis collacionem habebo. Ideo de istis ad presens supersedeas et pro assercione contraria, quod concilium scilicet generale contra fidem errare non possit, allegare nitaris. |
Student: I will have a discussion with you about those last two examples, which touch on the constitutions of the lord John, when I ask you about all his teaching. Would you omit them now, therefore, and try to argue for the opposing assertion, that is, that a general council can not err against faith. |
That a General Council can not err |
|
|
Magister Quod concilium generale contra fidem errare non possit multis racionibus videtur posse probari, quarum prima est hec. Illa congregacio cuius iudicio in causa fidei Romanus pontifex est subiectus contra fidem errare non potest, quia papa non tenetur parere mandatis alicuius congregacionis que potest contra fidem errare. Si enim posset errare contra fidem, papa posset iudicium illius merito recusare. Sed papa in causa fidei iudicio generalis concilii est subiectus, cum, ut notatur dist. 19, c. Anastasius, synodus in causa fidei maior sit papa. Ergo synodus generalis contra fidem errare non potest. |
Master: That a general council can not err against faith seems provable by many arguments, of which the first is this. That congregation to the judgement of which the Roman pontiff is subject in a case of faith can not err against faith because the pope is not bound to obey the commands of any congregation that can err against faith. For if it could err against faith, the pope could justifiably reject its judgement. But in a case of faith the pope is subject to the judgement of a general council since, as is noted in [the gloss on] dist. 19, c. Anastasius, [s. v. concilio; col.87] a synod is greater than the pope in a case of faith. Therefore a general synod can not err against faith. |
|
Secunda racio est hec. In ecclesia militante est certum iudicium de difficilibus et obscuris que circa fidem emergunt. Aliter enim tota ecclesia militans posset contra fidem errare. Sed ultimum iudicium circa difficilia et obscura circa fidem emergencia penes concilium residet generale. Ergo concilum generale contra fidem errare not potest. |
A second argument is this. There is sure judgement in the church militant about difficulties and obscurities that arise concerning the faith. For otherwise the whole church militant could err against faith. But final judgement about difficulties and obscurities that arise about the faith resides with a general council. Therefore a general council can not err against faith. |
|
Tercia racio est hec. Illa congregacio a qua in causa fidei non est licitum appellare contra fidem errare non potest. Omnis causa viciata est per appellacionis remedium sublevanda (2, q. 6, c. Liceat). Causa autem fidei tractata coram illa congregacione que contra fidem valet errare potest viciari. Ergo licet causam fidei tractatam coram tali congregacione, si fuerit viciata, per appellacionis remedium sublevare, et ita licet ab ea appellare. Sed a concilio generali in causa fidei appellare non licet. Si enim appellare liceret, aut appellandum esset ad aliud concilium generale, aut ad papam, aut ad universalem ecclesiam. Non ad aliud concilium generale, quia eadem racione ab illo concilio generali appellare liceret, et ita finis tali cause imponi non posset. Nec esset appellandum ad papam, quia papa in causa fidei est inferior concilio generali, ergo a generali concilio ad ipsum appellare non licet. Nec esset appellandum ad universalem ecclesiam, quia frustra esset talis appellacio cum universalis ecclesia simul in unum convenire non possit. |
A third argument is this. That congregation from which it is not permissible to appeal in a case of faith can not err against faith. Every case which is flawed should be mitigated by the remedy of appeal (2, q. 6, c. Liceat [col.472]). However a case of faith which is handled by that congregation which can err against faith can be flawed. It is permissible to mitigate by remedy of appeal, therefore, a case of faith handled by such a congregation, if it is flawed, and so it is permissible to appeal from it. But it is not permissible to appeal from a general council in a case of faith. For if it were permissible to appeal, the appeal would have to be made either to another general council, or to the pope or to the universal church. [There can] not [be an appeal] to another general council because for the same reason it would be permissible to appeal from that general council, and so no end could be imposed in such a case. Nor should an appeal be made to the pope because in a case of faith the pope is inferior to a general council and so it is not permissible to appeal to him from a general council. Nor should an appeal be made to the universal church because such an appeal would be fruitless since the universal church can not come together as one at the same time. |
|
Quarta racio est hec. Congregacio que non potest de heresi accusari non potest contra fidem errare. Concilium autem generale non potest de heresi accusari, non enim invenitur persona vel collegium cui in causa fidei generale concilium sit subiectum. Ergo concilium generale contra fidem errare non potest. |
A fourth argument is this. A congregation that can not be accused of heresy can not err against faith. However, a general council can not be accused of heresy. For we do not find a person or college to whom or to which a general council is subject in a case of faith. Therefore a general council can not err against faith. |
|
Quinta racio est hec. Illa congregacio cuius opera omni manent stabilita vigore contra fidem errare non potest, quia error contra fidem nullo potest stabilitatis manere vigore. Sed opera generalis concilii omni manent stabilita vigore, teste Ysidoro qui, ut recitatur dist. 15, c. 1, ait, "He sunt quatuor synodi principales fidem nostram plenissime continentes. Sed si qua sunt alia concilia que sancti patres spiritu Dei pleni sanxerunt omni manent stabilita vigore." Ergo concilium generale contra fidem errare non potest. |
A fifth argument is this. That congregation whose works persist stable and most vigorous can not err against faith, because an error against faith can not persist with any force of stability. But the works of a general council persist stable and most vigorous, as Isidore attests. As is recorded in dist. 15, c. 1, he says [col.34], "These are the four principal synods which contain our faith most fully. But if there are any other councils which holy fathers full of the spirit of God have established they persist stable and most vigorous." Therefore, a general council can not err against faith. |
|
Sexta racio est hec. Illa congregacio contra fidem errare non potest cuius diffiniciones et determinaciones tanquam universali consensu constitute sunt censende. Universalis autem congregacio est concilium generale, teste Gregorio qui, ut habetur dist. 15, c. Sicut, ait, "Cunctas vero quas prefata veneranda concilia personas respuunt, respuo, quas venerantur, amplector, quia, dum universali sunt consensu constituta, se et non illa destruit quisquis presumpserit absolvere quos ligant aut ligare quos solvunt." Ergo concilium generale contra fidem errare non potest. |
A sixth argument is this. That congregation the definitions and determinations of which should be considered as established by universal consent can not err against faith. The universal congregation, however, is a general council, as Gregory attests when he says, as we find at dist. 15, c. Sicut [col.35], "All those people whom the aforesaid general councils reject, I reject, those whom they honour, I embrace, because, since they have been established by universal consent, whoever presumes to loose those whom they bind or to bind those whom they loose destroys himself and not them." Therefore a general council can not err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Ista auctoritas Gregorii non videtur ad propositum, quia beatus Gregorius loquitur ibi solummodo de quatuor conciliis principalibus, non de omnibus. |
Student: That text of Gregory does not seem to be to the point, because blessed Gregory is speaking there only of the four principal councils, not of all [councils]. |
|
Magister Ad hoc respondetur quod licet Gregorius loquatur ibidem de quatuor principalibus conciliis, tamen assignat racionem quare sunt recipienda, quia scilicet sunt universali consensu constituta. Sed unum concilium generale non est magis universali consensu constitutum quam aliud, quia si sic unum esset magis generale quam aliud; ymmo unum non esset generale. Eadem autem causa et racio habet eundem effectum. Si ergo quatuor principalia concilia sunt recipienda omnino quia sunt universali consensu constituta, ergo et omnia generalia concilia sunt recipienda quia sunt universali consensu constituta; sed illa quatuor fuerunt universali consensu constituta. Concilium autem quod est omnino recipiendum et amplectendum contra fidem errare non potest. Ergo nullum concilium generale potest contra fidem errare. |
Master: The reply to this is that although Gregory is speaking there of the four principal councils, he does nevertheless offer a reason why they should be accepted, that is, because they have been established by universal consent. But no one general council was established with more universal consent than any other, because if one were in this way more general than another, one would in fact not be general. However, the same cause and reason have the same effect. Therefore, if those four councils should be absolutely accepted because they were established with universal consent, all general councils should therefore also be accepted because they were established with universal consent. But those four were established with universal consent. A council which ought to be absolutely accepted and embraced, however, can not err against faith. Therefore, no general council can err against faith. |
|
Septima racio est hec. Illa congregacio cuius constituciones et opera observanda et custodienda decernuntur non potest contra fidem errare. Opera autem et constituciones omnium conciliorum generalium observanda et custodienda decernuntur, teste Gelasio qui, ut habetur dist. 15, c. Sancta Romana, ait, "Si qua sunt concilia a sanctis patribus hactenus instituta post istorum quatuor auctoritatem, et observanda et custodienda decernimus." Ergo concilium generale contra fidem errare non potest. |
A seventh argument is this. That congregation the constitutions and works of which it is decreed should be observed and guarded can not err against faith. It is decreed, however, that the works and constitutions of all general councils should be observed and guarded. Gelasius attests to this when he says, as we find at dist. 15, c. Sancta Romana [col.36], "If there are any councils established by holy fathers up till now after the authority of those four, we decree that they are both to be observed and to be guarded." Therefore, a general council can not err against faith. |
|
Octava racio est hec. Illa congregacio contra fidem errare non potest qua errante universalis erraret ecclesia. Sed errante generali concilio universalis erraret ecclesia, quia illo errante nullus inveniretur qui auderet vel posset fidem defendere orthodoxam. Ergo generale concilium contra fidem errare non potest. |
An eighth argument is this. That congregation whose erring causes the universal church to err can not err against faith. But if a general council errs the universal church would err, because with its erring no one would be found who would dare or be able to defend orthodox faith. Therefore, a general council can not err against faith. |
Capitulum 28 |
Chapter 28 |
|
Discipulus Quamvis indubitanter existimem concilium generale contra fidem errare non posse, qualiter tamen tenentes assercionem contrariam ad raciones inductas pro veritate respondeant non differas propalare. |
Student: Although my belief that a general council can not err against faith is undoubted would you nevertheless not put off making clear how those who maintain the opposite assertion reply to the arguments brought forward for its truth. |
Replies to arguments that a General Council can not err |
|
|
Magister Ad primam racionem respondetur quod hec est falsa: illa congregacio cuius iudicio in causa fidei Romanus pontifex est subiectus contra fidem errare non potest, quia licet papa non sit subiectus alicuius congregacionis iudicio que errat contra fidem, quia eo ipso quod contra fidem pertinaciter erraret nullus catholicus in causa fidei eius esset subiectus iudicio, papa tamen alicuius congregacionis recto iudicio non falso parere tenetur que potest errare contra fidem licet non erret, quemadmodum quilibet Christianus in causa fidei subiectus est pape quando non errat contra fidem, licet possit contra fidem errare. Sic eciam subditi episcoporum, quantum ad ea que certa sunt fidei non esse contraria orthodoxe, subsunt episcopis, qui tamen episcopi, eciam quantum ad illa de quibus certum est quod sunt hereses dampnate explicite, possunt contra fidem errare. |
Master: They reply to the first argument that it is false [to say that] that congregation to the judgement of which the Roman pontiff is subject in a matter of faith can not err against faith, because although the pope is not subject to the judgement of any congregation which errs against faith -- since from the very fact that it might err pertinaciously against faith no catholic would be subject to its judgement in a case of faith -- he is nevertheless bound to obey the correct judgement, not a false one, of any congregation which can err against faith but does not err, just as every Christian is subject to the pope in a case of faith when he does not err against faith, though he can err against faith. In this way too, with respect to those things that are certainly not opposed to orthodox faith, the subjects of bishops are subordinate to their bishops, although the bishops themselves can err against faith even with respect to those things which it is certain are explicitly condemned heresies. |
|
Cum vero accipitur quod papa non tenetur stare mandatis alicuius congregacionis que potest contra fidem errare, hoc negatur, licet non debeat parere mandatis alicuius congregacionis que errat contra fidem, sicut nec aliquis alius Christianus. Nec papa potest recusare iudicium illius congregacionis que potest errare contra fidem, licet possit recusare iudicium illius que errat contra fidem. |
Moreover when it is accepted that the pope is not bound to abide by the commands of any congregation that can err against faith, this is denied, although he should not obey the commands of any congregation which does err against faith, just as no other Christian should. Nor can the pope reject the judgement of that congregation which can err against faith, although he can reject the judgement of that one which does err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Quid si de facto concilium generale erraverit condemnando papam de heretica pravitate inique et false? |
Student: What if a general council did in fact err by wrongly and falsely condemning the pope for heretical wickedness? |
|
Magister Dicunt quod in tali casu nichil restaret pape nisi vel aliud concilium generale convocare, si posset, vel per potenciam se tueri, vel, omni humano deficiente, consilio et auxilio se gracie divine committere et pacienter illatam iniuriam tollerare. |
Master: They say that in such a case nothing would remain for the pope except either to convoke another general council, if he were able to do so, or to protect himself by force or, if all human counsel and help were to fail, to commit himself to divine grace and endure patiently the injury inflicted on him. |
|
Ad secundam racionem dicitur quod licet iudicium multis modis accipiatur, ad presens tamen sufficiat duos modos exponere. Est itaque iudicium certe et veridice cognicionis quo unusquisque bene iudicat de illo quod noscit. Et istud iudicium pertinet ad quemlibet in quacumque arte peritum. Est aliud iudicium auctoritatis sive iudicialis sentencie. Primo modo loquendo de iudicio, in ecclesia militante est certum iudicium quantum ad ea que necesse est credere explicite ad salutem consequendam eternam, quia semper usque ad finem mundi erunt aliqui catholici qui circa talia in vera fide explicita permanebunt. Sed circa illa que non est necesse explicite credere non est necessarium quod semper in ecclesia militante sit tale iudicium, quia multa sunt de quibus melius est pie dubitare quam unam partem contradiccionis vel aliam temere diffinire. Numquam tamen circa quecumque talia omnes Christiani neque pertinaciter errabunt neque pertinaciter dubitabunt, sed semper erunt aliqui in ecclesia qui circa huiusmodi loco et tempore oportunis querent cauta sollicitudine veritatem, parati tenere eciam explicite si eam invenerint, sive per propriam meditacionem, sive per occasionem acceptam a scripturis, sive aliis hominibus quibuscumque, sive per divinam revelacionem. Et ideo numquam omnes in hereticam incident pravitatem. Iudicium vero auctoritatis sive iudicialis sentencie non oportet quod semper sit certum in ecclesia militante; ymmo potest aliquando deficere et, ut videtur, aliquando defecit. Tempore enim Liberii pape, qui postquam consenserat perfidie Ariane tenuit papatum 6 annis, verum iudicium auctoritatis et iudicialis sentencie nullum fuit de hiis que pertinebant ad fidem. Ante tempora eciam Constantini tale iudicium de hiis que fidei sunt defecisse videtur, quia, teste Isidoro, ut habetur dist. 15, c. 1, illis temporibus Christianitas in diversas hereses scissa fuit quia non erat catholicis facultas conveniendi in unum. |
To the second argument it is said that although 'judgement' is taken in many ways it is sufficient for the moment to expound two of them. And so there is a judgement of sure and truthful knowledge by which anyone judges well of what he knows. And a judgement of that kind pertains to anyone skilled in any art. There is another judgement of authority or judicial opinion. Speaking of judgement in the first way, there is in the church militant certain judgement with respect to what it is necessary to believe explicitly in order to attain eternal salvation, because until the end of the world there will always be some catholics whose faith will remain explicitly true about such matters. But it is not necessary that there always be in the church militant such judgement about those things which it is not necessary to believe explicitly, because there are many things about which it is better to doubt piously than to define rashly one or the other part of a contradiction. Nevertheless about all such matters it will never be the case that all Christians will either err pertinaciously or doubt pertinaciously, but there will always be some in the church who at an appropriate time and place will seek the truth about such matters with diligent care, prepared too to hold it explicitly if they find it, whether through their own meditation or through an opportunity provided by the scriptures or by any other men or though divine revelation. And therefore it will never happen that all will fall into heretical wickedness. But it is not necessary that the judgement by authority or judicial opinion in the church militant be always certain; on the contrary it can sometimes fail and, it seems, sometimes has failed. For in the time of Pope Liberius, who held the papacy for six years after he had approved the Arian perfidy, there was no true judgement by authority and judicial opinion about those things that pertained to faith. Before the time of Constantine too judgement of that kind about matters of faith seems to have failed because, as Isidore attests in dist. 15, c. 1 [col.34], in those days Christianity was divided into various heresies because catholics had no power to meet as one. |
|
Discipulus Isidorus dicit ibi quod episcopis non erat facultas conveniendi in unum, et ideo in diversas hereses Christianitas scissa est. Ex quo datur intelligi quod si tunc fuisset facultas conveniendi ad concilium generale Christianitas in diversas hereses scissa non fuisset. Et ita videtur quod concilium generale contra fidem errare non possit. |
Student: Isidore says there that bishops had no power to come together as one, and therefore Christianity was divided into various heresies. We are given to understand by this that if there had been power at the time for convening a general council Christianity would not have been divided into various heresies. And so it seems that a general council can not err against faith. |
|
Magister Ad hoc respondent quod Isidorus loquitur pro illo tempore quo episcopi fuerunt catholici. Et verum est quod concilium generale episcoporum catholicorum, quamdiu permanserit in catholica veritate, errare non potest. Omnes tamen illi episcopi possent contra fidem errare eciam cum omnibus clericis suis. |
Master: They reply to this that Isidore is speaking about a time when bishops were catholic, and it is true that as long as it remains in catholic truth a general council of catholic bishops can not err. Nevertheless all those bishops, along with all their clergy, could err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Dic quomodo respondent ad terciam racionem. |
Student: Tell me how they reply to the third argument. |
|
Magister Ad terciam racionem respondent isti quod si concilium generale contra fidem erraret ab ipso appellare liceret. Et cum dicitur quod non ad aliud concilium, dicunt quod ad aliud concilum generale, si daretur facultas aliud concilium congregandi, appellare liceret. Et si iterum illud concilium erraret, liceret ad aliud appellare, et sic semper quousque catholici convenirent. Iterum si papa non esset presens in concilio generali, si concilium erraret contra fidem, ad ipsum papam appellare liceret, vel ad papam cum alio concilio congregando. Ad ecclesiam eciam universalem, si convenire posset, esset principaliter appellandum. Si vero Christianitas in tantum esset pravitate infecta heretica quod papa et cardinales et prelati et clerici et principes ac potentes essent heretici, et soli pauci simplices et pauperes in fide manerent catholica, et concilium reputatum generale contra fidem erraret, aliud non restaret fidelibus quam dolor et gemitus consiliumque tenere beati Hieronimi quod dat viro ecclesiastico et prudenti quando in ea que vocatur domus Dei invalescit iniquitas et iusticia omnino deprimitur. Qui, ut recitatur 11, q. 3, c. Quando ergo, ait, "Quando ergo vir ecclesiasticus et prudens atque intelligens multas impietates in ea que vocatur domus Dei esse cognoverit, et non solum multas sed eciam fortes et que opprimere possunt iusticiam, et in tantum doctorum rabiem processisse ut accipiant precium in iudicio et omnia pro muneribus faciant, pauperes devitent in portis et audire contemnant. Taceat in illo tempore ne det sanctum canibus et mittat margaritas inter porcos, qui conversi conculcent eas, et imitetur Ieremiam dicentem, 'Solus sedebam quia amaritudine plenus eram.'" Sic vir catholicus et fidelis, quando multas hereses esse in Christianitate cognoverit et corruisse veritatem catholicam in plateis et in tantum prelatorum, doctorum, clericorum, potentum et principum rabiem processisse ut fidem conentur destruere orthodoxam, doctrinam sanctorum patrum audire contemnant, veritatis catholice defensores occidant, tribulent, persequantur et infestent, taceat in ipso tempore nec publice coram eis appellet, ne det sanctum canibus et mittat margaritas ante porcos, qui conversi conculcent eas, Scripturas Sacras perperam exponendo et ipsas repugnantes ad falsitatem hereticam distorquendo; et imitetur Ieremiam dicentem, "Solus sedebam quia amaritudine repletus eram." |
Master: They reply to the third argument that if a general council were to err against faith, it would be permissible to appeal from it. And when it is said that [there could] not [be an appeal] to another council, they say that it would be permissible to appeal to another general council if an opportunity were given to call together another council. And if that council in its turn were to err, it would be permissible to appeal to another. And it would always be so until catholics were to come together. Again, if the pope were not present at a general council, it would be permissible to appeal to the pope himself if the council were to err or to the pope together with another council that was to be summoned. Appeal should chiefly be made to the universal church if it were able to come together. But if Christianity were so infected with heretical wickedness that the pope, the cardinals, prelates, the clergy, rulers and the powerful were heretics, and only a few simple, poor people remained in the catholic faith, while the council regarded as general were to err against faith, nothing would remain for the faithful but sorrow and grief and the holding onto the advice that blessed Jerome gives a prudent churchman when wickedness prevails in what is called the house of God and justice is completely oppressed. As is recorded at 11, q. 3, c. Quando ergo [col.650] , he says, "Therefore when a prudent and intelligent churchman learns that there are many impieties in what is called the house of God, and that they are not only many but also strong and able to oppress justice, and that the madness of the learned has gone so far that they accept money for judgement and do everything in return for gifts, let the poor escape from them within their gates and disdain to listen to them. Let him be silent at that time, lest he give what is holy to dogs and throw pearls before swine which, turning, will trample him, and let them imitate Jeremiah when he says, 'I sat alone because I was full of bitterness.'" In the same way, when a catholic believer learns that there are many heresies in Christianity and that catholic truth has fallen among the mob and that the madness of prelates, the learned, the clergy, the powerful and the rulers has proceeded so far that they are trying to destroy orthodox faith, are disdaining to listen to the teaching of the holy fathers and are killing, oppressing, persecuting and attacking the defenders of catholic truth, let him be silent at that time and not appeal publicly to them, lest he give what is holy to dogs and throw pearls before swine, which, turning, will trample them by expounding the sacred scriptures falsely, opposing them and distorting them towards heretical falsity. And let him imitate Jeremiah when he says, "I sat alone because I was full of bitterness." |
|
Ad quartam racionem respondetur quod concilium generale de iure potest de heresi accusari. Si enim concilium generale convocatum primo fidele ante corporalem dissolucionem eiusdem in heresim laberetur, posset de iure coram papa catholico, si non esset presens, de heresi accusari, et iuxta sancciones canonicas iudicari. Si vero papa tali concilio interesset et una cum illa congregacione in hereticam incideret pravitatem, potestas iudicandi omnes esset ad catholicos devoluta, sicut si omnes prelati et clerici mundi pravitate inficerentur heretica, potestas iudicandi omnes devolveretur ad laicos catholicos et fideles. Generale igitur concilium, dum manet fidele, nulli persone vel particulari collegio in causa fidei est subiectum, licet ipsum manens fidele universali ecclesie sit subiectum. Sed si ante recessum conveniencium ab invicem corporalem talis congregacio in heresim laberetur, statim illa congregacio tota ipso iure esset alii persone vel collegio aut congregacioni subiecta. |
To the fourth argument it is replied that a general council can by law be accused of heresy. For if a general council that was convoked and was at first faithful were to slip into heresy before it was dissolved as a body, it could by law be accused of heresy before the catholic pope, if he were not present, and could be judged according to canonical laws. But if the pope took part in such a council and together with that congregation fell into heretical wickedness, the power of judging them all would devolve upon catholics, just as, if all the prelates and clergy of the world were infected with heretical wickedness, the power of judging them all would devolve upon faithful catholic laypeople. As long as a general council remains faithful, therefore, it is subject in a case of faith to no person or special college, although it is subject to the universal church even if it remains faithful. But if such a congregation were to fall into heresy before those who had come together separated from each other as a body, that whole congregation would immediately be subject by the law itself to another person, college or congregation. |
|
Ad quintam racionem respondetur quod Isidorus loquitur de conciliis generalibus rite congregatis et celebratis absque omni errore in moribus bonis vel in catholica veritate. |
To the fifth argument it is replied that Isidore is speaking about general councils properly convoked and celebrated without any error in good morals or in catholic truth. |
|
Ad sextam racionem respondetur similiter quod Gregorius loquitur de conciliis generalibus rite a catholicis celebratis. |
To the sixth argument it is replied similarly that Gregory is speaking about general councils properly celebrated by catholics. |
|
Ad septimam respondetur eodem modo quod Gelasius loquitur de conciliis rite a sanctis patribus celebratis, qui, si fuissent heretici, nequaquam sancti fuissent. |
To the seventh [argument] it is replied in the same way that Gelasius is speaking about councils properly celebrated by holy fathers, who, if they had been heretics, would not have been holy. |
|
Ad octavam respondetur quod si concilium generale in heresim laberetur, remanerent alii catholici qui occulte et publice prout expediret auderent fidem defendere orthodoxam. Ille enim qui, reprobatis filiis carnalibus Abrahe, potens est de lapidibus suscitare filios Abrahe spirituales, iuxta Baptiste sentenciam, potens eciam est, omnibus ad generale concilium convenientibus in heresim lapsis, ymmo omnibus clericis mundi et potestatibus secularibus falsitate dampnatis heretica, de lapidibus, id est de laicis et abiectis pauperibus et despectis, catholicos Dei filios suscitare. Sicut enim in idiotis et laicis, sacerdotibus et religiosis ac magistratibus repudiatis, fidem primitus fundavit catholicam, ita, omnibus literatis et potentibus datis in reprobum sensum, potest dare pauperes, simplices, illiteratos et rusticos in edificacione ecclesie orthodoxe. |
To the eighth [argument] it is replied that if a general council were to fall into heresy there would remain other catholics who secretly and publicly, as was appropriate, would dare to defend orthodox faith. For he who is able to raise up spiritual children of Abraham from stones, his fleshly children having been condemned, as the Baptist teaches, is also able to raise up catholic children of God from stones, that is from laypeople and abject and despised paupers, if all those gathered together at a general council fall into heresy, indeed if all the clergy of the world and those powerful in secular affairs are condemned for heretical falsity. For just as he [God] first founded the catholic faith on unlearned laypeople, having rejected priests, religious people and magistrates, so if all the learned and powerful fall into a false understanding he can provide paupers, the simple, the unlearned and rustics for the building up of the orthodox church. |
Capitulum 29 |
Chapter 29 |
|
Discipulus Admiracione promoveor quod isti presumunt asserere totum clerum posse falsitate heretica irretiri. Et quia vix umquam aliquis absque motivo assentit errori, aperias unde isti moventur pro opinione predicta? |
Student: I am moved to astonishment that they presume to affirm that all the clergy can be ensnared by heretical falsity. And because scarcely ever does anyone assent to an error without reason, would you reveal by what they are moved in favour of that opinion? |
That all the clergy can err |
|
|
Magister Principale motivum eorum est hoc, quod sepe pro multis assercionibus est inductum, quod una sola videlicet est ecclesia militans que contra fidem errare non potest. Constat autem quod congregacio fidelium que clericos et laicos comprehendit de facto, vel comprehendere potest, nequit contra fidem errare. Multitudo autem tota clericorum non est illa congregacio, licet sit pars eius, quemadmodum et multitudo laicorum est pars eius. Ergo tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem errare. |
Master: Their main reason is this one, which has often been brought forward for many assertions, namely that there is only one church militant which can not err against faith. It is certain, however, that the congregation of believers which consists in fact, or can consist, of the clergy and the laity can not err against faith. The whole multitude of the clergy, however, is not that congregation, although it is part of it, just as the whole multitude of the laity is also part of it. Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy can err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Habentne alia fundamenta minus principalia pro assercione predicta? |
Student: Do they have any less important bases for that assertion? |
|
Magister Aliis racionibus pluribus se fundare nituntur. Unde secundum motivum eorum est hoc: tota illa particularis multitudo Christianorum qui in omnibus locis ponunt scandalum fidei orthodoxe et qui soli scindunt ecclesiam et populos de domo Dei seducunt potest contra fidem errare. Huiusmodi est multitudo clericorum, teste beato Hieronimo, qui, ut recitatur 24, q. 3, c. Transferunt, ait, "Veteres scrutans historias, invenire non possum scidisse ecclesiam et de domo Domini populos seduxisse preter eos qui sacerdotes a Deo positi fuerant et prophete, id est speculatores. Isti ergo recurrunt in laqueum tortuosum in omnibus locis ponentes scandalum." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod sacerdotes et speculatores id est doctores consueverunt ecclesiam Dei scindere et populos de domo Dei seducere scandalum fidei catholice ubique ponendo. Ergo omnes sacerdotes possunt contra fidem errare. Nomine autem sacerdotis intelliguntur clerici inferiores, secundum quod notat glossa Extra, De cohabitacione clericorum et mulierum, c. Si quisquam sacerdotum. Ergo tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem errare. |
Master: They try to establish it with many other arguments. Thus their second reason is this. That whole particular multitude of Christians who in all places create a scandal for orthodox faith and who alone divide the church and lead people away from the house of God can err against faith. The multitude of the clergy is like that as blessed Jerome attests. As we find in 24, q. 3, c. Transferunt, he says [col.999], "Examining old histories thoroughly, I can not find that the church was divided and the people led away from the house of the Lord except by those who had been appointed priests by God and by prophets, that is investigators. Therefore they return to that complicated trap, placing a stumbling block in all places." We are given to understand by these words that priests and investigators, that is doctors, have been accustomed to divide the church of God and to lead people away from the house of God by placing a stumbling block for the catholic faith everywhere. Therefore all priests can err against faith. By the word 'priests', however, inferior clergy are meant, according to what the gloss on Extra, De cohabitacione clericorum et mulierum, c. Si quisquam sacerdotum notes. Therefore the whole multitude of clergy can err against faith. |
|
Tercium motivum eorum est tale. Tota multitudo illorum qui sunt deteriores laicis potest contra fidem errare, quia nulla apparet racio quare Deus talem multitudinem ab errore contra fidem specialiter preservaret. Sed clerici sunt deteriores laicis, secundum quod notat glossa de penitencia dist. 1, c. Quis aliquando, dicens, "Habes ex hoc capitulo quod clerici deteriores sunt laicis [...] et supra 24, q. 3, Transferunt." Ergo tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem errare, sicut et tota multitudo laicorum posset contra fidem errare. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 38.]Their third reason is as follows. The whole multitude of those who are worse than the laity can err against faith, because there is no apparent reason why God would particularly preserve such a multitude from error against faith. But the clergy are worse than the laity according to what the gloss on De penitencia, dist. 1, c. Quis aliquando notes. It says, "You have it from this chapter that the clergy are worse than the laity ... and above 24, q. 3, c. Transferunt." Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy can err against faith, just as the whole multitude of the laity could err against faith. |
|
Quartum motivum eorum est hoc. Tota multitudo illorum a quibus omnia mala procedunt potest contra fidem errare, quia ab illis precipue heretica pravitas noscitur provenire. Sed "omnia mala a sacerdotibus processerunt", ut notat glossa dist. 50, c. Et purgabit. Ergo tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem errare. |
Their fourth reason is this. The whole multitude of those from whom all evil proceeds can err against faith, because heretical wickedness is known to come forth especially from them. But "all evil has proceeded from priests", as the gloss on dist. 50, c. Et purgabit notes [s. v. a domo; col.243]. Therefore the whole multitude of clergy can err against faith. |
|
Quintum motivum eorum est hoc. Tota multitudo illorum potest contra fidem errare quos valent laici iudicare. Sed malos clericos valent laici iudicare, teste Hieronimo, qui, ut habetur 8, q. 1, c. Vereor, ait, "Vereor quomodo regina Austri veniens a finibus terre audire sapienciam Salomonis iudicatura est homines temporis sui:; et viri Ninivite, acta penitencia ad predicacionem Ione, condemnabunt eos qui maiorem eciam Iona salvatorem contempserunt. Sic plurimi in populis episcopos iudicent." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod temerarium est asserere quod numquam laici episcopos comparacione vite iudicabunt. Sicut ergo laici possunt in moribus et fide errare, ita etiam episcopi, et eadem racione alii clerici, contra bonos mores et fidem possunt errare. Ergo temerarium est asserere quod numquam tota multitudo clericorum contra fidem errabit. |
Their fifth reason is this. The whole multitude of those whom the laity have the power to judge can err against faith. But as Jerome attests the laity have the power to judge bad clergy. As we find in 8, q. 1, c. Vereor, he says [col.597], "I fear how the queen of the south who has come from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon will judge the people of her time; and the Ninevites, who did penance at the preaching of Jonah, will condemn those who spurned a saviour greater even than Jonah; in this way very many among the people will judge bishops." We are given to understand by these words that it is rash to affirm that the laity will never judge bishops by a comparison of their [respective] lives. Just as the laity can err in morals and faith, therefore, so too bishops, and by the same argument other clergy, can err against good morals and faith. Therefore it is rash to affirm that the whole multitude of clergy will never err against faith. |
|
Sextum motivum eorum est hoc. Multitudo illorum potest contra fidem errare quibus laici possunt esse meliores; sed laici possunt esse meliores clericis, teste beato Hieronimo, qui, ut legitur 8, q. 1, c. Qualis, ait, "Qualis erit edificacio discipuli si intelligat magistro se esse meliorem?" Et infra, "Vehementer ecclesiam Dei destruit", hoc scilicet, "meliores esse laicos quam clericos." Ex quibus verbis insinuatur aperte quod laici possunt esse meliores clericis. Sicut ergo tota multitudo laicorum potest contra fidem errare, ita tota multitudo clericorum poterit contra fidem errare. |
Their sixth reason is this. The multitude of those than whom the laity can be better can err against faith. But the laity can be better than the clergy, as blessed Jerome attests when he says, as we read in 8, q. 1, c. Qualis [col.597], "What kind of edification will it be for a student if he perceives that he is better than his master? ... It is violently destructive of the church of God", that is, the following, "for the laity to be better than the clergy." It is clearly implied by these words that the laity can be better than the clergy. Just as the whole multitude of the laity can err against faith, therefore, so it will be possible for the whole multitude of the clergy to err against faith. |
|
Septimum motivum eorum est tale. Multitudo illorum potest contra fidem errare qui possunt peccare et de quibus vix invenitur aliquis vere penitens post peccatum, quia peccatum excecat intellectum et ita tandem poterit, si per penitenciam minime deleatur, ad errorem contra fidem deducere. Sed clerici omnes possunt peccare, et de clericis vix aliquis invenitur vere penitens post peccatum, teste Iohanne Chrysostomo, qui, ut habetur De penitencia dist. 1, c. Quis aliquando, ait, "Quis aliquando vidit clericum cito penitenciam agentem? Et, si deprehensus, humiliaverit se. Non ideo dolet quia peccavit, sed confunditur quia perdit gloriam suam." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod clerici raro inveniuntur vere penitentes. Ergo temerarium est asserere quod tota multitudo clericorum numquam contra fidem errabit. |
Their seventh reason is as follows. The multitude of those who can sin and among whom scarcely anyone is found who is truly penitent after sin can err against faith, because sin blinds the understanding and so can lead at length to error against faith if it is not destroyed by penitence. But all the clergy can sin and scarcely anyone who is truly penitent after sin is found among the clergy, as John Chrysostom attests. As we find in De poenitencia, dist. 1, c. Quis aliquando, he says [col.1184], "Who has sometimes seen a cleric quickly doing penance? If he is discovered, he humbles himself. It is not in this case that he sorrows because he has sinned, but he is confused because he loses his honour." We are given to understand by these words that truly penitent clergy are rarely found. It is rash to affirm, therefore, that the whole multitude of the clergy will never err against faith. |
|
Octavum motivum eorum est tale. Multitudo illorum potest contra fidem errare qui, sola dignitate ecclesiastica virtutes et graciam minime necessario conferente nec augente, alios catholicos et fideles noscuntur precellere, quia ex quo per talem dignitatem gracia et virtutes neque conferuntur necessario neque augentur nichil habent quare non possunt, sicut prius, contra fidem errare. Sed clerici ultra laicos catholicos et fideles nichil necessario obtinent nisi clericatum, qui potest dignitas ecclesiastica appellari. Nulla autem dignitas ecclesiastica in ecclesia militante confert necessario graciam et virtutes nec necessario auget, sicut in superioribus per auctoritates plurimas est ostensum. Ergo tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem errare, sicut poterant omnes errare contra fidem quando laici extiterunt. |
Their eighth reason is as follows. The multitude of those who are known to excel other catholics and believers in ecclesiastical dignity alone, which does not necessarily confirm nor increase virtues and grace, can err against faith because, since grace and virtues are neither necessarily conferred nor are increased by such a dignity, there is nothing through which they can not err against faith, just as before. But the clergy possess nothing more than lay catholics and believers necessarily except their clerical status, which can be called an ecclesiastical dignity. No ecclesiastical dignity in the church militant, however, necessarily confers grace and virtues nor necessarily increases them, as was shown above by many texts. Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy can err against faith, just as they were all able to err against faith when they were laymen. |
|
Nonum eorum motivum est tale. Si tota multitudo clericorum non potest contra fidem errare, sicut tota multitudo laicorum potest contra fidem errare, aut hoc est racione regiminis et auctoritatis quam habent clerici super laicos, aut racione maioris sanctitatis qua clerici pollent, aut racione maioris sapiencie et literature quam habent clerici ultra laicos, aut quia, tota multitudine clericorum errante, tota fides periclitaretur catholica. |
Their ninth reason is this. If the whole multitude of the clergy can not err against faith, just as the whole multitude of the laity can err against faith, this is either by reason [1] of the rule and authority that the clergy have over the laity or [2] by reason of the greater holiness in which the clergy are powerful or [3] by reason of the wisdom and learning the clergy have which is greater than that of the laity or [4] because the whole catholic faith would be endangered if the whole multitude of the clergy were to err. |
|
Non propter primum, tum quia, sicut dictum est, dignitas aut regimen ecclesiasticum non necessario confert habenti neque necessario auget in eo graciam et virtutes, tum quia summus pontifex, quantum ad regimen et potestatem ecclesiasticam, plenitudinem obtinet potestatis, et tamen papa potest heretica pravitate fedari. Ergo et tota multitudo clericorum non obstante tali regimine pravitate poterit heretica maculari. |
It is not so because of the first [reason] [1]both because, as has been said, ecclesiastical dignity or rule does not necessarily confer on the one possessing it, nor increase in him, grace and the virtues and because, with respect to ecclesiastical rule and power, the highest pontiff possesses plenitude of power, and yet the pope can be disgraced by heretical wickedness. Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy too can be defiled by heretical wickedness notwithstanding the rule they have. |
|
Secundum eciam non obstat, quia multi inveniuntur laici clericis sancciores et in fide stabiliores, teste beato Ambrosio, qui, ut habetur 8, q. 1, c. Quid autem ait, "Quid autem ego vos arguo cum possitis me uno sermone convincere? Convincor enim cum in hac parte clericos vobis magis video negligentes. Quomodo enim possum corrigere filios cum fratres emendare non possim? aut qua fiducia succenseam laicis cum a consortibus pudoris verecundia conticescam." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod laici possunt esse clericis sancciores. Ergo propter maiorem sanctitatem non debet dici quod tota multitudo clericorum non potest contra fidem errare. |
The second [reason] [2] too does not prevent them [from erring] because many of the laity are found who are holier and more unwavering in faith than the clergy. As we find in 8, q. 1, c. Quid autem, blessed Ambrose attests to this when he says [col.597], "However, why do I censure you when you can convict me with one word. For I am convicted when in this part I see the clergy neglecting things more than you. For how can I correct children when I can not improve my brothers or with what confidence may I be angry with the laity when I am silent at the shame of my brethren?" We are given to understand by these words that the laity can be more holy than the clergy. Therefore it ought not to be said that the whole multitude of the clergy could not err against faith on account of greater holiness. |
|
Nec propter maiorem sapienciam seu literaturam qua clerici pollent debet dici quod tota multitudo clericorum errare non potest, quia, sicut sapiencia et literatura est sepe occasio stabilicionis in fide, ita est frequenter occasio heretice pravitatis. Unde et communiter heresum inventores sunt viri literati Scripturarum noticiam Divinarum habentes, suos errores ex ipsis sacris literis assumentes ipsosque errores per Sacras Scripturas fulcire conantes, secundum quod testatur beatus Clemens et legitur dist. 28, c. Relatum. Et beatus Hieronimus insinuat in prologo Biblie, asserens nonnullos ad voluntatem suam Sacram Scripturam trahere repugnantem. Propter maiorem ergo noticiam Scripturarum non est dicendum quod tota multitudo clericorum non potest errare contra fidem . |
Nor should it be said [3] that the whole multitude of the clergy can not err because of the greater wisdom or learning in which the clergy are powerful, because just as wisdom and learning are often the occasion of stability in faith, so they are frequently the occasion of heretical wickedness. Hence it is that the authors of heresies are commonly learned men with knowledge of the divine scriptures, taking their errors from those sacred scriptures and trying to support those errors through the sacred scriptures, according to what blessed Clement attests as read in dist. 28 [actually, dist. 37; col.139], c. Relatum. Blessed Jerome also implies it in his prologue to the bible where he asserts that some people twist sacred scripture, despite its opposition, according to their own will. It should not be said, therefore, that on account of greater knowledge of the scriptures the whole multitude of the clergy can not err against faith. |
|
Nec est dicendum quod non potest contra fidem errare quia tota multitudine clericorum errante periclitaretur fides, quia, sicut testatur beatus Paulus 1 ad Corinthios 2 c., "Fides nostra non est in sapiencia hominum sed est in virtute Dei." Sed virtute Dei ita potest fides catholica sustentari in laicis sicut in literatis et clericis, presertim cum sepe simplices laici et pauperes stabiliores in fide inveniantur quam clerici, maxime cum Christus fidem per idiotas et illiteratos fundaverit. Ergo quamvis omnes clerici deviarent a fide non periclitaretur fides. |
Nor should it be said that it can not err against faith because [4] faith would be endangered if the whole multitude of the clergy were to err because, as blessed Paul witnesses in 1 Corinthians 2[:5], "Our faith does not stand on human wisdom but on the power of God." But by God's power catholic faith can be preserved among the laity just as it can among the learned and the clergy, especially since simple and poor laypeople are often found to be more stable in faith than the clergy and particularly because Christ founded the faith through the ignorant and the unlearned. Therefore even if all the clergy were to deviate from the faith, faith would not be endangered. |
|
Decimum motivum eorum est tale. Tota multitudo clericorum non est sanccior nec in fide stabilior quam fuit collegium apostolorum. Collegium autem apostolorum tempore passionis Christi erravit in fide. Ergo et multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem errare. Dicunt igitur isti quod sicut temerarium est dicere quod tota multitudo clericorum errabit contra fidem, ita temerarium est dicere quod tota multitudo clericorum nec tempore Antichristi nec alio tempore contra fidem errabit. De nulla enim congregacione, multitudine vel collegio firmiter est tenendum quod numquam contra fidem errabit, nisi in quantum hoc potest colligi ex verbis Christi promittentis apostolis quod fides catholica est usque ad finem seculi permansura. In promissione autem illa licet Christus locutus fuerit apostolis qui erant episcopi non tamen loquebatur precise pro ipsis sed locutus est pro futuris. Inter illos autem futuros nullam de clericis fecit specialem penitus mencionem. Nec verba sua intelligenda sunt de aliqua multitudine speciali Christianorum, sed de tota multitudine, quia hec numquam erit vera: tota multitudo Christianorum errat in fide; sed an hec erit vera: tota multitudo clericorum errat in fide, nescitur a nobis sed a Deo qui omnia futura novit. Predicte assercioni concordat glossa 24, q. 1, c. A recta dicens, "Quero de qua ecclesia intelligis quod dicitur quod non possit errare." Respondens ait, "Respondeo quod ipsa congregacio fidelium hic dicitur ecclesia." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod congregacio fidelium est illa ecclesia de qua dicitur quod errare non potest. Ad congregacionem autem fidelium ita pertinent laici fideles sicut clerici. Ergo de multitudine clericorum non debet intelligi quod errare non possit contra fidem. |
Their tenth reason is the following. The whole multitude of the clergy is not holier nor more stable in faith than was the college of apostles. At the time of Christ's passion, however, the college of apostles erred in faith. Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy too can err against faith. They say, therefore, that just as it is rash to say that the whole multitude of clergy will err against faith, so it is rash to say that the whole multitude of the clergy will not err against faith either at the time of anti-Christ or at another time. For about no congregation, multitude or college should it be firmly maintained that it will never err against faith, except in so far as this can be gathered from Christ's words promising the apostles that catholic faith will remain until the end of the age. However, although Christ spoke in that promise to the apostles who were bishops, nevertheless he was not speaking exclusively of them but he spoke of people in the future. Among those in the future, however, he did not make any special mention at all of the clergy. Nor should his words be understood of any particular multitude of Christians, but of the whole multitude, because it will never be true that the whole multitude of Christians errs in faith, but whether it will be true that the whole multitude of clergy errs in faith is not known by us but by God who knows everything that will happen. The gloss on 24, q. 1, c. A recta agrees with this assertion when it says [s. v. novitatibus; col.1387], 'I ask of what church do you understand that it is said that it can not err.' In response it says, 'I reply that the congregation of believers itself is here called the church.' We gather from these words that the congregation of believers is that church of which it is said that it can not err. The faithful laity, however, belong to the congregation of believers in the same way as the clergy. It should not be understood of the multitude of the clergy, therefore, that it can not err against faith. |
Capitulum 30 |
Chapter 30 |
|
Discipulus Pro ista assercione quam extimo falsam satis allegasti. Ideo queso ut pro assercione contraria aliquas allegaciones adducas. |
Student: You have brought forward enough arguments for that assertion, which I consider false. Therefore I ask you to bring forward some arguments for the opposite assertion. |
That all the clergy can not err |
|
|
Magister Duo sunt fundamenta principalia contrarie assercionis, ex quibus sequitur quod multitudo clericorum contra fidem errare non potest. Primum est quod ecclesia non potest contra fidem errare. Secundum quod sola multitudo clericorum est ecclesia. |
Master: There are two main bases for the opposite assertion and from them it follows that the multitude of clergy can not err against faith. The first is that the church can not err against faith, the second that the multitude of clergy alone is the church. |
|
Discipulus Quod ecclesia non possit contra fidem errare concedunt adversarii. Ideo solummodo proba quod soli clerici sunt ecclesia. |
Student: Their opponents grant that the church can not err against faith, so prove only that the clergy alone are the church. |
|
Magister Quod soli clerici sint ecclesia ex verbis sanctorum patrum colligitur manifeste. Ait enim Adrianus papa, ut legitur dist. 63, c. 1, "Quisquis secularium principum vel potentum vel alterius dignitatis laicus adversus communem ac consonantem atque canonicam eleccionem ecclesiastici ordinis agere temptaverit, anathema sit, donec obediat et consenciat quicquid ecclesia de ordinatione ac eleccione proprii presulis se velle monstraverit." Ex quibus patet quod ecclesia contra laicos est distincta. Ergo soli clerici sunt ecclesia. |
Master: We gather manifestly from words of the holy fathers that the clergy alone are the church. For as we read in dist. 63, c. 1, Pope Hadrian says [col.234], "Let any secular ruler or powerful man or layman with some other office who tries to act against a common, harmonious and canonical election of an ecclesiastical order be anathema until he obeys and agrees to whatever the church has shown itself to want in connection with the ordination and election of its own ruler." It is clear from this that the church is distinguished from the laity. Therefore the clergy alone are the church. |
|
Item, Innocencius 3, ut habetur Extra, De constitutionibus c. Ecclesia, ait, "Nos attendentes quod laicis super ecclesiis et personis ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa facultas," etc. Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod laici super ecclesiam vel personas ecclesiasticas nullam habent penitus facultatem. Constat autem quod nonnulli laici super alios laicos obtinent potestatem. Ergo laici non sunt persone ecclesiastice nec sunt de ecclesia, et ita soli clerici dicuntur ecclesia. |
Again, as we find in Extra, De constitutionibus, c. Ecclesia, Innocent III says [col.12], "We, considering that no power over churches and ecclesiastical personages has been bestowed on the laity," etc. We are given to understand by these words that the laity have no power at all over the church or ecclesiastical personages. It is certain, however, that some laypeople acquire power over other laypeople. Therefore laypeople are not ecclesiastical personages or part of the church and so only the clergy are called the church. |
|
Discipulus Notum est quod soli clerici dicuntur ecclesia et ecclesiastici viri. Quare cum constet quod ecclesia non potest contra fidem errare, sequitur quod multitudo clericorum numquam deviabit a fide. Ideo circa istud medium amplius non insistas sed alia media coneris adducere. |
Student: It is acknowledged that only the clergy are called the church and men of the church. Therefore since it is certain that the church can not err against faith it follows that the multitude of the clergy will never deviate from faith. So do not press on further with that means [of proof] but try to bring forward other ones. |
|
Magister Secundum medium pro assercione predicta est tale. Tota multitudo illorum non potest contra fidem errare ad quos, et non ad alios, spectat questiones fidei terminare et contra fidem errantes corrigere, quia multitudine totaliter errante fides tota periret. Sed ad solos clericos et non ad laicos spectat questiones fidei determinare et errantes contra fidem corrigere. Ergo tota multitudo clericorum nequit contra fidem errare cum fides perire non possit. Maior videtur certa quia numquam erit ecclesia Dei usque ad finem seculi absque auctoritate questiones fidei terminandi et hereticos corrigendi. Minor quo ad utramque partem probatur. Quod enim ad solos clericos spectat questiones fidei terminare patet, quia ad solam sedem apostolicam, cui soli clerici president, spectat questiones fidei terminare (24, q. 1, c. Quociens et Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, c. Maiores). Secunda eciam pars probatur, quia heresis est crimen ecclesiasticum. Ergo ad solos clericos spectat de crimine illo cognoscere. |
Master: A second means [of proof] for that assertion is as follows. The whole multitude of those to whom alone -- they and not others -- it pertains to determine questions of faith and to correct those erring against faith can not err against faith, because if the whole of that multitude were to err the whole of the faith would perish. But it pertains to the clergy alone and not to the laity to determine questions of faith and to correct those erring against faith. Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy can not err against faith since faith can not perish. The major [premise] seems certain because until the end of the age the church of God will never be without the authority to determine questions of faith and to correct heretics. The first part of the minor [premise] is proved. For that it pertains to the clergy alone to determine questions of faith is clear because it pertains to the apostolic see, over which clergy alone preside, to determine questions of faith (24, q. 1, c. Quociens [col.970] and Extra, De baptismo et eius effectu, c. Maiores [col.644]). The second part [of the minor premise] is also proved because heresy is an ecclesiastical crime. Therefore it pertains to the clergy alone to know about the crime. |
|
Discipulus De hac materia queram postea multa. Ideo de ipsa pertranseas et aliud motivum ad assercionem predictam inducas. |
Student: I will ask you a lot about that matter later. So would you pass it over and bring forward another reason for that assertion. |
|
Magister Tercium motivum eorum est tale. Tota multitudo illorum non potest contra fidem errare qui nullius iudicio extra illam multitudinem sunt subiecti, quia si tota illa multitudo contra fidem erraret nullus esset qui hereticos punire valeret. Sed clerici nullius alterius quam clerici sunt subiecti iudicio, ut sacri canones attestantur. Ergo tota multitudo clericorum contra fidem errare non potest. |
Master: Their third argument is as follows. The whole multitude of those who are not subject to the judgement of anyone outside that multitude can not err against faith, because if the whole of that multitude were to err against faith there would be no one who was able to punish heretics. But, as the sacred canons attest, the clergy are not subject to the judgement of anyone else but the clergy. Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy can not err against faith. |
|
Quartum motivum eorum est tale. Tota multitudo illorum non potest contra fidem errare qui soli, et non alii, potestatem caput ecclesie eligendi noscuntur habere, quia numquam ecclesia ad statum illum perveniet quin poterit sibi caput eligere, cum eciam omnis congregacio possit sibi constituere caput. Sed soli clerici, et non laici, habent potestatem eligendi caput ecclesie, scilicet summum pontificem, iuxta canonicas sancciones. Ergo tota multitudo clericorum numquam contra fidem errabit. |
Their fourth argument is as follows. The whole multitude of those who are known to have alone -- they and not others -- the power of choosing the head of the church can not err against faith, because the church will never come to that state in which it can not choose a head for itself, since indeed every congregation can appoint a head for itself. But according to canonical decrees only the clergy, and not the laity, have the power to choose the head of the church, that is the highest pontiff. Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy will never err against faith. |
|
Quintum motivum eorum est tale. Domus Dei que est ecclesia militans non potest esse nulla, sicut nec ecclesia potest esse nulla (24, q. 1, c. Pudenda). Sed domus Dei que est ecclesia militans necessario sacerdotes includit, quia necessario habet potestatem ligandi atque solvendi, teste Hieronimo, qui, ut legitur 24, q. 1, c. Omnibus, ait, "Omnibus consideratis, puto me non temere dicere alios ita esse in domo Dei ut ipsi sint eadem domus Dei que dicitur edificari supra petram, que unica columba appellatur." Et parum post, "Que domus eciam claves accepit ac potestatem ligandi atque solvendi." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod domus Dei que unica columba vocatur, quam constat esse ecclesiam catholicam, claves habet atque potestatem ligandi et solvendi. Claves autem et predicta potestas in solis sacerdotibus inveniuntur. Ergo usque ad finem seculi erunt in ecclesia catholica aliqui sacerdotes, et per consequens tota multitudo clericorum numquam contra fidem errabit. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 39.]Their fifth reason is as follows. The house of God which is the church militant can not not exist, just as the church can not not exist (24, q. 1, c. Pudenda [col.978]). But the house of God which is the church militant necessarily includes priests because it necessarily has the power binding and loosing, as Jerome attests when he says, as we read in 24, q. 1, c. Omnibus [col.973], "Having taken everything into account I think that it is not rash for me to say that others are in the house of God in such a way that they are the very house of God which is said to be built on the rock, which is called the unique dove. ... This house also received the keys and the power of binding and loosing." We gather from these words that the house of God which is called the unique dove -- and which it is certain is the catholic church -- has the keys and the power of binding and loosing. However the keys and that power are found only in priests. Therefore there will be some priests in the catholic church until the end of the age, and, as a consequence, the whole multitude of the clergy will never err against faith. |
|
Sextum motivum est tale. Christus usque ad finem seculi cum militante ecclesia permanebit non solum per fidem et dileccionem sed eciam per suam presenciam sacramentalem. Ergo semper erunt in ecclesia aliqui sacerdotes qui potestatem habebunt conficiendi corpus Christi. Sed si tota multitudo clericorum hereticaretur, nullus esset in ecclesia qui potestatem haberet conficiendi corpus Christi, quod numquam accidet. Ergo numquam tota multitudo clericorum exorbitabit a fide. |
A sixth reason is as follows. Until the end of the age Christ will remain with the church militant, not only through faith and love but also by his sacramental presence. Therefore there will always be some priests in the church who will have the power of consecrating the body of Christ. But if the whole multitude of the clergy were to become heretical there would be no one in the church who would have the power to consecrate the body of Christ. This will never happen, so the whole multitude of the clergy will never deviate from faith. |
|
Septimum eorum motivum est tale. Ecclesiastica yerarchia usque ad finem seculi permanebit. Sed in solis prelatis et sacerdotibus et ceteris clericis consistit ecclesiastica yerarchia. Ergo semper usque ad finem seculi aliqui prelati sacerdotes et alii clerici fideles et catholici permanebunt. |
Their seventh reason is as follows. The ecclesiastical hierarchy will continue until the end of the age. But the ecclesiastical hierarchy consists only of prelates, priests and the rest of the clergy. Therefore some prelates, priests and other clergy will continue believing and catholic until the end of the age. |
|
Tria ultima media confirmantur una racione tali. Si tota multitudo clericorum posset hereticari, eadem racione tota multitudo clericorum posset per mortem extingui, ymmo occidi. Sed numquam ante finem mundi tota multitudo clericorum erit extincta, quia si tota multitudo clericorum esset extincta non solum ecclesia esset privata clavibus regni celorum et potestate ligandi et solvendi ac eciam sacramento corporis Christi et ecclesiastica yerarchia, sed eciam privata esset potestate habendi predicta. Quamvis enim si tota multitudo clericorum hereticaretur ecclesia careret predictis de facto, tamen, si remanerent aliqui clerici heretici, possent aliqui catholici ordinari ab eis; quod, ut videtur aliquibus, esset licitum in illo casu, sicut in articulo necessitatis licet ab hereticis baptismi recipere sacramentum. Quibus ordinatis possent predicta omnia reparari. Sed si nulli clerici, neque catholici neque heretici, remanerent, numquam posset aliquis in ecclesia habere claves neque potestatem ligandi et solvendi nec conficere corpus Christi neque umquam posset esse ecclesiastica yerarchia. Et ita inconveniens est dicere quod tota multitudo clericorum per mortem extingui potest. Quare inconveniens est asserere totam multitudinem clericorum posse in hereticam incidere pravitatem. |
The last three reasons are confirmed by the one argument that follows. If the whole multitude of the clergy could become heretical, by the same reasoning the whole multitude of the clergy could be eliminated by death, indeed could be killed. But the whole multitude of the clergy will never be eliminated before the end of the world, because if the whole multitude of the clergy were eliminated not only would the church be deprived of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing and also the sacrament of the body of Christ and the ecclesiastical hierarchy but it would also be deprived of the power of having them. For although the church would in fact lack those things, if the whole multitude of the clergy were to become heretical, nevertheless some catholics could be ordained by heretical clergy, if any were remaining. It seems to some people that this would be permissible in that case, just as at a time of necessity it is permissible to receive the sacrament of baptism from heretics. When these were ordained all the above matters could be rectified. But if no clergy, either catholic or heretical, were to remain, there could never be anyone in the church to have the keys and the power of binding and loosing or the ability to consecrate the body of Christ and there could never be an ecclesiastical hierarchy. And so it is not fitting to say that the whole multitude of the clergy can be eliminated by death. Therefore it is not fitting to affirm that the whole multitude of the clergy can fall into heretical wickedness. |
|
Octavum motivum eorum est tale. Tota multitudo eorum nequit contra fidem errare a qua quicumque separatur cum ecclesia Dei pacem habere non potest. Sed quicumque separatur a tota multitudine clericorum pacem cum ecclesia Dei habere non potest, teste Cypriano, qui, ut recitatur. 7, q. 1, c. Novacianus, ait, "Qui ergo nec coniunccionem pacis nec unitatem Spiritus observat, et se ab ecclesie vinculo atque a sacerdotum collegio separat, episcopi nec potestatem potest habere nec honorem, qui episcopatus nec unitatem habere voluit nec pacem." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod qui separat se a collegio sacerdotum nec honorem nec pacem nec unitatem cum ecclesia Dei potest habere. Ergo tota multitudo clericorum, que intelligitur nomine sacerdotum, contra fidem errare non potest. |
Their eighth reason is the following. The whole multitude of those from whom whoever is separated can not have peace with the church of God can not err against faith. But whoever is separated from the whole multitude of the clergy can not have peace with the church of God. Cyprian attests to this when he says, as we find in 7, q. 1, c. Novacianus [col.568]. "Whoever, therefore, does not preserve peaceful union and unity of the Spirit and separates himself from the tie of the church and the college of priests can have neither the power nor the honour of a bishop since he has not wanted to have the unity or peace appropriate to the episcopate." We are given to understand by these words that whoever separates himself from the college of priests can not have honour, peace or unity with the church of God. Therefore the whole multitude of the clergy, which is understood by the word 'priests', can not err against faith. |
Capitulum 31 |
Chapter 31 |
|
Discipulus Ista media pro assercione, quam arbitror esse veram, michi sufficiunt, nec puto quod adversarii ad ipsa responsiones invenire poterunt apparentes. Et tamen, ut melius virtutem eorum intelligam, dic quomodo ad ipsa adversarii respondere nituntur. |
Student: Those means [of proof] of that assertion, which I think is true, are enough for me, and I do not think that their opponents could find persuasive replies to them. And yet so that I might understand their strength, tell me how those opponents try to reply to them. |
Replies to arguments that all the clergy can not err |
|
|
Magister Primum omnino frivolum arbitrantur quia per equivocacionem procedit. Nam hoc nomen ecclesia habet varias significaciones. Quandoque enim accipitur pro domo materiali, et sic accipitur 1 ad Corinthios 11 cum dicit Apostolus, "Nunquid domos non habetis ad manducandum et bibendum aut ecclesiam Dei contemnitis?" Secundo accipitur hoc nomen ecclesia pro congregacione Christianorum fidelium, generali vel particulari, que tam viros quam mulieres comprehendere potest. Et sic accipitur ecclesia Actuum 20 cum dicit Apostolus maioribus natu, "Atttendite vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos, regere ecclesiam Dei", ubi nomen ecclesie comprehendit tam viros quam mulieres, quia ad episcopos non solum spectat regere viros sed eciam mulieres. Sic eciam accipit Apostolus nomen ecclesie in epistola ad Philemonem, cum dicit "ecclesie que in domo tua est", quia in domo Philemonis erant tam viri quam mulieres, et forte nullus clericus erat in ea nisi Archippus fortassis, quia nec ipse Philemon preditus erat ecclesiastica dignitate. Sic eciam semper accipit Apostolus in aliis suis epistolis ecclesiam. Et isto modo accipitur ecclesia Proverbiorum 5 cum dicitur, "Pene fui in omni malo in medio ecclesie et synagoge." Sic eciam accipitur ecclesia De consecracione dist. 1, c. Ecclesia, ubi dicit Nicolaus papa, "Ecclesia, id est catholicorum colleccio, quomodo sine apostolice sedis institueretur nutu, quando iuxta sacra decreta nec ipsa debet absque precepcione pape basilica noviter construi, que ipsam catholicorum intra semet amplecti catervam dinoscitur?" Ubi ecclesia accipitur pro colleccione catholicorum, que mulieres et laicos nequaquam excludit. In duabus significacionibus predictis dicunt isti nomen ecclesie solummodo accipi in Scriptura Divina. Et ideo dicunt quod ad ecclesiam, secundum quod in Scriptura Divina que est tocius fidei catholice fundamentum accipitur, ita laici et mulieres pertinent et sunt persone ecclesiastice sicut clerici. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 40.]Master: They think that the first one is entirely frivolous because it proceeds by ambiguity. For this word 'church' has various senses. For sometimes it is taken as the material building, and it is taken that way in 1 Corinthians 11[:22] when the Apostle says, "What, have you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or despise ye the church of God ... ?" Secondly, the word 'church' is taken as the congregation of Christian believers, general or particular, which can include both men and women. And 'church' is taken that way in Acts 20[:28] when the Apostle says to the elders, "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherin the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God", where the word 'church' includes both men and women, because it does not pertain to bishops to rule men only, but also women. The Apostle also takes the word 'church' in this sense in his letter to Philemon [v.2] where he speaks of "the church which is in thy house", because in Philemon's house there were both men and women and no cleric perhaps, except possibly Archippus, because Philemon himself was not endowed with an ecclesiastical dignity. The Apostle always takes 'church' in that sense in his other letters too. 'Church' is taken in that way in Proverbs 5[:14] too which says, "I have almost been in all evil, in the midst of the church and the congregation." 'Church' is also taken that way in De consecratione, dist. 1, c. Ecclesia, where Pope Nicholas says [col.1296], "How would a church, that is a gathering of catholics, be established without the assent of the apostolic see, when according to sacred decrees not even a basilica, which is known to include within it the company of catholics, should be built without the pope's injunction?" Here 'church' is taken as a gathering of catholics, which does not exclude women or laymen. They say that the word 'church' is taken in divine scripture only in the above two senses. And therefore they say that laymen and women belong to the church, as that is taken in divine scripture which is the basis of the whole of catholic faith, and are ecclesiastical personages just like the clergy. |
|
In iure autem canonico hoc nomen ecclesia significaciones habet alias a predictis, quia clerici nomen ecclesie ad clericos restrinxerunt, clericos solummodo vocantes ecclesiam. Cum tamen, sicut dictum est, secundum quod Scriptura Divina utitur nomine ecclesie ita sint persone ecclesiastice laici et mulieres sicut clerici, ita sunt de ecclesia sicut clerici. Et sic accipiendo ecclesiam solummodo pro clericis, habet adhuc plures significaciones, secundum quod notat glossa Extra, De verborum significacione c. Clerici [s.v. ecclesia Placentina, col. 1942], quia "quandoque designat tantum episcopum (7, q. 1, c. Scire), quandoque ponitur pro maori parte capituli (56, dist. c. Apostolica), quandoque restringitur ad canonicos matricis ecclesie (63. dist. para. ultimo et 10, q. 1, c. Antiquos), quandoque designat quamlibet ecclesiam provincie (Extra De usu pallii, c. Cum super)". |
In canon law, however, this word 'church' has other senses apart from the above because the clergy have restricted the word 'church' to the clergy, calling only them the church. (Nevertheless since, as has been said, according to the way divine scripture uses the word 'church' laymen and women are ecclesiastical personages as are the clergy, so they are part of the church like the clergy.) And if we take 'church' in this way only for the clergy, it still has several senses, according to what the gloss on Extra, De verborum significatione, c. [Cum] clerici notes [s.v. ecclesia Placentina, col. 1942], because "sometimes it denotes only a bishop (7, q. 1, c. Scire), sometimes it is used for the greater part of a Chapter (dist. 56, c. Apostolica), sometimes it is restricted to canons of a mother church (dist. 63, last para. and 10, q. 1, c. Antiquos), sometimes it denotes any church in a province (Extra, De usu pallii, c. Cum super)". |
|
Per hoc respondent isti ad racionem primam, dicentes quod aliqua ecclesia potest contra fidem errare, et aliqua ecclesia non potest contra fidem errare. Clerici autem sunt illa ecclesia que potest errare, sed non sunt illa ecclesia que non potest errare, licet si sint catholici sint pars illius ecclesie que non potest errare. Quod vero sit aliqua ecclesia que potest hereticari auctoritate beati Ambrosii probare nituntur. Ait enim Ambrosius, ut recitatur 24, q. 1, c. Que dignior, "Si qua est ecclesia que fidem respuat nec apostolice predicacionis fundamenta possideat, ne quam labem perfidie possit aspergere deserenda est." Quod Apostolus quoque evidenter asseruit dicens, "Hominem hereticum post unam et aliam correpcionem devita." Ex quibus verbis evidenter apparet quod aliqua ecclesia potest heretica infici pravitate, et illam dicunt esse ecclesiam clericorum, que tunc non esset vera ecclesia sed foret ecclesia malignancium nuncupanda. Cum vero dixisti notum esse quod soli clerici vocantur ecclesia et ecclesiastici viri, dicunt quod contrarium per Scripturam Divinam et eciam per decreta sanctorum patrum est notum, sicut ostensum est. |
Through this they reply to the first argument, saying that one church can err against faith while another can not do so. The clergy are that church which can err, however, but not that church which can not err against faith, although if they are catholic they are part of that church which can not err. They try to prove by a text of blessed Ambrose that there is indeed a church that can become heretical. For as is found in 24, q. 1, c. Que dignior, Ambrose says [col.976], "If there is some church that rejects faith and does not possess the bases of apostolic preaching, it should be abandoned so that it can not scatter its stain of perfidy. The Apostle also clearly affirmed this when he said [Titus 3:10], "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid." It is clearly apparent from these words that some church can be infected with heretical wickedness. And they say that that church is the church of the clergy, which would then not be the true church but should be called the church of the wicked. But when you said that it is known that only the clergy are called the church and ecclesiastical personages, they say that, as has been shown, the opposite is known through divine scripture and also through the ordinances of the holy fathers. |
|
Discipulus Ista racio non erat ita fortis sicut videbatur, quia clare probatum est quod sepe vocabulum ecclesie laicos et mulieres eciam comprehendit. Ideo indica qualiter ad secundum medium respondetur. |
Student: That argument was not as strong as it seemed because it has been clearly proved that the word 'church' often incorporates laymen and women too. So indicate how they reply to the second reason. |
|
Magister Ad secundum respondent negando maiorem, dicentes quod quamvis quando clerici sunt catholici et in sacra pagina periti et laici sunt illiterati et Divinarum Scripturarum ignari, laici de questionibus fidei non debeant se principaliter intromittere sed a clero addiscere que fidei sunt, nec debeant errantes contra fidem principaliter corrigere sed exequi ea que ad correccionem hereticorum ordinantur provide a prelatis, tamen si clerici omnes in hereticam inciderint pravitatem, omnia predicta, quantum suppetit noticia laicorum, pertinent ad eosdem. |
Master: They reply to the second by denying its major [premise], saying that although when the clergy are catholic and learned in the sacred page and the laity are unlearned and ignorant of the divine scriptures the laity should not involve themselves in questions of faith in an important way but should learn from the clergy about matters of faith and should not be the chief correctors of those erring against faith but should carry out what has been prudently ordained by prelates for the correction of heretics, yet if all the clergy fall into heretical wickedness, all of the above pertain to the laity, in so far as their knowledge is sufficient. |
|
Discipulus De ista materia interrogabo postea plura. Ideo transi ad racionem terciam. |
Student: I will ask more questions about that matter later, so would you pass on to the third argument. |
|
Magister Ad terciam racionem respondetur quod clerici non sunt exempti a iudicio laicorum nisi ex voluntate laicorum. Et ideo si omnes clerici essent effecti heretici omnes essent iudicio laicorum subiecti, quia numquam fuit intencio laicorum concedere clericis immunitatem quando omnes fidem catholicam impugnarent. |
Master: The reply to the third argument is that the clergy are not exempt from the judgement of the laity except at the will of the laity. And so if all the clergy were to become heretics they would all be subject to the judgement of the laity, because it was never the intention of the laity to grant immunity to the clergy when they were all attacking catholic faith. |
|
Discipulus De hoc eciam conferam postea tecum. Ideo dic quomodo respondent ad quartum motivum. |
Student: I will discuss this with you later as well, so tell me how they reply to the fourth reason. |
|
Magister Ad quartum respondetur quod si omnes clerici hereticarentur, potestas eligendi summum pontificem devoluta esset ad laicos, sicut eciam aliquando laici habuerunt potestatem summum pontificem eligendi. |
Master: The reply to the fourth is that if all the clergy were to become heretical the power of choosing the highest pontiff would devolve upon the laity, just as the laity have indeed sometimes had the power of choosing the highest pontiff. |
|
Discipulus De hoc quoque alias specialiter indagabo. Ideo qualiter respondent ad quintum motivum expone. |
Student: This too I will particularly investigate at another time, so set forth how they reply to the fifth reason. |
|
Magister Tria motiva sequencia eandem difficultatem continere videntur propter quam dicunt nonnulli quod quamvis maior pars, ymmo fere tota multitudo, clericorum possit contra fidem errare et fidem catholicam pertinaciter impugnare, tamen semper remanebit saltem unus episcopus sacerdos catholicus qui illa que ordinis sunt licite valeat exercere. Et ideo concedunt illi quod omnes magistri theologie et inferiores clerici episcopo sacerdote possunt contra fidem errare. Deus tamen semper conservabit aliquem sacerdotem episcopum orthodoxum ne ecclesia potestatem habendi claves regni celorum et auctoritatem ligandi et solvendi ac potestatem conficiendi corpus Christi et habendi ecclesiasticam hierarchiam amittat. |
Master: The three following reasons seem to contain the same difficulty. Because of this, some of them say that although the greater part, indeed almost the whole multitude, of the clergy can err against faith and pertinaciously attack catholic faith, there will always remain at least one catholic priest-bishop [[or this should be replaced throughout with priest or bishop and text emended]] who can licitly carry out those things that pertain to his order. And therefore they grant that all the masters of theology and the clergy inferior to a priest-bishop can err against faith. Nevertheless God will always preserve some orthodox priest-bishop so that the church does not lose the power of possessing the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the authority of binding and loosing and the power of consecrating the body of Christ and having an ecclesiastical hierarchy. |
|
Sed tenentes quod tota multitudo clericorum potest hereticari dicunt quod quamvis omnes clerici hereticarentur, propter hoc ecclesia potestatem habendi predicta nequaquam amitteret, licet illa numquam posset habere per humanam potenciam sed per miraculosam operacionem divinam. Deus enim posset, si omnes clerici essent facti heretici, diversis modis de aliquibus laicis catholicis sacerdotes et episcopos ordinare. Sola enim voluntate posset hoc facere, quod eciam posset sue ecclesie revelare. Qua revelacione facta et per miraculum confirmata, omnes catholici deberent taliter ordinatos a Deo sicut veros episcopos et sacerdotes habere. |
But those who maintain that the whole multitude of the clergy can become heretical say that even if all the clergy were to become heretical the church would not on that account lose the power of having the things referred to above, although it could never have them by human power but by the miraculous working of the divine. For if all the clergy were to become heretics God could in various ways ordain priests and bishops from some lay catholics. For he could do this by his will alone and could reveal it to his church too. Once this revelation occurred and was confirmed by a miracle all catholics would be bound to consider those so ordained by God as true bishops and priests. |
|
Discipulus Istud non est probabile quod Deus taliter episcopos et sacerdotes ordinaret. |
Student: It is not likely that God would ordain bishops and priests in that way. |
|
Magister Dicunt isti quod sicut temerarium est asserere quod Deus taliter episcopos et sacerdotes ordinabit, ita eciam temerarium est hoc negare, quia hoc esset de futuris temere divinare. Dicere vero quod Deus non possit hoc facere reputant heresim manifestam, quia in articulum fidei de omnipotencia Dei impudenter impingit. |
Master: They say that just as it is rash to affirm that God will ordain bishops and priests in this way, so also is it rash to deny this, because this would be rashly to predict future events. Indeed they regard it as a manifest heresy to say that God can not do this because it impudently strikes against an article of faith about God's omnipotence. |
|
Discipulus Dic responsionem istorum ad ultimum medium. |
Student: Tell me their reply to the last reason. |
|
Magister Ad ultimum respondetur quod qui separat se a tota multitudine clericorum quando sunt catholici non potest cum ecclesia Dei pacem habere. Et in hoc casu debent intelligi verba Cypriani. Quando autem omnes clerici essent heretici, qui non separaret se ab eorum collegio, saltem spiritualiter, et ignorancia probabili minime laboraret, cum ecclesia Dei pacem nequaquam haberet. |
Master: Their reply to the last is that whoever separates himself from the multitude of the clergy when they are catholic can not have peace with the church of God. And it is about such a case that Cyprian's words should be understood. When all the clergy were heretics, however, whoever did not separate himself from their college, at least spiritually, and was not labouring under probable ignorance, would not have peace with the church of God. |
Capitulum 32 |
Chapter 32 |
|
Discipulus Licet teneam quod tota multitudo clericorum non possit contra fidem errare, nolo te tamen ad raciones in contrarium respondere quia conabor per meditacionem propriam responsiones ad ipsas racionabiles invenire, de quibus post presentis operis complecionem intendo tecum collacionem habere. Nunc autem quia videbaris innuere aliquos affirmare quod tota multitudo virorum, et clericorum et laicorum, potest contra fidem errare, peto ut aliqua motiva pro dicta assercione invenire nitaris. |
Student: Although I maintain that the whole multitude of the clergy can not err against faith, I nevertheless do not want you to reply to the arguments to the contrary because I will try to find reasonable responses to them by my own meditation. I intend to have a discussion with you about them after the completion of this present work. Now, however, since you seemed to imply that some people affirm that the whole multitude of men, both clergy and lay, can err against faith, I beg you to try to find some reasons for that assertion. |
That all males can err |
|
|
Magister Verum est quosdam tenere quod tota multitudo virorum potest contra fidem errare et quod fides catholica posset in mulieribus catholicis conservari. Pro quibus principale motivum est in promptu, quod est tale sicut sepe tactum est prius. Unica est ecclesia militans que contra fidem errare non potest, quia nusquam invenitur quod sint plures ecclesie militantes que contra fidem errare non possint. Multitudo autem virorum non est illa unica ecclesia que contra fidem errare non potest, sed est solummodo pars illius ecclesie quando viri sunt catholici. Si enim viri non essent pars illius ecclesie sed tota illa unica ecclesia que errare non potest, nulla mulier salvaretur, quia nulla persona viatrix salvatur nisi sit de illa ecclesia militante que errare non potest. Si autem multitudo virorum non est illa ecclesia unica que errare non potest, sequitur quod tota multitudo virorum potest contra fidem errare. |
Master: It is true that some people maintain that the whole multitude of men can err against faith and that the catholic faith could be preserved in catholic women. The main argument for these [assertions] is manifest and is of a kind touched on often above. The church militant which can not err against faith is only one, because nowhere do we find that there are several churches militant which can not err against faith. The multitude of men is not that one single church which can not err against faith, however, but is only part of that church when the men are catholic. For if men were not part of that church but the whole of that single church that can not err, no woman would be saved, because no female pilgrim is saved unless she is part of that church militant that can not err. If however the multitude of men is not that single church which can not err, it follows that the whole multitude of men can err against faith. |
|
Secundum motivum eorum est tale. Tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem errare; ergo et tota multitudo virorum potest contra fidem errare. Consequencia probatur, quia tota multitudo virorum et tota multitudo clericorum non differunt nisi sicut due partes ecclesie militantis, quarum una est maior et altera minor. Sed non apparet racio quare non ita possit pars maior errare sicut minor, quia quod tota multitudo virorum non possit errare non potest aliqua racio cogitari, nisi propter maiorem sapienciam virorum quam mulierum, vel propter maiorem sanctitatem, vel propter maiorem capacitatem ecclesiastice potestatis, scilicet ordinum et clavium ecclesie et potestatis conficiendi corpus Christi et dispensandi ecclesiastica sacramenta. Sed ex omnibus istis potest eque concludi quod tota multitudo clericorum non potest contra fidem errare, sicut quod tota multitudo virorum non potest contra fidem errare, sicut ex precedentibus patere videtur. Si ergo tota multitudo clericorum potest contra fidem errare, eciam tota multitudo virorum poterit hereticari; sed tota multitudo clericorum potest hereticari, sicut dicunt superius esse probatum; ergo, etc. |
Their second reason is the following one. The whole multitude of the clergy can err against faith; therefore the whole multitude of men can also err against faith. The consequence is proved, because the whole multitude of men and the whole multitude of the clergy differ only as two parts of the church militant, of which one is greater and the other lesser. But there is no apparent reason why the greater part can not err just as the lesser can, because no reason can be thought of why the whole multitude of men can not err except that men are wiser than women or holier or have a greater capacity for ecclesiastical power, that is for the orders and keys of the church, for the power of consecrating the body of Christ and for dispensing ecclesiastical sacraments. But from all those points it can equally be concluded that the whole multitude of the clergy can not err against faith as that the whole multitude of men can not err against faith, as seems clear from what was said before. If the whole multitude of the clergy can err against faith, therefore, the whole multitude of men can also become heretical; but the whole multitude of the clergy can become heretical as, they say, was proved above; therefore, etc. |
|
Tercium motivum est tale. Illud quod semel accidit et non est revelatum a Deo quod numquam de cetero eveniet, nec per racionem naturalem potest probari quod non sit venturum, temerarium est asserere quod numquam eveniet. Sed aliquando tota multitudo virorum contra fidem erravit, scilicet tempore passionis Christi. Tunc enim tota fides ecclesie Christiane in matre Christi remansit. Non est autem revelatum a Deo quod hoc postea numquam fiet, et constat quod per racionem naturalem probari non potest. Ergo absque temeritate minime affirmatur quod numquam tota multitudo virorum contra fidem errabit. |
A third reason is the following. It is rash to assert that that will never come about which has happened once and of which it neither has been revealed by God that it will not come about again nor can be proved by natural reason that it will not happen. But the whole multitude of men did once err against faith, namely, at the time of Christ's passion. For then the whole faith of the Christian church remained in the mother of Christ. It has not been revealed by God, however, that this will never happen afterwards, and it is certain that this can not be proved by natural reason. It is not affirmed without rashness, therefore, that the whole multitude of men will never err against faith. |
|
Discipulus Christus revelavit apostolis quod numquam tota multitudo virorum errabit cum dicit Matthei ultimo, "Ecce vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummacionem seculi." Non dixit hoc eis pro ipsis apostolis, quia ipsi erant ante finem seculi morituri. Ergo dixit eis pro successoribus eorundem. |
Student: Christ revealed to the apostles that the whole multitude of men will never err when he says in the last Chapter of Matthew [28:20], "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." He did not say this to them in reference to the apostles themselves because they would die before the end of the age. Therefore he said it to them in reference to their successors. |
|
Magister Hoc non reputant isti concludere, quia Christus verba predicta dixit apostolis pro fidelibus credentibus et credituris in eum. Ita autem erant mulieres crediture in ipsum sicut viri. Quare verba Christi ad viros restringi non debent. Propter idem, dicunt quod verba Christi cum dixit Petro, "Ego pro te rogavi Petre ut non deficiat fides tua", ad viros sunt minime coarctanda. |
Master: They do not think that this is conclusive, because Christ said those words to the apostles in reference to the faithful who were believers and would be believers in him. However women would believe in him in this way just like men. Therefore Christ's words should not be restricted to men. For the same reason, they say that Christ's words when he said to Peter [Luke 22:32], "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not", should not be restricted to men. |
Capitulum 33 |
Chapter 33 |
|
Discipulus Non est aliquo modo credendum quod tota multitudo virorum contra fidem errabit, sicut nec est credendum quod infideles totam Christianitatem occupabunt. Hoc enim Scripture Divine et verbis videtur apertissime Christi obviare. Christus enim, ut legitur Matthei 24, predicens destruccionem templi et Iudaici populi que facta fuit postea per Titum et Vespasianum dixit, "Erit enim tunc tribulacio magna, qualis numquam fuit ab inicio mundi usque modo, nec fiet, et nisi breviati fuissent dies illi, non fieret salva omnis caro." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod numquam futura est tanta tribulacio quanta fuit facta per Romanos. Si autem tota Christianitas, quantum ad viros, destrueretur, multo maior esset tribulacio Christianorum quam illa quam fecerunt Romani. Ergo numquam tota multitudo virorum Christianorum destruetur, et per consequens numquam errabit contra fidem. |
Student: It should in no way be believed that the whole multitude of men will err against faith, just as it should not be believed that unbelievers will occupy the whole of Christianity. For this seems very clearly to conflict with divine scripture and the words of Christ. For as we read in Matthew 24[:21-2], when Christ foretold the destruction of the temple and the Jewish people that was later carried out by Titus and Vespasian he said, "For there shall be then great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved." We gather from these words that there will never be as great a suffering as that caused by the Romans. However if all the men of Christianity were destroyed there would be a much greater suffering of Christians than that which the Romans caused. Therefore the whole multitude of Christian men will never be destroyed and, as a consequence, will never err against faith. |
|
Item, maxima futura aversio Christianorum a fide erit tempore Antichristi, sed tempore eius remanebunt plures viri Christiani fideles, ipsa veritate attestante, que, ut habetur Matthei 24 c., loquens de persecucione futura tempore Antichristi, ait, "Surgent pseudo Christi et pseudo prophete et dabunt signa magna et prodigia ita ut in errorem inducantur, si fieri potest, etiam electi." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod tempore Antichristi aliqui erunt sancti viri electi qui in errorem minime inducentur. Quod beatus Iohannes in Apocalipsi in diversis locis testari videtur. |
Again, the greatest turning away from the faith by Christians in the future will be in the time of anti-Christ, but at that time many Christian men will remain faithful, as the Truth himself attests. Speaking about a future persecution at the time of anti-Christ he says, as we find in Matthew 24[:24], 'For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and will show great signs and wonders, in so much as to deceive, if possible, even the elect." We gather from these words that in the time of anti-Christ there will be some elect holy men who will not be led into error. Blessed John seems to attest to this in various places in Revelations. |
|
Hec sunt inter alia que assercionem prefatam de improbabilitate convincunt aperte, et licet de conclusione non dubitem, tamen quomodo potest ad ista responderi, ut clarius veritatem intelligam ac de multis que ad istam spectant materiam occasionem habeam cogitandi, pandere velis. |
These are [some texts] among others which plainly convict that aforesaid assertion of improbability, and although I do not doubt the conclusion would you nevertheless make known how those [texts] can be replied to, so that I might understand the truth more clearly and have the opportunity of thinking about many things that pertain to that matter. |
Capitulum 34 |
Chapter 34 |
|
Magister Vis ut tibi quid senciam de predictis aperiam? |
Master: Do you want me to reveal what I think about the foregoing? |
|
Discipulus Nolo ut quid tenes in mente reveles, sed responsiones aliquas que cogitari et teneri poterunt a quocumque non differas recitare? |
Student: I do not want you to disclose what you think in your own mind, but would you not hesitate to recite some replies that could be thought of and maintained by someone? |
|
Magister Hoc pacto, ut omnia que narrabo non aliter accipiantur nisi quod aliquis questionum difficilium indagator potest dicenda putare consona veritati, quomodo ad predictas instancias respondere contingat ostendam. |
Master: If we agree that everything I say will be taken only as what some investigator of difficult questions can consider should be said as harmonious with the truth, I will show how it is possible to reply to the above examples. |
|
Discipulus Hoc pactum feci tecum pro toto opere isto, quod volo servare, et ut tu serves exoro. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 41.]Student: I have made this agreement with you for the whole work and want to keep it, and I ask you to keep it. |
|
Magister Volo eciam quod dicenda fratri M. et eius sequacibus nequaquam imponas. Sicut enim in precedentibus multas recitavi sentencias que assercionibus domini Iohannis et suorum sequacium obviant manifeste, quas tamen frater M. et sui sequaces minime opinantur, ymmo nonnullas impugnare nituntur, ita in parte futura operis huius, nisi tu nolueris, plura referam que predicti frater M. et sui sequaces satagunt improbare. |
Master: I also want you not to attribute the things to be said to brother M[ichael] and his followers. For just as I have recorded many opinions in what has been said above that openly conflict with assertions of the lord John and his followers, which nevertheless brother M[ichael] and his followers do not maintain, some of which indeed they try to attack, so in the future part of this work I will discuss many things, unless you do not want me to, which brother M[ichael] and his followers try to disprove. |
|
Discipulus Quod istum modum teneas a principio affectavi, quia sentencias contrarias quorumcumque catholicorum, et etiam interdum illas que a nullo Christiano tenentur, licet possint habere catholicos vel hereticos defensores, te desidero recitare. Sic enim multiplicius et efficacius exercitabimus ingenia studiosorum. |
Student: I have wanted you to hold to this method from the start because I want you to record the opposing opinions of all catholics, and even sometimes those [opinions] which are held by no Christian although they can have catholic or heretical defenders. For in this way we will exercise more variously and more effectively the wit of the studious. |
|
Magister Pactis suppositis memoratis, quomodo ad instancias allegatas poterit responderi tue curiositati satagam explanare. Ad primam itaque dupliciter potest dici. Primo quod verba Christi prefata, "Erit tunc tribulacio magna," etc., ad litteram intellecta, de persecucione facta per Titum et Vespasianum non debent intelligi, quod manifeste videtur posse probari. Primo quia tribulacio facta per diluvium, quando in universo mundo 8 scilicet anime tantummodo salvabantur, erat multo maior tribulacione que facta est per Titum et Vespasianum, eo quod multe anime tunc salvate fuerunt. |
Master: With that agreement in place I will try to explain for your curiosity how it is possible to reply to the objections brought forward. And so two things can be said to the first [objection]. The first is that Christ's words, For there shall be then great tribulation," etc., taken literally, should not be understood of the persecution undertaken by Titus and Vespasian. This seems to be obviously provable, firstly because the suffering caused by the flood, that is when there were only eight souls saved in the whole world, was much greater than the suffering caused by Titus and Vespasian since then there were many souls saved. |
|
Discipulus Verba Christi predicta non intelliguntur de tribulacione generali universorum mortalium, qualis fuit illa que facta fuit per diluvium, sed de tribulacione particulari et speciali Iudeorum, quorum non fuit maior quam illa que facta fuit per Romanos. |
Student: Those words of Christ are not meant of the general suffering of all mortals, which was the kind brought about by the flood, but of the particular and special suffering of the Jews, of which there was none greater than that brought about by the Romans. |
|
Magister Hec responsio potest taliter impugnari. Christus enim ibidem non loquitur de tribulacione speciali Iudeorum tantummodo, sed eciam loquitur de tribulacione aliarum gencium et regnorum, cum premittat ibidem dicens, "Consurget enim gens in gentem et regnum in regnum," etc. Que verba de Iudea tantummodo, que fuit unicum regnum, non possunt intelligi. Verba ergo Christi cum dicit "Erit enim tunc tribulacio magna," etc., de tribulacione Iudeorum quam intulerunt Romani non debent intelligi. Intelliguntur ergo vel de tribulacione generali cunctorum vivencium vel de tribulacione speciali alicuius gentis vel aliquarum gencium determinatarum. Non possunt intelligi de tribulacione generali, quia illa que facta fuit per diluvium maior fuit quam illa quam fecere Romani. Nec possunt intelligi de tribulacione speciali gentis vel gencium facta per Romanos, quia tribulacio Sodomorum, in qua omnes perierunt, maior fuit quam tribulacio per Romanos illata. Ergo verba Christi predicta de tribulacione que facta fuit per Romanos non debent intelligi. |
Master: This reply can be attacked as follows. For Christ is not talking there only about the particular suffering of the Jews but he is talking also of the suffering of other peoples and kingdoms, since just before that he says [Matthew 24:7], "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom," etc. These words can not be understood about Judea only which was a single kingdom. So the words of Christ when he says, "For there shall be then great tribulation," etc., should not be understood of the suffering inflicted on the Jews by the Romans. They are understood, therefore, either of the general suffering of all those who are alive or of the particular suffering of some certain people or peoples. They can not be understood of general suffering, because that which was brought about by the flood was greater than that which the Romans brought about, nor can they be understood of the particular suffering of a people or peoples brought about by the Romans, because the suffering of the people of Sodom, in which everyone perished, was greater than the suffering inflicted by the Romans. [See Significant Variants, para. 42.]The above words of Christ, therefore, should not be understood of the suffering that was brought about by the Romans. |
|
Discipulus Potestne probari aliter quod verba Christi prefata non debent intelligi de tribulacione facta per Romanos tempore Titi et Vespasiani? |
Student: Can it be proved in another way that those words of Christ should not be understood of the suffering brought about by the Romans in the time of Titus and Vespasian? |
|
Magister Aliter ostenditur sic. Tribulacio que erit tempore antichristi maior erit quam tribulacio que fuit facta per Romanos. Ergo de tribulacione facta per Romanos non debent illa verba intelligi. |
Master: It is shown in another way as follows. The suffering that will occur at the time of anti-Christ will be greater than the suffering that was brought about by the Romans. Therefore those words should not be understood as the suffering brought about by the Romans. |
|
Discipulus De qua tribulacione ergo debent intelligi? |
Student: So, about what suffering should they be understood? |
|
Magister Potest dici quod verba illa debent intelligi specialiter de tribulacione fidelium, qui scilicet rectam fidem tenent de Deo, inter quos quidam sunt electi et alii ad penam eternam sunt presciti; et non de quacumque tribulacione, sed de tribulacione que erit sub Antichristo quando tantam habebunt tribulacionem quantam rectam fidem tenentes numquam habuerunt, licet sepe infideles maiorem tribulacionem habuerint et sint forsitan habituri. Tribulacio enim facta per diluvium respectu infidelium erat maior quam erit tribulacio tempore antichristi respectu fidelium, quia tunc omnes infideles pariter perierunt, sed respectu fidelium non erit tanta tempore antichristi quia non omnes fideles peribunt. Maior eciam fuit tribulacio Sodomorum quando quinque civitates subverse fuerunt quam erit tribulacio fidelium tempore antichristi. Et ita sepe maior fuit tribulacio infidelium quam erit illa tribulacio quam Christus predixit futuram, que tamen forsitan erit tanta quod fideles paucissimi remanebunt firmi in fide. Et an illi fideles erunt viri vel mulieres, solus Deus novit et illi quibus Deus specialiter revelavit. |
Master: It can be said that those words should be understood particularly of the suffering of the faithful, of those, that is, who maintain a right faith in God, among whom some have been chosen and others foreknown for eternal punishment; and not of any suffering at all, but the suffering that will come about under anti-Christ when they will have so great a suffering as those maintaining right faith never had [before], although often unbelievers have had greater suffering and perhaps will have in the future. For the suffering brought about to unbelievers by the flood was greater than will be the suffering of believers in the time of anti-Christ, because then all the unbelievers perished together, but it will not be so great for believers at the time of anti-Christ because not all of them will perish. Greater too was the suffering of the people of Sodom when five cities were destroyed than will be the suffering of believers in the time of anti-Christ. And so the suffering of unbelievers has often been worse than will be the suffering that Christ predicted will come. This will nevertheless perhaps be so great that very few believers will remain firm in faith. And whether those believers will be men or women, only God knows and those to whom God has particularly revealed it. |
|
Ad secundam instanciam potest dici quod electi comprehendunt viros et mulieres, et ideo per hoc quod iuxta promissionem Christi tempore antichristi remanebunt electi, non potest concludi quod illi electi erunt viri. Mulieres enim poterunt tunc esse electe. |
To the second objection it can be said that the elect include men and women, and so from the fact of Christ's promise that in the time of anti-Christ the elect will endure, it can not be concluded that those elect will be men. For women will be able to be elect then. |
|
Discipulus Videtur quod illi qui tenent predictam assercionem non multum reputarent de stabilitate et constancia Christianorum. |
Student: It seems that those who maintain that assertion do not think much of the stability and constancy of Christians. |
|
Magister Est quedam assercio qua affirmatur aperte quod temerarium est asserere omni tempore futuros Christianos qui erunt constanciores in fide quam fuerint Iudei. Quamvis enim fuerint Christiani in fide constantissimi, et aliqui firmi in fide sint futuri, tamen nescitur ab aliquo viatore, nisi alicui Deus revelaverit, an multitudo catholicorum ad illam paucitatem deveniet in qua fuit tempore Noe et temporibus Patriarcharum et in veteri lege, et an Sarraceni vel alii infideles omnes regiones Christianorum et fidelium occupabunt. In talibus enim aliquid diffinire est de futuris temere divinare. Poterit enim Deus, exigentibus Christianorum demeritis, permittere omnes ab infidelibus subiugari et, paucis exceptis, ad sectam eorum converti. Qui postea poterit, si voluerit, sua pietate totum mundum ad fidem convertere, quemadmodum per paucos discipulos magnam partem mundi fidei subiugavit. Et ideo sunt quidam dicentes quod si Sarraceni vel alii infideles Christianitatem invaserint, temere Christiani presument se per divinam potenciam protegendos, si terras suas, disseminatis iam undique terrarum heresibus, symoniis, persecucionibus, diffamacionibus et calumpniis innocencium, violentis iudiciis, guerris, dissencionibus et discordiis rerum et dominiorum ac iurium, occupacionibus et invasionibus alienorum, ambicionibus, accepcionibus personarum, distribucionibus impiis et iniquis honorum, iracundia, invidia et iniusticiis ac aliis viciis spiritualibus ac carnalibus innumerabilibus quibus tota vel fere tota Christianitas videtur infecta, neglexerint expurgare. Omnibus enim hereticis et fautoribus eorum ac nequiciis aliis involutis extinctis terrisque omnium Christianorum ab infidelibus occupatis, poterit Deus eciam per duos vel tres aut 12 vel 20 seu plures quos elegerit orthodoxos multiplicare plusquam umquam fuerint Christianos ac terram sanctam, et maiores quam umquam habuerint regiones, infidelibus extirpatis, eorum subdere dicioni. Quid tamen de predictis eveniet nolunt, cum se spiritum prophecie habere non reputant, divinare. Et ideo concedunt, quemadmodum predixisti, quod non est credendum quod umquam infideles totam Christianitatem occupabunt; nec est credendum quod totam christianitatem nullatenus occupabunt; neutrum enim est certum nisi Deo et cui Deus revelavit, quamvis dicant nonnulli quod tempore antichristi tanta erit persecucio et extinccio catholicorum quod omnis regio in universo orbe erit per infideles vel apostatas occupata. Et an simile quid eveniet vel non eveniet ante tempora antichristi, dicunt quod per Scripturam Divinam vel doctrinam universalis ecclesie sciri non potest. |
Master: There is a certain assertion that openly affirms that it is rash to assert that at any time there will be Christians who will be more constant in faith than were the Jews. For although Christians have been very constant in faith, and some will be firm in faith in the future, it can nevertheless not be known by any pilgrim, except one God has revealed it to, whether the multitude of catholics will come to as small a number as there was in the time of Noah, the times of the Patriarchs and under the old law, and whether Saracens or other unbelievers will occupy all the lands of Christians and believers. For to decide something in such matters is rashly to predict future events. For when the faults of Christians demand it God will be able to allow all of them to be subjugated by unbelievers and, with few exceptions, to be converted to their sect. Afterwards, if he wants to, he will be able to convert the whole world to the faith through their [the few's] piety, just as he subjugated a great part of the world to the faith through a few disciples. And so some people say that if the Saracens or other unbelievers invade Christianity it will be rash for Christians to presume that they are to be protected by divine power, if they have neglected to purify their lands, throughout every part of which by now have spread heresies, simony, persecutions, slanders and false charges against the innocent, violent judgements, wars, disagreements and discords about possessions, lordships and rights, occupations and invasions of things belonging to others, ambitions, favouritism of persons, impious and wicked distribution of honours, anger, envy and injustices and innumerable other spiritual and carnal vices with which all, or almost all, of Christianity seems to be infected. For if all the heretics and those who favour them and those involved in other evils are killed and the lands of all Christians are occupied by unbelievers God will also be able by means of two or three or 12 or 20 or more of the orthodox whom he will choose to increase Christians and holy land more than ever before and, with the unbelievers rooted out, to subject more lands than they ever had before to their control. Nevertheless they refuse to predict what will happen about those matters since they do not regard themselves as having the spirit of prophecy. And therefore they grant, as you said before, that it should not be believed that unbelievers will ever occupy the whole of Christianity; nor should it be believed that they will not occupy the whole of Christianity; for neither [of these alternatives] is certain except to God and anyone to whom God has revealed it, even if some people say that in the time of anti-Christ the persecution and annihilation of catholics will be so great that every region throughout the whole world will be occupied by unbelievers and apostates. And they say that it can not be known from divine scripture or the teaching of the universal church whether something similar will happen or will not happen before the times of anti-Christ. |
|
Discipulus Certum est quod fides Christi usque ad finem seculi permanebit. Ergo certum est quod numquam infideles totam Christianitatem occupabunt. |
Student: It is certain that faith in Christ will persist to the end of the age. Therefore it is certain that unbelievers will never occupy the whole of Christianity. |
|
Magister Respondent dicentes quod male arguis, quia fides Christi poterit remanere in catholicis dispersis et latitantibus in terris ab infidelibus occupatis, quemadmodum nunc Iudei aliqui et Sarraceni, licet publice in terris Christianorum manent. |
Master: They reply by saying that you are arguing badly, because faith in Christ will be able to persist among catholics who are scattered and hiding in the lands occupied by unbelievers, just as it is now with some Jews and Saracens, (although they remain publicly in the lands of Christians). |
Capitulum 35 |
Chapter 35 |
|
Discipulus Istam assercionem tam absurdam extimo quod ipsam dignam reprobacione maiori non censeo. Ideo ipsa dimissa ad complendam materiam quam incepi volo te aliam magis racionabilem breviter pertractare. Queso enim ut michi reveles an aliqui senciant quod tota multitudo Christianorum valeat heretica pravitate fedari. |
Student: I think that assertion so absurd that I do not consider it worthy of further condemnation. So, putting it aside, I want you briefly to investigate another more reasonable one in order to complete the matter that I began. For I ask you to disclose to me whether some people think that the whole multitude of Christians can be stained by heretical wickedness. |
CAN THE WHOLE BODY OF CHRISTIANS BECOME HERETICS? |
|
|
Magister Iudei et Sarraceni et pagani firmissime tenent fidem Christianorum esse erroneam. |
Master: Jews, Saracens and pagans maintain very strongly that the Christian faith is wrong. |
|
Discipulus Non intendo querere de illis sed de Christianis, sub Christianis eciam hereticos comprehendendo. |
Student: I am not intending to ask about them, but about Christians, including heretics too among Christians. |
|
Magister Nescio aliquem Christianum qui hoc teneat. |
Master: I do not know any Christian who would maintain this. |
|
Discipulus Licet nescias Christianum aliquem hoc tenere, tamen pro hoc aliquas raciones excogitare nitaris. |
Student: Although you do not know that any Christian maintains this, would you nevertheless try to think of some arguments for it. |
|
Magister Ad conclusionem falsam nulla racio nisi sophistica potest adduci. |
Master: No argument except a sophistical one can be brought forward for a false conclusion. |
|
Discipulus Consencio quod pro assercione predicta nulla valet racio nisi sophistica allegari, tamen sepe raciones apparentes et difficiles ad solvendum pro falsis inducuntur. Unde qualescumque invenire coneris. |
Student: I agree that no argument except a sophistical one can be adduced for that assertion; yet arguments which are persuasive and difficult to resolve are often introduced on behalf of falsities, so would you try to find some like that. |
|
Magister Quod tota multitudo Christianorum usum racionis habencium possit contra fidem errare tali racione probatur. Quantum ad possibilitatem errandi et peccandi idem iudicium est habendum de multis et de paucis arbitrii libertatem et peccabilitatem habentibus. Sed parva multitudo Christianorum propter libertatem arbitrii et peccabilitatem potest contra fidem errare. Ergo et propter eandem causam tota multitudo Christianorum potest contra fidem errare. Confirmatur hec racio, quia ubi est eadem causa debet esse idem effectus. Causa autem quare Christianus potest contra fidem errare est quia nemo credit nisi volens, eo quod articuli fidei non sunt de se evidentes. Sed ista causa reperitur in tota multitudine Christianorum quia articuli fidei non sunt evidentes toti multitudini, et ideo ipsa non credit nisi volens. Ergo ita poterit tota multitudo Christianorum errare sicut unus solus. |
Master: That the whole multitude of Christians having the use of reason can err against faith is proved by the following argument. With respect to the possibility of erring and sinning, the same judgement should be made about many who have freedom of will and ability to sin and about few who have them. But on account of their freedom of will and ability to sin a small multitude of Christians can err against faith. For the same reason therefore, the whole multitude of Christians can err against faith. This argument is confirmed, because where there is the same cause there should be the same effect. However, the reason why a Christian can err against faith is because no one has a belief unless they will it, in that the articles of faith are not self evident. But that cause is found among the whole multitude of Christians because the articles of faith are not evident to the whole multitude, and so they do not believe except willingly. Therefore the whole multitude of Christians will be able to err in the same way as one single one can. |
|
Secunda racio talis est. Illa multitudo que non est confirmata in fide potest contra fidem errare, sicut illa multitudo usum racionis habencium que non est confirmata in gracia potest peccare. Tota autem multitudo Christianorum non est confirmata in fide, quia nullus Christianus in hac vita est confirmatus in fide. Ergo multo forcius tota multitudo non est confirmata in fide. Ergo tota potest contra fidem errare. |
A second argument is the following. That multitude that has not been confirmed in faith can err against faith, just as that multitude of those who have the use of reason which has not been confirmed in grace can sin. The whole multitude of Christians, however, has not been confirmed in faith because no Christian has been confirmed in faith in this life. A fortiori, therefore, the whole multitude has not been confirmed in faith. Therefore the whole can err against faith. |
|
Tercia racio est hec. Illa multitudo quando est sola potest contra fidem errare que valet errare contra fidem postquam alii sunt sibi adiuncti, per quos nichil necessario bonitatis aut virtutis sibi diminuitur sed magis accrescit, quia eadem multitudo est forcior cum aliis sibi conferentibus quam sola; sed tota multitudo Christianorum que nunc est, si ipsa manente integra nullo ex ea penitus pereunte, postquam multi alii effecti fuerint Christiani ac sacerdotes et episcopi, poterit contra fidem errare. Ergo eadem multitudo, si sola remanserit nullo alio effecto Christiano, antequam aliquis alius fidem susceperit, poterit contra fidem errare. Et ita hec est possibilis: tota multitudo Christianorum errat contra fidem. |
A third argument is this. That multitude can err against faith when it is alone which can err against faith when others, by whom none of its goodness or virtue is necessarily decreased but rather increased, have been added to it, because the same multitude is stronger with the others joining it than alone; but if the whole multitude of Christians which now exists remains complete, with no one at all from among it dying, it will be able to err in faith after many others have become Christians and priests and bishops; therefore if the same multitude remains alone, with no one else becoming Christian, it will be able to err against faith before anyone else receives the faith. And so this is possible: the whole multitude of Christians errs against faith. |
|
Quarta racio est hec. Nulla auctoritate videtur posse probari quin possibile sit omnes Christianos preter duos episcopos contra fidem errare, quia omnes promissiones Christi de fide usque ad finem seculi duratura salvari possunt si omni tempore ad minus duo episcopi catholici fuerint et fideles. Ponatur ergo quod omnes Christiani heretici efficiantur preter duos episcopos; quo posito, probatur quod illi duo episcopi, antequam aliquis alius efficiatur catholicus, possunt contra fidem errare. Quod ostenditur primo sic: neuter illorum est tunc confirmatus in fide; ergo uterque illorum potest contra fidem errare. Secundo sic: non maior cura esset Deo de illis duobus episcopis eo quod essent soli fideles quam fuit de primis duobus parentibus quando erant soli fideles. Sed primi parentes quando erant soli potuissent contra fidem errare. Ergo et illi episcopi possent contra fidem errare. |
A fourth argument is this. It does not seem provable by any authoritative text that it is not possible for all Christians apart from two bishops to err against faith, because all Christ's promises about faith lasting to the end of the age can be preserved if there are at any time at least two catholic and faithful bishops. Let it be assumed, therefore, that all Christians become heretics except for two bishops. With this assumed it is proved that those two bishops can err against faith before anyone else becomes a catholic. This is shown firstly thus: neither of them has been confirmed in faith at the time; therefore either of them can err against faith. [It is shown] secondly thus: God would not have a greater care for those two bishops because they would be the only believers, than he had for our two first parents when they were the only believers; but our first parents could have erred against faith when they were alone; therefore those bishops too would be able to err against faith. |
|
Quinta racio probat specialiter quod tota multitudo Christianorum virorum et mulierum usum racionis habencium potest contra fidem errare, quia tota illa multitudo potest contra fidem errare qua errante salvantur omnes promissiones Christi de fide usque ad consummacionem seculi permansura. Sed, errante tota multitudine Christianorum virorum ac mulierum usum racionis habencium, possunt salvari promissiones Christi de fide mansura. Nam Christus vere est spiritualiter cum parvulis baptizatis per graciam et virtutes. Fides eciam beati Petri pro qua Christus rogavit nequaquam deficeret quia reperiretur in parvulis. Parvuli enim habent habitum fidei. Ergo errante tota multitudine Christianorum habencium usum racionis possunt salvari promissiones Christi per parvulos baptizatos. Ergo temerarium est asserere quod numquam tota multitudo Christianorum usum racionis habencium contra fidem errabit. |
A fifth argument proves particularly that the whole multitude of Christian men and women who have use of reason can err against faith because that whole multitude can err against faith if all Christ's promises about faith lasting to the end of the age are kept despite their erring. But if the whole multitude of Christian men and women who have the use of reason err, Christ's promises about the faith persisting can be kept. For spiritually Christ is truly with baptised infants through grace and virtues. And so Peter's faith, for which Christ asked, would not fail because it would be found in infants. For infants have the habit of faith. If the whole multitude of Christians who have use of reason err, therefore, Christ's promises can be kept through baptised infants. Therefore it is rash to affirm that the whole multitude of Christians who have use of reason will never err against faith. |