|
|
Capitulum 65 |
Chapter 65 |
|
Discipulus: Quamvis adhuc
de fautoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis essent investiganda
quamplura, de quibus, applicando ad determinatas personas, in
tractatu De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam sollicite
indagabo, tamen illis obmissis transeo ad defensores hereticorum et
heretice pravitatis, de quibus in primis peto ut narres michi qui
defensores hereticorum et heretice pravitatis sunt censendi. |
Student: Although many matters pertaining to
abettors of heretics and of heretical wickedness would still require
to be investigated, (and I shall scrupulously proceed to do so, with
reference to specific persons, in the treatise On the deeds of those
disputing about orthodox faith), nevertheless, putting these matters
aside, I now focus attention on defenders of heretics and of
heretical wickedness, and as to these I request first of all that you
would explain to me who are to be identified as defenders of heretics
and of heretical wickedness. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod cum defendere rem aliquam
sit ab impugnatione tueri vel rei impugnate contra impugnantem opem
ferre, impugnatio autem tripliciter fieri potest, scilicet verbo,
scripto, et facto, multipliciter contingit defendere hereticos et
hereticam pravitatem, secundum quod heretici et heretica pravitas
possunt multipliciter impugnari. Hereticus enim impugnari potest
facto alicuius qui conatur hereticum captivare, aut detinere, aut
iudici presentare, vel trahere ad iudicium ut de eo fiat iustitie
complementum. Potest etiam impugnari verbo et hoc multipliciter, vel
in iudicio cum rite et debite accusatur, vel extra iudicium, cum eius
perfidia per predicatores et doctores, prelatos aut alios non
ignaros, nescientibus ut caveant nunciatur. Scripto etiam impugnari
potest, in iudicio cum contra eum scribitur, vel extra iudicium cum
eius perfidia rationibus et auctoritatibus demonstratur, et
absentibus per epistolas intimatur. Heretica autem pravitas verbo et
scripto poterit impugnari. Verbo quidem, cum in sermonibus aut
lectionibus vel secretis colloquiis reprobatur. Scripto vero, cum ad
reprobandam hereticam pravitatem scripta catholica componuntur. |
Master: The answer is that since to defend some
thing is to protect it from attack or to render assistance against an
attacker thereof, while an attack may be undertaken in three ways,
namely, verbally, in writing, or by deed, one may defend heretics and
heretical wickedness in many ways, just as heretics and heretical
wickedness may be attacked in many ways. For a heretic may be
attacked by the action of someone who attempts to capture him, or to
arrest him, or to bring him before a judge, or to haul him off to
judgement so that justice might take its final course concerning him.
[=execution GK] A heretic may also be attacked verbally, and this in
many ways, either when he is duly and properly accused in court, or
outside of the courtroom when preachers and doctors, prelates, or
others in the know, reveal his treachery to the uninformed so that
the latter may take precautions. A heretic may also be attacked in
writing: in court when one writes against him, or outside of the
courtroom when his treachery is demonstrated by reasons and
authorities, and the absent informed of it by letters. Heretical
wickedness, for its part, may be attacked verbally and in writing.
Verbally: when it is castigated in sermons or lectures or in secret
discussions; and in writing, when catholic works are composed to
condemn heretical wickedness. |
|
Ex hiis colligitur quod contingit hereticos et pravitatem hereticam
multipliciter defendere, et quot modis contingit hereticos et
pravitatem hereticam impugnare, tot modis et forte pluribus defendi
possent. Contingit igitur defendere hereticos facto, impediendo
videlicet ne capiantur vel detineantur ut de eis fiat iustitie
complementum. Contingit etiam eos defendere verbo in iudicio et extra
iudicium, allegando quod non sunt heretici reputandi. Scripto etiam
contingit eos defendere, libros et epistolas componendo ad
ostendendum et nuntiandum quod non sunt inter hereticos computandi.
Pravitatem etiam hereticam contingit tripliciter defendere, scilicet
facto, verbo, et scripto. Facto quidem dupliciter ad presens. Uno
modo, ipsos impugnatores ab impugnatione prohibendo. Alio modo,
impugnationes et allegationes eorum scriptas destruendo, sive
comburendo sive alio modo, vel malitiose detinendo et impediendo ne
ad notitiam perveniant aliorum. Verbo etiam contingit pravitatem
hereticam defendere, allegando quod non sit inter hereses computanda,
et eodem modo contingit scripto heresim defendere. |
One gathers from these options that heretics and heretical wickedness
may be defended in many ways, and that by whatever methods one might
attack heretics and heretical wickedness, the same methods (and
possibly more) would be available for purposes of defense. Therefore,
one may defend heretics by deed, namely, by preventing their capture,
or by preventing their being arrested, so that they not suffer
justice taking its final course. One may also defend them verbally in
court, or outside of the courtroom, by maintaining that they are not
to be considered heretics. One may also defend them in writing, by
composing books and letters to prove and to proclaim that they must
not be numbered among the heretics. One may likewise defend heretical
wickedness in three ways, namely, by deed, verbally, and in writing.
And as to action two methods might be mentioned at present. One would
be to forbid its opponents to attack it. Another method would consist
in destroying their written oppositions and allegations, either by
having these burned or through some other means, or by maliciously
confiscating them and preventing them from coming to the notice of
others. One may also defend heretical wickedness verbally, by
contending that it ought not to be numbered among the heresies; and
one may similarly defend heresy in writing. |
|
Discipulus: Secundum predicta de defensoribus
hereticorum et heretice pravitatis essent quamplurima indaganda, sed
abbreviationis causa multa dimittam. Aliqua tamen queram. Porro quia
dubito, quod si unquam aliquis papa erit hereticus, perniciosior et
periculosior erit omnibus aliis hereticis qui fuerunt vel erunt
preter Antichristum magnum, si tamen idem Antichristus non erit papa,
interrogationes quas faciam de defensoribus hereticorum et heretice
pravitatis ad defensores pape heretici et sequacium eius suarumque
heresum applicabo. In primis itaque dic qua pena sint plectendi qui
de facto impediunt ne de persona pape heretici fiat iustitie
complementum, se de eius erroribus defendendis nullatenus intromittendo. |
Student: According to the aforementioned there would
be a large number of issues needing to be investigated concerning
defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness, but I shall put
aside many for the sake of brevity. Some, however, I shall pursue.
Furthermore, since I consider it arguable that if some pope were ever
to become a heretic, he would be more harmful and more dangerous than
all the other heretics past and future except for the Great
Antichrist (assuming, that is, that this Antichrist would not be the
pope himself), [cf. 1 Dial. 6.19] I shall apply any future questions
concerning the defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness to
the defenders of a heretic pope and of his followers, as well as of
his heresies. Tell me at the outset what penalty should be inflicted
on those who actively prevent justice taking its final course with
respect to the person of a heretic pope, but do not involve
themselves in the defense of his errors. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod tales impedientes et pape
heretico impedienti opem ferentes ne de ipso fiat iustitie
complementum, aut sciunt papam esse hereticum, aut ignorant, et si
ignorant, aut laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, quia nolunt aut
contempnunt aut negligunt scire papam esse hereticum, vel laborant
ignorantia probabili. Si sciunt papam esse hereticum vel ignorant et
laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, et tamen eidem opem ferunt ne
fiat de eo iustitie complementum et se de eius erroribus nullatenus
intromittunt, imo asserunt forte manifeste eius errores esse
contrarios catholice veritati, sunt defensores heretici, licet non
sunt directe defensores nec approbatores heretice pravitatis. Et ideo
penam hereticorum nequaquam incurrunt, sed in sententiam incidunt
excommunicationis et carere debent ecclesiastica sepultura (Extra, De
hereticis, Sicut, et Extra, De sententia excommunicationis,
Noverit). Alie etiam pene eorum, si in excommunicatione per
annum persistunt, taxantur Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus
1. Quedam etiam pene eorum speciales taxantur Extra, De hereticis,
Si adversus. Si autem ignorant papam esse hereticum, et
laborant ignorantia probabili, nullam penam incurrunt. |
Master: The answer is that such obstructionists, who
assist a heretic and obstructionist pope in avoiding the final course
of justice as to his person, either know that the pope is a heretic,
or they do not know it. If they do not know, then, either their
ignorance is grossly passive (for they do not want to know, or scorn
to know, or neglect to know that the pope is a heretic), or it is
justifiable. If they know that the pope is a heretic, or are ignorant
of this due to grossly passive ignorance, and yet help him to avoid
the final course of justice while not involving themselves in a
defense of his errors, perhaps even asserting openly that his errors
are contrary to catholic truth, then they are defenders of a heretic,
even if they are not directly defenders of, or assenters to,
heretical wickedness. And therefore, in no way do they incur the
punishment of heretics, but they rather lapse into a sentence of
excommunication, and cannot have the benefit of a legitimate church
burial (Extra, De hereticis, Sicut, [cols. 779-780]
and Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, Noverit).
[col. 910] And other punishments await them (mentioned in Extra, De
hereticis, Excommunicamus 1) [cols. 787-789] if they
remain excommunicated for an entire year. Some of their further
punishments are mentioned in Extra, De hereticis, Si adversus.
[cols. 783-784] But if they do not know that the pope is a heretic,
and their ignorance is justifiable, they incur no punishment. |
|
Discipulus: Nunquid scientes papam esse hereticum
vel etiam ignorantes, sed laborantes ignorantia crassa et supina, ad
quos spectat et qui possunt facere de papa heretico iustitie
complementum, si negligunt, debent inter defensores pape heretici computari. |
Student: Must those who know that the pope is a
heretic (or even those who are ignorant of this, but whose ignorance
is grossly passive), and who have authority and power to inflict
terminal justice upon a heretic pope, be classified among defenders
of a heretic pope if they neglect the performance of their function. |
|
Magister: Una est opinio quod sunt defensores pape
heretici et penam defensorum incurrunt, quemadmodum illi ad quos
spectat ex officio defendere clericum verberatum sunt fautores
eiusdem violentie et eandem penam incurrunt, si possunt defendere et
non faciunt (Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, Quante).
Alia est opinio quod tales non sunt defensores pape heretici, quia
defensio aliquem actum exteriorem importat. Tales autem nullum actum
exteriorem ad dictam defensionem pertinentem exercent. |
Master: One opinion holds that they are defenders of
a heretic pope, and incur the punishment of defenders, just as those
who have the official function of defending a battered clerk are
considered abettors of the violence he suffers, and incur the same
punishment as the batterers, if they can defend the clerk yet fail to
do so (Extra, De sententia Excommunicationis, Quante).
[col. 909] There is another opinion that such are not defenders of a
heretic pope, because a defense implies some overt action. Such
people, however, do not perform any overt action relevant to the
stated defense. |
|
Discipulus: Quid sentitur de illis qui defendunt
papam hereticum verbo vel scripto, asserendo et dicendo quod non est
hereticus reputandus. |
Student: What is the feeling concerning those who
defend a heretic pope verbally or in writing, asserting and stating
that he is not to be reputed a heretic. |
|
Magister: Hoc potest multis modis contingere. Uno
modo, verbo vel scripto asserendo et affirmando quod errores ei
impositos (quos in rei veritate pertinaciter tenet) non tenet nec
dicit, neque asserendo neque opinando neque recitando; alio modo,
quod errores dicit et tenet tantummodo opinando et eos nullatenus
pertinaciter asserendo; alio modo, quod errores impositi pape non
sunt inter hereses computandi. Si primo modo, distinguitur, quia aut
sciunt se dicere falsum aut nesciunt se dicere falsum, et tunc vel
laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, vel probabili. Si sciunt se
dicere falsum, non tantum crimen incurrunt mendacii, sed etiam
scienter defensores pape heretici sunt censendi et penam defensorum
incurrunt. Si autem nesciunt se dicere falsum, et laborant ignorantia
crassa et supina ( quia nolunt scire vel contempnunt aut negligunt
scire), quamvis secundum aliquos a crimine mendacii valeant excusari,
tamen a crimine defensionis pape heretici minime excusantur, et ideo
in penam incidunt defensorum. Si vero nesciunt se dicere falsum et
laborant ignorantia probabili, nec crimen mendacii nec crimen
defensionis hereticorum committunt, quia ab utroque crimine per
ignorantiam probabilem excusantur. Consimiliter distinguitur de
asserentibus papam dicere errores impositos tantummodo opinando vel
tantummodo recitando. Quia si sciunt vel credunt se dicere falsum,
crimen mendacii et etiam crimen defensionis heretici manifeste
comittunt. Si vero nesciunt et laborant ignorantia crassa et supina,
sunt defensionis heretici crimine involuti. Si autem laborant
ignorantia probabili, de utroque crimine excusantur. Si autem dicunt
quod errores impositi pape non sunt inter hereses computandi, non
solum sunt censendi defensores heretici, sed etiam sunt defensores
heretice pravitatis, quod verum est si errores pape heretici sunt
explicite condempnati, et taliter defendentes papam hereticum
pertinaciter tenent quod errores impositi non debent inter hereses reputari. |
Master: There are many ways in which this can
happen. One way is to maintain and to confirm verbally or in writing
that the heretic pope does not hold nor utter, either as an
assertion, or as an opinion, or as a mere recited statement, the
errors which are imputed to him, errors which in reality he holds
with pertinacity. Another way is to claim that he holds and utters
these errors merely as opinions, and that he does not assert them
with pertinacity. Yet another way is to suggest that the errors
imputed to the pope are not to be classified among the heresies. If
one follows the first option, a distinction is in order. For either
the defenders know that they are lying, or they do not know that they
are lying, and in the latter eventuality their ignorance is either
grossly passive, or justifiable. If they know that they are lying,
they not only commit the crime of mendacity, but are also to be
reckoned conscious defenders of a heretic pope, and incur the penalty
due to such defenders. If, however, they do not know that they are
lying, ands their ignorance is grossly passive (because they do not
want to know, or scorn to know, or neglect to know), then, although
according to some they might be excused of the crime of mendacity,
they nevertheless are hardly excused of the crime of defending a
heretic pope, and therefore they lapse into the penalty due to such
defenders. If, on the other hand, they do not know that they are
lying, and their ignorance is justifiable, then they commit neither
the crime of mendacity nor the crime of defending heretics, since
their justifiable ignorance excuses them of both crimes. There is a
similar distinction with respect to those who assert that a pope is
stating the errors imputed to him merely as opinions or recitations.
For if they know or believe that they are lying, then they manifestly
commit the crime of mendacity, and also the crime of defending a
heretic. If, on the other hand, they do not know that they are lying,
and their ignorance is grossly passive, then they are involved in the
crime of defending a heretic. But if their ignorance is justifiable,
they are excused of both crimes. And if they say that the errors
imputed to the pope are not to be classified among the heresies, then
they must not only be reckoned defenders of heretics, but also
defenders of heretical wickedness. This is true if the errors of a
heretic pope are errors explicitly condemned, and if those who defend
a heretic pope in this way pertinaciously hold that the imputed
errors must not be numbered among the heresies. |
|
Capitulum 66 |
Chapter 66 |
|
Discipulus: Si pro singulis assertionibus supra
scriptis satageres allegare, timeo quod prolixitatem fastidiosam
legentibus generares. Ideo ad defensores heretice pravitatis accedo,
de quibus peto ut dicas qua pena sunt plectendi qui sunt pravitatis
heretice defensores, sive defendant pravitatem hereticam prohibendo
impugnatores pravitatis eiusdem ne eam impugnent, eis scilicet pro
impugnatione pravitatis heretice qua papa macularetur hereticus
persecutionem et molestiam inferendo, sive allegationes eorum
catholicas contra errores pape heretici comburendo aut quovis modo
impediendo malitiose ne ad notitiam perveniant aliorum. |
Student: Were you to provide arguments in support of
each and every aforewritten assertion, I fear that you would create
for readers a boring prolongation of the discussion. I therefore turn
to defenders of heretical wickedness. Concerning these, I request
that you state what punishment should be the lot of those who are
defenders of heretical wickedness, whether they defend heretical
wickedness by prohibiting opponents of this wickedness from attacking
it (namely by inflicting persecution and harm upon them for attacking
the heretical wickedness staining a heretic pope), or by incinerating
the scripts of their catholic allegations against the errors of a
heretic pope, or by maliciously preventing these scripts (by whatever
means) from coming to the notice of others. |
|
Magister: Istis modis videtur quibusdam quod
infectus heretica pravitate defenditur, de qua defensione nonnulli
tenent quod huiusmodi pape heretici defensores non minus peccant quam
papa hereticus, nec minori pena sunt plectendi, imo dicunt quod sunt
heretici reputandi. Quia, sicut contingit facto mentiri secundum
Ambrosium, ut habetur 22 q. ultima cap. Cavete, ita
contingit facto heresi assentire et eam asserere, et per consequens
ex factis absque verbis potest quis ostendi esse hereticus
manifestus. Predicti ergo defensores heretice pravitatis heretici
sunt censendi et pena hereticorum sunt plectendi, quod multis modis
videtur posse probari. Hec enim Urbanus papa, ut legitur 24 q. 3 cap. Qui
aliorum, sentire videtur, dicens: "qui aliorum errorum
defendit multo est dampnabilior illis, qui errant, quia non solum
ille errat, sed etiam aliis offendicula preparat erroris et
confirmat. Unde quia magister erroris est, non tantum hereticus,
sed etiam heresiarcha dicendus est". Ex quibus verbis
colligitur quod defensores errorum sunt heretici reputandi et
dampnabiliores errantibus. Ergo et pari pena sunt plectendi. |
Master: It appears to certain thinkers that these
are indeed the methods whereby a person infected by heretical
wickedness is defended. Some hold as to this defense that such
defenders of a heretic pope sin no less than the heretic pope
himself, nor ought they to suffer a lesser punishment. In fact, they
say that such defenders are to be considered heretics. Because, just
as it is possible to lie by deed according to Ambrose (we have this
in 22 q. ultima c. Cavete), [22 q. 5 c. 20, col. 888] so is
it possible to consent to heresy and to assert it by one's action.
Consequently, someone may be shown to be an obvious heretic by his
acts, without reference to words. Therefore the aforesaid defenders
of heretical wickedness are to be viewed as heretics, and are to
suffer the punishment of heretics, a contention apparently capable of
being proved in many ways. For Pope Urban seemingly feels as much
when he states (as we read in 24 q. 3. c. Qui aliorum):
"he who defends the error of others is to be condemned much more
than they who err, for he is not only himself in error, but also
prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of errors for others. Hence,
being a teacher of error, he is not only a heretic, but must also be
labeled a heresiarch". [col. 999] One gathers from these words
that defenders of errors are to be reckoned heretics, and are to be
condemned more than those who err. Therefore an equal punishment is
also to be inflicted upon them. |
|
Discipulus: Ista auctoritas non videtur ad
propositum, quia loquitur de defendentibus errores allegando pro eis
sive verbo sive scripto, quod patet per hoc quod dicit quod
"aliis offendicula erroris preparat et confirmat", et per
hoc quod dicit "magister erroris est". Ista enim ad
allegandum pro erroribus pertinere videntur, et nequaquam spectant ad
illos qui impugnatores errorum impediunt, persequuntur, et molestant,
et qui impugnationes destruunt vel impediunt ne inter catholicos publicentur. |
Student: This authority seems to be irrelevant, for
it speaks of those who defend errors by arguing in their favour
either verbally or in writing. This is clear enough, since the
authority states that he "prepares and confirms stumbling blocks
of error for others", and also by the fact that it states that
he "is a teacher of error". These descriptions seem to
pertain to arguments in favour of errors, and do not apply to those
who impede, persecute, or do harm to individuals opposing the errors,
nor to those who destroy critical scripts or prevent them from being
published among catholics. |
|
Magister: Dicitur quod instantia tua nulla est, quia
licet auctoritas Urbani predicta de allegantibus ex pertinacia pro
erroribus aliorum verbo vel scripto debeat intelligi, debet
nichilominus intelligi etiam de defensoribus facto aliorum errores,
eo quod defensores facto errorum modis prescriptis gravius peccare
videntur quam solummodo pro erroribus allegantes. Defendentes enim
facto modis prescriptis errores pape heretici tam in Deum quam in
proximum directe peccare dinoscuntur. Quia et veritatem catholicam
manifestari impediunt, et ipsis impugnatoribus pravitatis heretice
graviter iniuriantur dum eorum personis molestiam inferunt, et in
eorum infamiam aliquid ludibrium circa catholicas allegationes
exercent. Qui autem pro erroribus aliorum solum verbo vel scripto
pertinaciter allegare presumunt, in Deum tantummodo peccare videntur.
Et ideo si defensores allegando solummodo pro erroribus sunt
dampnabiliores illis qui errant, multo magis illi qui in favorem et
defensionem errorum impugnatores errorum crudeliter persequuntur, et
infamia eorum allegationes catholicas irreverenter et probrose
tractant, sunt dampnabiliores hiis qui errant si solummodo stant in
errore et nichil plus faciunt. Cum vero dicitur quod Urbanus loquitur
de illo qui aliis offendicula erroris preparat et confirmat, et de
illo qui est magister erroris, que duo non conveniunt nisi
allegantibus pro errore, respondetur quod utrumque istorum potest
aliquo modo persequentibus impugnatores errorum et destruentibus
impugnationes errorum competere. Nam talis potest dici aliis
offendicula erroris quodammodo preparare et confirmare in quantum
removet prohibentia erroris, nam et removens prohibentia aliquando
causa vocatur. Potest etiam dici quodammodo magister erroris in
quantum facto docet et monstrat quod errores sunt tenendi. |
Master: The response is that your point is
worthless. For although the aforesaid authority of Urban must be
understood of those who argue pertinaciously, verbally or in writing,
in support of the errors of others, it must nonetheless also be
understood of those who defend the errors of others by deed, in that
those who defend the errors of others by deed in the ways described
appear to be committing a more serious sin than those who merely
argue in support of these errors. Indeed, those who defend by action
(in the ways described) the errors of a heretic pope, are known to be
sinning directly against both God and their neighbour. For they
prevent the manifestation of catholic truth, and also do serious
injury to the very opponents of heretical wickedness, in that they
inflict harm upon their persons, and besmirch their reputation by
dealing outrageously with their catholic allegations. On the other
hand, those who presume to argue pertinaciously in support of the
errors of others merely verbally or in writing, only appear to be
committing a sin against God. And therefore, if those who defend by
merely arguing in support of errors are more to be condemned than
those who err, then all the more those who, in order to support and
defend errors, cruelly persecute the opponents of errors and besmirch
the latter's reputation by dealing outrageously and abusively with
their catholic arguments, should receive a greater condemnation than
those who err (if they only adopt the error and do nothing else
besides). When one states, however, that Urban is speaking of someone
who prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of error for others, and
of someone who is a master of error (two characteristics which only
apply to individuals who argue in support of error), the answer is
that both of these characteristics may in some manner be applicable
to those who persecute the opponents of errors, and to those who
destroy the scripted allegations against errors. For such an
individual may be said to prepare stumbling blocks of error to others
in some fashion, and to confirm these in so far as he removes the
factors which prohibit error. Indeed, sometimes one who removes
prohibitions may be called the cause of what ensues. He may also in
some sense be termed a master of errors to the extent that he in fact
teaches and demonstrates that errors are to be professed. |
|
Discipulus: Alias allegationes ad eandem adducas assertionem. |
Student: Bring forth other arguments in support of
the main contention. |
|
Magister: Hoc Isidorus, ut habetur 11 q. 3 cap. Qui
consentit peccantibus, testari videtur, dicens:
"qui consentit peccantibus, et defendit alium delinquentem,
maledictus erit apud Deum et homines, et corripietur increpatione
severissima. Hinc etiam quidam sanctissimus pater ait: 'si quis
peccantem defendit, acrius quam ille, qui peccavit, coherceatur'
". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod qui papam hereticum, pro
crimine heresis persequendo impugnatores et impugnationes, defendit,
acrius quam papa hereticus coherceri debet. |
Master: Isidore appears to witness in its favour
when he states (we have it in 11 q. 3 c. Qui consentit peccantibus):
"he who gives his consent to sinners, and defends another who
is committing a crime, will be cursed before God and men, and
subjected to the most severe reprobation. This is where a most holy
father says: 'if someone defends a sinner he will be punished more
forcefully than the one who commits the sin' [St Basil, Regulae breviores,
regula 7]". [col. 671] One gathers from these words that he who
defends a heretic pope by persecuting his opponents and their
arguments by imputing the crime of heresy to them, must be punished
more forcefully than the heretic pope. |
|
Discipulus: Ista auctoritas non loquitur nisi de
defensore delinquentis, non de defensore pravitatis heretice, et ita
ad propositum non esse videtur. |
Student: This authority only speaks of one who
defends a criminal, and not of a defender of heretical wickedness,
and thus it seems irrelevant to the contention. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod cum loquitur de
defendente delinquentem in genere, debet etiam intelligi de
defendente heresim quam tenet papa, quia maius vel non minus peccatum
est defendere iniquitatem, cum ille qui facit, si non esset
iniquitas, defendi deberet. |
Master: The answer is that when it speaks generally
of someone who defends a criminal, it must also be understood of
someone who defends the heresy held by the pope, for it is a greater
or no lesser a sin to defend iniquity, when he who commits it would
require to be defended if there were no iniquity involved. |
|
Discipulus: Potestne probari aliter quod huiusmodi
defensores heresum quibus papa hereticus irretitur sunt pena
hereticorum plectendi. |
Student: May it be proved otherwise that such
defenders of heresies in which a heretic pope is involved must suffer
the punishment of heretics. |
|
Magister: Hoc videtur sic posse probari.
Consentientes eadem pena qua agentes sunt plectendi, quod videtur de
consentientibus consensu defensionis vel etiam auctoritatis potissime
debere intelligi. Quod glossa Extra, De officio et
potestate iudicis delegati, cap. 1, testari videtur,
dicens: "in quarto casu auctoritatis, sive defensionis, magis
peccat consentiens defendendo, et auctoritatem prestando, quam
faciens, et magis puniendus est, 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum, et
11 q. 3 c. Qui consentit". Ergo defendentes modis
prescriptis hereticam pravitatem pena hereticorum sunt plectendi. |
Master: It seems that one may prove this as follows.
Those who consent are to suffer the same penalty as those who commit
the act, a point which appears above all as needing to be understood
of those who consent by providing defense or even by providing
authority. This seems attested by the gloss to Extra, De officio
et potestate iudicis delegati, c. 1 [c. Quia quaesitum,
col. 158] which states: "in the fourth instance of authority or
defense, he who consents by defending and by providing authority
commits a greater sin than the doer of the act, and must receive a
greater punishment, 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum, and 11 q. 3 c. Qui
consentit". [s.v. pari pena, col. 327] Therefore those who
defend heretical wickedness in the ways described must suffer the
penalty of heretics. |
|
Discipulus: Audivi quorundam sententiam de hiis que
factis defendunt hereticam pravitatem. Nunc dic de illis qui verbo
vel scripto defendunt doctrinam erroneam pape heretici. |
Student: I have listened to the opinion of some
concerning those who defend heretical wickedness by their actions.
Now speak of those who defend the erroneous doctrine of a heretic
pope verbally or in writing. |
|
Magister: De hiis breviter dicitur quod, si doctrina
pape erronea est talis quod veritatem contrariam illi qui doctrinam
pape erroneam solis allegationibus verbo vel scripto nituntur
defendere credere tenentur explicite, tales defensores sunt inter
hereticos computandi, quia omnis qui negat veritatem quam credere
tenetur explicite est inter hereticos numerandus, et pena hereticorum
plectendus. Si vero doctrina pape erronea sit talis quod allegantes
pro ea non tenentur credere explicite contrariam veritatem, qui eam
defendunt solummodo allegando verbis vel scriptis non sunt heretici
iudicandi, nec pena hereticorum plectendi, nisi quomodocunque
appareat quod suis allegationibus pertinaciter innituntur. Qualiter
autem convinci valeant de pertinacia, ex hiis que tractata sunt
supra, libro quarto, debet posse patere. |
Master: One briefly states about these individuals
that, if the erroneous doctrine of the pope is such, that they who
attempt to defend the pope's erroneous doctrine only by spoken or
written arguments are bound to believe it explicitly, then these
defenders are to be numbered among the heretics, because everyone who
denies a truth which he is bound to believe explicitly is to be
numbered among the heretics, and must suffer the penalty of heretics.
If, however, the erroneous doctrine of the pope is such that those
who argue in support of it are not bound to explicitly believe the
contrary truth, then they who merely defend it by spoken or written
arguments are not to be adjudged heretics, nor must they suffer the
punishment of heretics, unless it somehow appears that they are
pertinaciously attached to their arguments. And the manner whereby
they may be convicted of pertinacity should be clear from the points
we treated earlier in Book Four. |
|
Discipulus: Ex hac sententia michi sequi videtur
quod aliqui allegantes verbo vel scripto pro doctrina pape erronea
sunt censendi heretici, et aliqui a pravitate heretica sunt immunes. |
Student: It seems to me that it follows from this
proposition that some of those who argue verbally or in writing on
behalf of the erroneous doctrine of the pope are to be reckoned
heretics, while others remain free of heretical wickedness. |
|
Magister: Conceditur quod hoc potest contingere
secundum quod potest accidere quod aliqui tenentur credere explicite
veritatem contrariam doctrine pape erronee et aliqui eam credere
explicite non tenentur, et secundum quod aliqui possunt suis
allegationibus pertinaciter adherere et aliqui possunt eis nequaquam
pertinaciter adherere. Unde ad cognoscendum qui allegantes verbo vel
scripto pro doctrina pape heretici sint heretici reputandi et qui non
sint inter hereticos numerandi, oportet diligentissime considerare
qui tenentur credere explicite veritatem contrariam, et qui ad hoc
minime sunt astricti, et qui sunt pertinaces, et qui de pertinacia
convinci non possunt. |
Master: It is conceded that this may be the case.
For it may happen that some are bound to explicitly believe a truth
which contradicts the pope's erroneous doctrine, and others are not
bound to believe this truth explicitly. And some may adhere to their
arguments with pertinacity while others may not. That is why, in
order to know who among those arguing verbally or in writing in
favour of the heretic pope's doctrine are to be reputed heretics and
who are not to be numbered among the heretics, it is expedient to
examine with utmost attention who are bound to believe the contrary
truth explicitly, and who are not bound to do this, and which of them
are pertinacious, and which cannot be convicted of pertinacity. |
|
Discipulus: Nunquid illi qui allegarent pro doctrina
hereticali pape heretici et non tenerentur explicite credere
veritatem contrariam nec de pertinacia convinci valerent, deberent
defensores pravitatis heretice nuncupari. |
Student: Must we reckon as defenders of heretical
wickedness those who would argue in support of the heretic pope's
heretical doctrine if they are not bound to explicitly believe the
contrary doctrine and cannot be convicted of pertinacity. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod secundum quod nomen
defensoris heretice pravitatis in iure accipitur, non deberent
defensores pravitatis heretice appellari, quia nomen defensoris sic
acceptum semper pertinaciam coincludit. |
Master: The answer is that on the precise legal
interpretation of the expression "defender of heretical
wickedness", they ought not to be so called, because the term
"defender" in its legal acception always involves evidence
of pertinacity. |
|
Discipulus: Si predicta de defensoribus continent
veritatem, aperta est distinctio inter defensores hereticorum et
defensores heretice pravitatis. Sed an ista distinctio ex canonicis
sanctionibus accipi possit, ignoro. Unde quid de hoc posset dici expone. |
Student: If these statements about defenders are
true, there exists an obvious distinction between defenders of
heretics and defenders of heretical wickedness. But I do not know
whether it is possible to derive this distinction from canonical
decisions. Hence, do explain what might be said concerning this point. |
|
Magister: Quod ista distinctio ex canonicis statutis
possit accipi videtur tali modo posse probari. In quibusdam statutis
canonicis defensores ab hereticis distinguuntur. In quibusdam vero
defensores heretici appellantur. Ergo videtur quod vocabulum
'defensorum' vel 'defendendi' accipiatur predicto modo equivoce.
Antecedens quoad utramque partem probatur, et primo quidem ad primam
partem sic probatur. Innocentius tertius in concilio generali, ut
legitur Extra, De hereticis, cap. Excommunicamus 1,
sic ait: "credentes preterea, receptatores, defensores et
fautores hereticorum excommunicationi decrevimus subiacere, firmiter
statuentes, ut, postquam quilibet talium fuerit excommunicatione
notatus, si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, ex tunc ipso iure
sit factus infamis, nec ad publica officia seu consilia, nec ad
eligendos aliquos ad huiusmodi, nec ad testimonium admittatur. Sit
etiam intestabilis, etc." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod
plures penas quas constat hereticos incurrere ipso facto et statim,
defensores hereticorum non incurrunt, nisi satisfacere contempserint
infra annum. Nam bona defensorum hereticorum, si satisfecerint infra
annum postquam fuerint excommunicatione notati, sunt minime
confiscanda infra annum, ut ex verbis Innocentii allegatis et ex
sequentibus colligi videtur aperte. Bona vero hereticorum confiscanda
sunt vel confiscari possunt etiam si infra annum ad fidei redierint
veritatem, teste eodem Innocentio tertio, qui, ut legitur Extra, De
hereticis, cap. Vergentis, ait: "in terris vero
temporali nostre iurisdictioni subiectis, bona hereticorum statuimus
publicari, et in aliis idem precipimus fieri per potestates et
principes seculares, quos ad id exequendum, si forte negligentes
extiterint, per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione remota compelli
volumus et mandamus. Nec ad eos bona eorum ulterius revertantur, nisi
eis, ad cor revertentibus et abnegantibus hereticorum consortium,
misereri aliquis voluerit". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod, ut
dicit glossa super verbo 'misereri', hereticis ad cor revertentibus
et satisfacientibus sive infra annum sive post annum: "de sola
ergo misericordia restituantur bona". Defensoribus autem non
sunt infra annum bona auferenda. Ergo defensores de quibus fit mentio
in constitutione predicta Excommunicamus non sunt heretici
nec fautores heretice pravitatis reputandi, sed defensores
hereticorum tantummodo sunt censendi. Qui, sicut habetur Extra, De
hereticis, Sicut ait, et cap. Si adversus, et
Extra, De sententia excommunicationis, cap. Noverit,
ab hereticis distinguuntur. |
Master: The possibility of deriving this distinction
from canonical statutes may apparently be proved in the following
manner. In some canonical statutes defenders are distinguished from
heretics, while in others defenders are called heretics. Therefore it
seems that the term "defenders" or "defending"
has an equivocal contextual meaning. We now prove the premises of
this syllogism as to both of its parts. And initially we prove the
first part as follows. Innocent III speaks thus in a general council
(as we read in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus 1):
"as to believers, receivers, defenders, and abettors of
heretics, we decreed that they were subject to excommunication, and
we firmly ordered that after any of them has been declared
excommunicated, if he scorns to offer appropriate satisfaction within
one year, from that moment he should by force of law be deemed to
have been disgraced, and is not to be permitted to exercise public
offices, nor to offer counsel as to such, nor to elect others to such
offices, nor to testify in court. He will also not be allowed to have
a legal will, etc." [col. 788] One gathers from these words that
defenders of heretics do not incur penalties which heretics suffer
instantly and immediately, unless they fail to offer due satisfaction
within one year. For the properties of defenders of heretics, as
appears to be clearly inferred from the cited words of Innocent as
well as from other words which follow, are not to be confiscated for
a whole year, if they offer appropriate satisfaction within one year
after having been declared excommunicated. While the properties of
heretics can or must be confiscated even if they return to the truth
of faith within one year, witness the same Innocent III, who states,
as we read in Extra, De hereticis, c. Vergentis:
"but in lands subject to our temporal jurisdiction, we proclaim
that the properties of heretics be confiscated. And in other lands we
order that the same be decreed by secular princes and authorities.
Should these authorities happen to be negligent in the matter, we
desire and command that they be compelled by ecclesiastical censure,
without provision for an appeal, to carry these provisions through.
Nor should their properties revert to heretics in the future, unless
someone voluntarily takes pity upon them when they experience a
change of heart and reject the company of heretics". [col. 783]
We gather from these words that, as states the gloss on the word
"misereri": "it is therefore solely from compassion
that properties are returned" [col. 1675] to heretics who
experience a change of heart, and give appropriate satisfaction
either within a year or subsequently. In contrast, defenders are not
to lose their properties within that first year. Therefore the
defenders who are mentioned in the aforesaid constitution Excommunicamus
are neither to be reputed heretics nor abettors of heretical
wickedness, but are only to be labeled defenders of heretical
wickedness. And these are distinguished from heretics, as we discover
in Extra, De hereticis, Sicut ait, [col. 779] and
in c. Si adversus, [col. 784] and in Extra, De sententia excomunicationis,
c. Noverit. [col. 910] |
|
Secunda vero pars antecedentis rationis predicte, scilicet quod
quandoque defensores 'heretici' appellantur, probatur. Nam sicut
allegatum est supra (24 q. 3 Qui aliorum), defensores
errorum alienorum probantur esse non solum heretici sed heresiarche,
quia in hoc quod defendunt aliorum errores sunt magistri errorum.
Item, quod aliqui defensores sint heretici reputandi testatur
Innocentius (Extra, De verborum significatione, cap. Super
quibusdam), dicens: "tua devotio postulavit a nobis qui
sint dicendi heretici manifesti. Super quo diximus tibi respondendum,
illos in hoc casu intelligendos esse manifestos hereticos, qui contra
fidem catholicam publice predicant, aut profitentur, seu defendunt
errorem". Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod defensores
errorum sunt inter hereticos computandi. Quod secundum quosdam
intelligendum est sive facto sive verbo sive scripto defendant
errores, quod secundum eos iuxta modum preexpositum continet veritatem. |
We now prove the second part of the aforestated reason's premisses,
namely, that sometimes defenders are called heretics. For as was
argued above (with reference to 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum),
those who defend the errors of others are proved to be not only
heretics, but heresiarchs, because the fact that they defend the
errors of others makes them masters of errors. Again: Innocent
attests that some defenders are to be reputed heretics when he states
in Extra, De verborum significatione, c. Super
quibusdam : "your faithfulness requested us to explain
which persons must be called manifest heretics. On this we must offer
the following reply to you. They should be understood to be manifest
heretics in your context, who publicly preach against the catholic
faith, or who profess or defend error". [col. 923] We understand
from these words that defenders of errors are to be numbered among
the heretics. According to some, this must be understood to be the
case regardless of whether they defend errors by deed, verbally, or
in writing, and these interpreters claim that the proposition is true
within the explained context. |
|
Capitulum 67 |
Chapter 67 |
|
Discipulus: De defensoribus
hereticorum et heretice pravitatis usque ad tractatum De dogmatibus
Iohannis 22-i et tractatum De gestis circa fidem altercantium
orthodoxam, nolo plura inquirere. Ideo ad receptatores pertranseo, de
quibus dic in primis quomodo a credentibus, fautoribus, et
defensoribus distinguuntur. |
Student: I do not wish to
inquire any further about defenders of heretics and of heretical
wickedness until the treatise On the doctrines of John XXII, and the
treatise On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith.
Therefore I now move on to the issue of receivers of heretics,
concerning which do explain initially how they are distinguished from
believers, abettors, and defenders. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod receptator et credens
hereticis duo disparata videntur, quia licet receptator possit esse
credens, tamen potest etiam contingere quod non sit credens, quia qui
scienter est receptator hereticorum non est credens, quia non credit
eos esse catholicos quos reputat hereticos, nec credit erroribus
eorumdem. Receptator vero hereticorum videtur esse fautor eorumdem,
quia qui recipit hereticos, eis quodammodo favet, cum etiam non
impugnare hereticos quando quis debet eos impugnare sit eis favere.
Omnis igitur receptator hereticorum est fautor eorum sed non
econverso. Multi enim sunt fautores hereticorum qui tamen non sunt
receptatores eorum. Receptator autem et defensor hereticorum sicut
duo disparata videntur. Nam potest quis esse defensor hereticorum
quamvis non sit receptator eorum quia in eius dominio non morantur.
Potest etiam quis esse receptator hereticorum quamvis non sit
defensor, quia scilicet eos a nulla impugnatione intendit defendere. |
Master: The answer is that a receiver of heretics
and a believer of heretics appear to be two different things. For
although a receiver might be a believer, it may nevertheless happen
that a receiver is not a believer. One who is a knowing receiver of
heretics is not a believer, since he does not believe that those whom
he reputes to be heretics are catholics, nor does he believe their
errors. A receiver of heretics, however, appears to be their abettor,
because he who receives heretics favours them in some fashion: even
not to oppose heretics when someone is obligated to oppose them is to
show them favour. Therefore every receiver of heretics is an abettor
of heretics, but the reverse relationship does not hold, for there
are many abettors of heretics who nevertheless are not receivers of
heretics. Furthermore, a receiver of heretics and a defender of
heretics appear to be different things. For someone may be a defender
of heretics although he is not a receiver of heretics, since they do
not reside in his dominion. And someone may be a receiver of heretics
although he is not their defender, namely, because he has no
intention of defending them from any attack. |
|
Discipulus: Qui sunt receptatores hereticorum. |
Student: Who are receivers of heretics. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod nomen 'receptatorum',
secundum quod in iure accipitur, sonat in malum. Et ideo isti sunt
receptatores hereticorum qui, cum possent hereticos de terra sua aut
dominio expellere, eos scienter vel ignoranter (ita tamen quod
laborant ignorantia crassa et supina) permittunt in terra sua aut
dominio absque custodia libere commorari. De istis loquitur glossa
Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1, super verbo
'receptatores', dicens: "sine quibus heretici manere diu non possunt". |
Master: The answer is that the term
"receiver" as it is used in the law denotes something bad.
And therefore, they are receivers of heretics who, having the power
to expel heretics from their land or dominion, knowingly or
unknowingly (but in the latter case with grossly passive ignorance)
allow them to reside freely in their land or dominion without putting
them under guard. It is of them that the gloss on the word
"receptatores" in Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus
1 speaks, stating that "without such, heretics cannot remain
secure for long". [col. 1683] |
|
Discipulus: Secundum predicta, si papa hereticus
manens in dominio alicuius regis vel principis aut alicuius alterius,
tanta fulciretur potentia quod dominus temporalis non posset eum
expellere, nec quomodolibet detinere, talis dominus non esset
censendus receptator hereticorum. |
Student: According to the aforesaid, if a heretic
pope, residing in the dominion of some king or prince or someone
else, wielded such power that the temporal lord was unable to expel
him or in any way place him under restraint, such a lord would not be
considered a receiver of heretics. |
|
Magister: Hic respondetur quod talem dominum
temporalem impotentia excusaret. |
Master: The answer is that in this case such a
temporal lord would be excused for lack of temporal power. |
|
Discipulus: Potestne aliquid aliud excusare dominum
temporalem, si non expellit papam hereticum vel eius sequaces de suo
dominio vel de terra sibi subiecta. |
Student: Might there be any other excuse for a
temporal lord who does not expel a heretic pope or his followers from
his dominion or from a land subject to him. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod timor probabilis
turbationis fidelium absque fructu spirituali potest excusare dominum temporalem. |
Master: The answer is that probable fear of a
disturbance of the faithful without spiritual gain might excuse a
temporal lord. |
|
Discipulus: Nunquid tenetur dominus temporalis
expellere papam hereticum de suo dominio, si tantam habet potentiam
temporalem, et non timet probabiliter turbationem fidelium absque
fructu spirituali, quamvis dominus temporalis non fuerit per prelatos
ecclesie requisitus. |
Student: If he has sufficient temporal power and has
no probable cause to fear a disturbance of the faithful without
spiritual gain, is a temporal lord obligated to expel a heretical
pope from his dominion, even if the temporal lord has not been
requested to do so by prelates of the church. |
|
Magister: De hoc tractatum est supra, libro sexto
cap. 99 et ultimo, ubi ostensum est quod, deficiente ecclesiastica
potestate, sive per impotentiam, sive per malitiam, sive per
dampnabilem negligentiam, laici debent hereticos cohercere. |
Master: We have dealt with this issue earlier, in
the 99th and in the last chapters of Book Six, where we demonstrated
that when ecclesiastical power fails, whether by impotence, or by
malice, or by culpable negligence, laymen have the duty to forcibly
repress heretics. |
|
Discipulus: Quid faciet dominus temporalis si scit
papam hereticum manere in suo dominio, et non potest eum artare. |
Student: What should a temporal lord do if he knows
that the heretic pope resides in his dominion, and he lacks power to
place the pope under arrest. |
|
Magister: Requiret auxilium aliorum catholicorum. Si
autem alii nolunt auxiliari ei, excusatus est. |
Master: Let him request the assistance of other
catholics. If, however, others do not want to help him, he is excused. |
|
Discipulus: Quid faciet populus ubi moratur papa
hereticus, si dominus temporalis, quamvis possit, nolit papam
hereticum cohercere. |
Student: What should the common people of the
territory where the heretic pope resides do, if the temporal lord
refuses to use force against this heretic pope even when he can. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod populus, non obstante
quod dominus temporalis sit receptator pape heretici, si potest
absque dispendio spirituali, debet papam cohercere, ubi sciret papam
esse hereticum, puta si papa aliquid assereret contra veritatem apud
omnes catholicos divulgatam, utpote si diceret Christum falsum
prophetam, vel fidem christianam esse falsam vel fictam, aut
quod anime reproborum in inferno minime cruciantur, vel aliquid
huiusmodi, quod apud omnes catholicos tanquam catholicum divulgatum
existit, nec esset necesse quod populus in hoc casu consuleret
sapientes, nisi forte ad sciendum quomodo deberet procedere contra
papam hereticum. Non enim populus propter persuasiones, allegationes,
vel verba quorumcunque sapientum vel insipientum deberet quoquomodo
in dubium revocare an papa esset in tali casu hereticus reputandus,
et tanquam hereticus evitandus ac etiam puniendus. Imo quicunque
sapientes, clerici vel laici, qui dicerent papam in tali casu non
debere a populo reputari hereticus, essent a populo heretici iudicandi. |
Master: The answer is that the populace, regardless
of the fact that its temporal lord is a receiver of the heretic pope,
is obligated to use force against the pope (if this can be done
without spiritual detriment) where it knows that the pope is a
heretic, for instance if the pope made some assertion against a truth
disseminated among all catholics, e.g., if he stated that Christ was
a false prophet, or that the Christian faith was false or fictitious,
or that the souls of the damned do not suffer the torture of hell,
[an allusion to the Visio beatifica controversy] or
something of this sort, which is disseminated among all catholics as
catholic doctrine. Nor would it be necessary in this case for the
populace to consult experts, except perhaps to be informed of the
manner in which it should proceed against the heretic pope. For the
populace must in no way doubt that in such a situation the pope must
be considered a heretic, and must be avoided and even punished as a
heretic, regardless of the convictions, arguments, or words uttered
by any, be they expert or ignorant. Indeed any experts, clerks or
laymen, who would state that in such a situation the pope ought not
to be considered a heretic by the people, would themselves have to be
adjudged heretics by the people. |
|
Discipulus: Quomodo potest populus absque
auctoritate domini temporalis aliquid contra papam hereticum
attemptare, cum populus nullam habeat iurisdictionem omnino, sed in
dominum suum omnem iurisdictionem transtulerit. |
Student: How can the people attempt any action
against the heretic pope without the authority of the temporal lord.
After all, the populace has no jurisdiction whatsoever, but has
transferred all jurisdiction to its lord. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis populus in
imperatorem vel regem iurisdictionem transtulerit, iurisdictionem
tamen quam habet in favorem fidei quando papa est hereticus, et manet
cum eis et prelati ac dominus temporalis nolunt vel non possunt papam
cohercere, a se transferre non potest, nec tali iurisdictioni
renuntiare potest, quia illa iurisdictio concessa est populo in
favorem fidei christiane. |
Master: The answer is that although the populace has
transferred jurisdiction to the emperor or to the king, it
nevertheless cannot transfer from itself the jurisdiction which it
possesses in favour of the faith when the pope is a heretic, and the
prelates and temporal lord with whom the heretic resides either do
not want to, or cannot, use force against him. Nor can the people
renounce such jurisdiction, because this jurisdiction has been
granted to the people in support of the Christian faith. |
|
Discipulus: Quo iure habet populus iurisdictionem
huiusmodi super papam hereticum. Non iure divino, quia de hoc in iure
divino nulla fit mentio. Nec etiam iure humano, quia etiam in iure
humano de hoc nulla fit mentio. Nec iure naturali, quia a iure
naturali nulla est iurisdictio penitus, eo quod ex iure naturali
nullus habet super alium potestatem. Natura enim omnes fecit equales. |
Student: By what right do the people possess such
jurisdiction over a heretic pope. Not by divine right, since there is
no mention of it in divine law. Nor by human right, because there is
no mention of this in human law either. Nor by natural right, because
no jurisdiction whatever exists by natural law, in that no one has
power over another by natural right, for nature has made all humans equal. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis in iure divino
nulla fiat mentio vocalis de iurisdictione huiusmodi, sententialiter
tamen hoc ex iure divino et naturali ac humano simul colligitur. Nam
ex iure divino concluditur quod papa factus hereticus est papatu
privatus. Ex iure autem humano habetur quod pape heretico non est
communicandum modo predicto, quod etiam corporaliter servari debet
quando absque perniciosa turbatione fidelium servari potest, eo quod
nulli heretico est communicandum modo predicto. Item, ex iure humano
habetur quod si papa vel dominus temporalis alicuius populi fiat
hereticus, totus populus a iurisdictione tam pape quam domini
temporalis absolvitur, teste Gregorio nono qui, ut habetur Extra, De
hereticis, cap. ultimo, ait: "absolutos se noverint a
debito fidelitatis hominii et totius obsequii, quicunque lapsis
manifeste in heresim aliquo pacto, quacunque firmitate vallato,
tenebantur astricti". Ex iure autem naturali, non quidem quod
fuisset tempore nature institute, sed quod est pro tempore nature
lapse, habetur quod populus propter perfidiam alicuius qui non est
superior eo, locum aut patriam relinquere non tenetur. Ex quibus
concluditur quod si papa fiat hereticus, et dominus temporalis
faverit eidem, populus iurisdictionem saltem aliqualem obtinet super
papam hereticum, quia ex quo papa hereticus est iure divino papatu
privatus, non est superior populo ubi moratur. Iure autem humano
populus pape heretico communicare non debet, ergo debet papam
hereticum devitare. Iure autem naturali non tenetur propter papam
hereticum patriam aut locum deserere vel relinquere. Ergo potest
papam hereticum, ne eidem communicet, de loco suo expellere vel eum
in custodia detinere. |
Master: The answer is that although no verbal
mention of such a jurisdiction is made in divine law, one
nevertheless may deduce its existence in substance from a convergence
of divine, natural, and human law. One concludes indeed from divine
law that a pope who has become a heretic is deprived of the papacy.
And one holds from human law that there is to be no communication as
described with a heretic pope, a duty which must also be observed
with respect to physical contact, when this can be done without
harmful disturbance to the faithful, because there is to be no
contact of the type described with any heretic. Again, we have it
from human law that if the pope or the temporal lord of some people
becomes a heretic, the entire populace is released from the
jurisdiction of both the pope and of the temporal lord, witness
Gregory IX, who states (as we discover in Extra, De hereticis,
c. ultimo) : "Let any know who were duty bound by any
agreement, however strongly confirmed, to individuals obviously
fallen into heresy, that they are released from the debt of human
obedience and from any respectful deference whatever". [c. 16,
cols. 789-790] While from natural law (indeed not the natural law
which would have regulated our deeds had our original nature
developed historically, but the natural law which exists for the
period of fallen human nature) we deduce that the populace is not
obligated to abandon its place of residence or its homeland because
of the faithlessness of someone who is not the people's superior.
From these various points, one concludes that if the pope becomes a
heretic, and the temporal lord favours him, the populace obtains at
least a certain jurisdiction over the heretic pope, because, based on
the fact that a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy by divine law,
he is not the superior of the people in his area of residence. And by
human law the populace must not communicate with the heretic pope,
therefore it must avoid contacting the heretic pope. Finally, by
natural law a populace is not bound to desert or to abandon its
country or territory because of a heretical pope. Therefore the
populace is entitled to expel the pope from its territory, or to
place him under detention, so as to avoid having to communicate with him. |
|
Discipulus: Ista ratio non procedit nisi papa
hereticus se ingereret communioni populi, ergo si non ingerit se
communioni populi, populus nullam iurisdictionem habet super eum. |
Student: This reason carries weight only if a
heretic pope involves himself in active communion with the populace.
Therefore if he does not seek such active contact, the populace
possesses no jurisdiction over him. |
|
Magister: Dicitur quod sufficit quod per rationem
predictam probaretur populum in aliquo casu iurisdictionem aliquam
(extendendo nomen iurisdictionis ad quamcunque potestatem expellendi
vel etiam aliquem detinendi) super papam hereticum obtinere, quia
dicitur quod ex tali iurisdictione populi super papam hereticum
multiplicem contingit inferre. |
Master: The response is that it suffices to prove by
means of the stated reason that the populace occasionally obtains a
certain jurisdiction over a heretic pope, stretching the term
"jurisdiction" to include any power to expel or even to
detain someone, because the contention is that from such a
jurisdiction of the people over a heretic pope a broader one may be inferred. |
|
Discipulus: Causa brevitatis, nolo quod ex
iurisdictione predicta aliqua alia inferantur, sed dic secundum
predictam opinionem, si papa hereticus voluerit recedere, an populus
debeat eum dimittere liberum abire, an eum tenetur in firma custodia detinere. |
Student: For the sake of brevity, I do not wish any
other matters to be inferred from the jurisdiction being discussed.
But answer the following on the basis of the stated opinion: if the
heretic pope should decide to leave, must the populace allow him to
depart in freedom, or is it bound to detain him in firm custody. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod populus tenetur eum in
firma custodia detinere, cuius ratio assignatur talis. Non minus
debet unaqueque persona et multitudo fidelium esse sollicita de
salute spirituali proximorum quam corporali, secundum quod ex verbis
beati Augustini que ponuntur 23 q. 4 cap. Ipsa pietas, que
allegata sunt supra, colligitur evidenter. Sed si esset aliquis in
populo qui, vallatus complicibus, eundem populum et omnem alium
catholicum corporaliter conaretur extinguere, populus non deberet
liberum abire dimittere, sed ne alios populos christianos occideret,
detinere. Ergo si papa hereticus omnes catholicos spiritualiter per
pravitatem hereticam conatur necare, populus cum quo moratur, non
solum proprio periculo sed etiam periculo aliorum fidelium
precavendo, ipsum detinere tenetur. |
Master: The answer is that the populace is bound to
detain him in firm custody, and the following reason is advanced to
explain this. Each and every person and multitude of believers must
be no less concerned about the spiritual salvation of their
neighbours than about their physical salvation, a conviction
evidently gathered from the words of blessed Augustine in 23 q. 4 c. Ipsa
pietas, which were earlier advanced in argument. [cols.
909-910. Cf. 1 Dial. 6.44, 50] But if there was someone within the
people who, with the help of accomplices, were to attempt to
physically exterminate this same people and every other catholic
people, the people would be obligated not to allow him to withdraw in
freedom, but rather to detain him lest he slay the other Christian
peoples. Therefore, if a heretic pope is attempting to spiritually
destroy all catholics through heretical wickedness, the populace with
which he is residing is obligated to detain him, not only to prevent
peril to itself, but also to prevent peril to the other faithful. |
|
Discipulus: Nunquid si populus permittit papam
hereticum libere secum commorari, et suos dogmatizare errores, debet
receptator hereticorum censeri, si potest papam hereticum detinere. |
Student: If the populace allows the heretic pope to
freely reside in its midst, and to propound his errors, must it be
considered a receiver of heretics, assuming that it has the power to
detain the heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod sic. Quia ex quo spectat
ad populum detinere papam hereticum quando dominus temporalis et
prelati circa cohertionem pape heretici sunt dampnabiliter
negligentes, si populus eum non detinet debet receptator pape
heretici reputari. |
Master: The answer is affirmative. Since it is up to
the people to detain a heretic pope when the temporal lord and the
prelates are culpably negligent with respect to the use of force
against a heretic pope, if the populace does not detain him it must
be considered to be a receiver of the heretic pope. |
|
Discipulus: Nunquid quilibet de populo tali debet
dici receptator pape heretici. |
Student: Must any member of such a people be called
a receiver of the heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod omnes qui dampnabiliter
negligunt papam hereticum detinere, vel qui tali negligentie
consentiunt, sunt receptatores pape heretici. Si vero sunt aliqui in
populo qui ad detentionem pape heretici alios exhortantur quantum
licet eis pro gradu suo, paratique essent una cum aliis papam
hereticum detinere, aut talem exhortationem metu mortis vel gravium
tormentorum omittunt, dolentes quod papa hereticus minime detinetur,
non sunt inter receptatores pape heretice computandi. |
Master: The answer is that all those are receivers
of the heretic pope who are culpably negligent in the matter of his
detention, or who consent to such negligence. If, on the other hand,
there are some members of the people who, to the extent that their
status allows, exhort others to detain the heretic pope, and would be
prepared to collaborate with others in the matter of detaining the
heretic pope, or if their omission of such exhortation is due to fear
of death or of severe torments, and they grieve at the fact that the
heretic pope is not being detained, then they are not to be numbered
among the receivers of the heretic pope. |
|
Discipulus: Nunquid tales qui parati essent papam
hereticum detinere tenentur recedere, ne communicent pape heretico. |
Student: Are those who would be prepared to detain
the heretic pope obligated to leave, so as not to communicate with
the heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod si tales remanere in
populo minime possunt nisi communicent pape heretico propter
potentiam pape heretici et suorum, communicare possunt corporaliter
pape heretico, scilicet loquendo, comedendo, bibendo, et corporaliter
insimul conversando, nec ad vitandam talem communionem cum notabili
dampno suo tenentur recedere. Sed antequam communicent pape heretico
aliter quam corporaliter tantum, puta in officio divino, vel in hiis
que ad papatus spectant officium, maxime quantum ad ea que ordinis
sunt, aut facto vel verbo protestando eum esse papam, debent de loco
illo recedere, quia taliter communicare pape heretico nullus potest
absque peccato mortali. Quilibet autem ante debet omnia mala tolerare
quam peccare mortaliter. |
Master: The answer is that if, due to the power of
the heretic pope and of his supporters, such individuals could not
remain members of the people unless they communicated with the
heretic pope, they may physically communicate with him, namely,
speak, eat, drink, and converse with him in mutual contact, and they
are not obligated to leave with deleterious effects to themselves in
order to avoid this kind of communication. But they must withdraw
from this territory sooner than communicate with the heretic pope
otherwise than physically, for instance, by going to mass with him,
or having dealings with him pertinent to the papal office, most of
all as to issues relating to spiritual order, or by acknowledging him
to be pope by word or deed; for no one may communicate with a heretic
pope in this manner without committing a mortal sin, and everyone
ought rather to undergo all possible pains than to sin mortally. |
|
Discipulus: Prima pars istius sententie decretali
Innocentie 3ii, que ponitur Extra, De his que vi metusve causa
fiunt, cap. Sacris, repugnare videtur. Ait enim:
"distinguimus autem utrum is, qui communicat excommunicatis
invitus, sit per coactionem astrictus aut per metum inductus. In
primo siquidem casu talem non credimus excommunicatione teneri, cum
magis pati, quam agere convincatur. In secundo vero licet metus
attenuet culpam, quia tamen non eam prorsus excludit, cum pro nullo
metu debeat quis mortale peccatum incurrere, talem excommunicationis
labe credimus inquinari". Ex quibus verbis colligitur, ut
videtur, quod nullus metus etiam mortis excusat corporaliter
communicantem excommunicato a peccato mortali. Cum ergo papa
hereticus sit excommunicatus quia incidit in canonem sententie
promulgate, ut notat glossa 24 q. 1 cap. Achatius sicut
allegatum est supra, quicunque communicat pape heretico, etiam
corporaliter tantummodo, excommunicationis sententia inquinatur. |
Student: The first part of this opinion seems to
contradict the decretal of Innocent III found in Extra, De his
que vi metusve causa fiunt, c. Sacris. For he states:
"we should distinguish whether he who unwillingly communicates
with excommunicated persons does this under pressure of force, or
motivated by fear. In the first situation, at any rate, we do not
believe the individual in question to be obligated by the
excommunication, since he is clearly more a victim than an actor. But
in the second case, although fear diminishes guilt, it does not
entirely exclude it, because no one must commit a mortal sin however
strong the fear, and therefore we believe such an individual to be
polluted with the stain of excommunication". [col. 220] We
gather from these words, it would appear, that no fear, not even fear
of death, excuses from the commission of a mortal sin someone who
physically communicates with an excommunicated person. Therefore,
since a heretic pope is excommunicated because he falls under the
sanction of a promulgated judgement, as notes the gloss to 24 q. 1 c. Achatius,
[s.v. in heresim, col. 1382] earlier adduced in argument, [cf. 1
Dial. 6.19] whoever communicates with a heretic pope, even if merely
physically, is polluted by a judgement of excommunication. |
|
Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod Innocentius 3us in
decretali predicta de excommunicatione corporali nullam facit penitus
mentionem, et ideo pro morte vitanda licitum est cuicunque
excommunicato communicare corporaliter. Nec potest ecclesia de
plenitudine potestatis artare quemcunque contra suam voluntatem in
tali casu excommunicatum vitare. Et ideo Innocentius loquitur de
communione non corporali sed de aliqua alia, puta in crimine vel alio
modo, que absque constitutione humana noscitur interdicta. |
Master: The answer to this is that Innocent III
makes no mention whatever of physical excommunication in the
aforesaid decretal, and therefore one is permitted to communicate
physically with any excommunicated individual in order to avoid
death. Nor can the church use its plenitude of power in this case to
force anyone against his will into avoiding an excommunicated
individual. And therefore Innocent is not speaking of a physical
communication but of a different kind of communication, for instance
in crime, or in some other fashion which is known to be forbidden
independently of human law. |
|
Discipulus: Circa dictam
responsionem due difficultates michi occurrunt. Prima est, quia
videtur quod ecclesia, que etiam summum pontificem comprehendit,
penes quam plenitudo residet potestatis, potest precipere cuilibet
catholico ut nullo metu mortis vel perditionis rerum excommunicato
communicet. Aliter enim plenitudinem potestatis nequaquam haberet. Si
autem ecclesia potest hoc precipere, alius obedire tenetur. Secunda
est, quia si ecclesia non potest aliquem obligare sub pena
excommunicationis ut nec etiam metu mortis corporaliter communicet
excommunicato, videtur etiam per eandem rationem quod per eandem
penam non potest obligare fideles ne aliter quam corporaliter
excommunicato communicent. |
Student: I have two difficulties with respect to
this answer. The first is this. It appears that the church (which
also includes the supreme pontiff), in whose competence plenitude of
power resides, may command to any catholic not to communicate with an
excommunicated person even if threatened by death or loss of
property. For otherwise the church would not possess plenitude of
power. And if the church may command this, then one is bound to obey.
The second difficulty is this. If the church cannot obligate someone
under penalty of excommunication to refrain from physical
communication with an excommunicated person even if threatened by
death, it appears (for the same reason) that the church cannot
obligate the faithful by the same penalty not to communicate with
excommunicated persons otherwise than physically. |
|
Magister: Ad primam respondetur quod ecclesia non
potest aliquem obligare sub pena excommunicationis ut nullo metu
mortis vel perditionis rerum communicet excommunicato, cuius ratio
assignatur talis. Ad illa que supererogationis sunt vel excessive
gravia dinoscuntur, ad que quis nec iure divino nec iure naturali nec
spontanea voluntate noscitur obligari, non potest ecclesia de
plenitudine potestatis fideles artare. Hec enim est causa quare
ecclesia non potest christianos ad votum continentie vel virginitatis
artare, quia, ut lex sacra dicit: "castitas que suaderi potest,
imperari non potest". Similiter ecclesia non potest cogere
christianos religionem mendicantium vel monachorum intrare, quia hoc
supererogationis est, et causa quare ad ea que supererogationis sunt
non potest ecclesia christianos compellere, est quia talia excessive
sunt gravia, ad que christiani lege divina vel iure naturali minime
obligantur. Quare ad ea prelati christianos obligare non debent, ne
sint de numero illorum de quibus dicit Christus Matthei 23:
"alligant autem onera gravia et importabilia et imponunt in
humeros hominum: digito autem suo nolunt ea movere". Ad ea
igitur que sunt excessive difficilia et gravia non potest ecclesia
regulariter obligare fideles, licet ex causa et pro culpa ad talia
possit aliquos obligare, quemadmodum aliquibus pro culpa precedenti
matrimonium interdicit, et aliquos in monasteria etiam invitos
statuit retrudendos. Cum igitur mortem suscipere et res suas amittere
et gravia tormenta subire, et talia consimilia, sint inter excessive
gravia computanda, ecclesia per nullam constitutionem potest
regulariter christianos in aliquo casu, in quo ad huiusmodi nec per
legem divinam nec per legem nature nec per voluntatem spontaneam
obligantur, astringere. Ad non communicandum autem corporaliter
excommunicato, christiani nullo predictorum modorum tenentur vel
artantur, quia si ad hoc aliquo predictorum modorum essent astricti,
etiam de dispensatione pape non possent aliqui communicare
excommunicatis, quod constat esse falsum. Ergo ecclesia regulariter
per aliquam constitutionem generalem sub pena excommunicationis non
potest quemlibet obligare ut nec metu mortis vel amissionis rerum
corporaliter communicet excommunicatis. |
Master: The answer to the first difficulty is that
the church cannot obligate someone under penalty of excommunication
to refrain from communicating with an excommunicated person even if
threatened by death or loss of property, and this for the following
reason. The church cannot from plenitude of power force the faithful
to perform acts of supererogation, or such as are known to be
excessively burdensome, acts one is known not to be obligated to
perform either by divine law, or by natural law, or by one's free
will. This is indeed the reason why the church cannot force
Christians to vow chastity or virginity, because, as the sacred law
states: "chastity may be advocated, but cannot be ordered".
[32 q. 1 c. 13, col. 1119] Similarly, the church cannot force
Christians to enter a religious Order of mendicants, or monks,
because this is a supererogatory matter. And the reason why the
church cannot compel Christians to perform acts of supererogation is
because such acts are exceedingly burdensome, and Christians are not
obligated to perform them by divine law or by natural law. Therefore,
prelates must not obligate Christians to perform such acts, lest the
prelates be numbered among those of whom Christ states in Matthew 23:
"for they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay
them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with
one of their fingers". [Matthew 23:4] Therefore the church
cannot, as a rule, obligate the faithful to perform acts which are
excessively difficult and onerous, although it may obligate some to
such performance for cause and fault. For instance, it forbids
matrimony to some on the basis of a prior misdeed, and it commands
that individuals be locked up in monasteries even against their will.
Therefore since death, loss of property, harsh torture, and the like
are numbered among excessively onerous experiences, the church
cannot, as a rule, constrain Christians by any legislation to perform
or accept such specifics where Christians are not obligated to do so
by divine law, by natural law, or by their own free will. And indeed
Christians are neither bound nor forced by any of the stated sources
to refrain from physical communication with an excommunicated person,
for if they were bound to avoid this by any of the stated sources,
then none could communicate with excommunicated individuals even by
papal dispensation, a fact evidently false. Therefore as a rule the
church cannot obligate anyone by some general statute, under penalty
of excommunication, to refrain from physical communication with
excommunicated individuals, even if threatened by death or loss of property. |
|
Cum vero dicis quod ecclesia non haberet tunc plenitudinem
potestatis, respondent quidam quod summe necessarium esset hiis
diebus, quod per sapientes iuramentis et horribilibus comminationibus
per reges ad veritatem dicendam artatos, declararetur que spectant ad
plenitudinem potestatis quam ecclesia noscitur obtinere. Dicunt enim
quod aliqui literati, ut beneficia ecclesiastica consequantur, ita
ampliant plenitudinem potestatis ecclesie, quod omnem iurisdictionem
laicalem, imo omne dominium et proprietatem laicorum in quibuscunque
rebus temporalibus manifeste evacuant. Quod tamen scripture divine
aperte repugnat, cum etiam infideles secundum scripturam sacram rerum
temporalium habeant dominium et proprietatem, nec tempore apostolorum
licuit ecclesie dominos infideles rebus temporalibus spoliare. |
And when you say that in that case the church would not have
plenitude of power, some thinkers respond that it would be of the
highest necessity in these times of ours that kings pressure wise men
by oaths and dreadful threats to declare the truth as to matters
relevant to the plenitude of power which the church is known to
possess. For these thinkers claim that some of the learned, in order
to obtain ecclesiastical benefices, magnify the church's plenitude of
power to such an extent that they obviously eliminate every lay
jurisdiction, indeed every lordship and property of laymen in any
temporal goods whatsoever. And this clearly clashes with Holy Writ,
since according to Sacred Scripture even non-believers possess
lordship and property of temporal goods, nor was it permitted to the
church in the age of the apostles to strip non-believing lords of
their temporal possessions. |
|
Discipulus: Quomodo evacuant aliqui omnem
proprietatem et dominium laicorum. |
Student: In what way do some of the learned
eliminate every property and lordship of laymen. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod sunt quidam dicentes quod
omne illud spectat ad plenitudinem potestatis ecclesie quod non
obviat legi divini neque legi nature, et in omnibus casibus omnes
christiani summo pontifici obedire tenentur. Quare cum non habere
dominium et proprietatem temporalium neque legi divine neque legi
nature repugnet, in hoc tenentur omnes laici summo pontifici obedire.
Quare summus pontifex potest ad libitum de temporalibus laicorum
disponere, et per consequens non sunt censendi ad laicorum
proprietatem et dominium pertinere. |
Master: The answer is that there are some who say
that everything which does not contradict divine law or natural law
pertains to the plenitude of power of the church, and in all such
cases all Christians are obligated to obey the supreme pontiff.
Therefore since to lack lordship and property of temporals
contradicts neither divine law nor the law of nature, all laymen are
bound to obey the supreme pontiff in this. Therefore the supreme
pontiff may dispose arbitrarily of the temporals of laymen, and
consequently these temporals are not reckoned as pertinent to the
property and lordship of laymen. |
|
Discipulus: De hac materia
te exquisite interrogabo in tractatu De dogmatibus Iohannis 22i,
quare nunc tantummodo dic cur, non obstante plenitudine potestatis
ecclesie, ecclesia non potest obligare christianos ut etiam pro morte
vitanda non communicent corporaliter excommunicatis. |
Student: I shall question you
abundantly on this issue in the treatise On the doctrines of John
XXII, therefore at present explain only why the church,
notwithstanding the plenitude of ecclesiastical power, cannot
obligate Christians to refrain from physically communicating with
excommunicated persons even in order to avoid death. |
|
Magister: Respondetur breviter a nonnullis quod hoc
ad plenitudinem potestatis ecclesie minime spectat, quia sicut
plenitudo potestatis ecclesie ad res laicorum, ut libere faciat de
eis quicquid sibi placuerit, minime se extendit, ita etiam plenitudo
potestatis ecclesie ad illa que supererogationis et gravia sunt
nullatenus se extendit, ut, scilicet, illa valeat imperare, licet
suadere possit. |
Master: Some briefly respond that this is not
relevant to the church's plenitude of power, because just as the
church's plenitude of power does not extend itself to the properties
of laymen, so that it might freely and arbitrarily dispose of such,
neither does the church's plenitude of power extend itself to onerous
and supererogatory matters, namely, so that it might command their
performance, although it may counsel this. |
|
Discipulus: Hoc quod plenitudo potestatis ecclesie
ad gravia se minime extendit Capitulum Karoli quod ponitur dis. 19
cap. In memoriam adversari videtur. Ibi enim sic legitur:
"licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta sede imponatur iugum, tamen
feramus et pia devotione toleremus". Quibus verbis manifeste
asseritur quod ad gravia potestas summi pontificis se extendit, cum
'vix ferenda' sint inter gravia computanda. |
Student: The claim that the church's plenitude of
power does not extend itself to onerous matters appears to negate the
Capitulary of Charles [Charlemagne] which is found in dis. 19 c. In
memoriam. For in that context we read as follows: "even if
a hardly bearable yoke is imposed by this holy see, we shall
nevertheless bear it, and tolerate it with pious devotion".
[cols. 60-61] These words clearly assert that the power of the
supreme pontiff extends itself to onerous matters, since matters
"hardly bearable" must be numbered among such. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod Karolus loquitur de hiis
que spectant ad officium summi pontificis. De aliis autem nequaquam
intelligit. Unde si papa preciperet regi vel comiti quod daret nepoti
suo aliquam civitatem vel castrum, imo duos florenos, sibi nullatenus
obedire esset astrictus. Multo fortius si tale quid preciperet
pauperi, non teneretur sibi parere. |
Master: The answer is that Charles is speaking of
such matters as pertain to the office of the supreme pontiff, and
does not understand this comment as relevant to other matters. Hence,
were the pope to order a king or a count to grant the pope's nephew a
certain city or fortress, nay, even two florins, the king or the
count would in no way be obligated to obey him. All the more if the
pope were to command something similar to a poor person would the
latter not be bound to obey him. |
|
Discipulus: Dic quomodo respondetur ad secundam
difficultatem quam tetigi supra. |
Student: Explain how one responds to the second
difficulty I raised earlier. |
|
Magister: Ad illam respondetur per predicta, quia
ubi aliquid a lege divina vel iure naturali noscitur esse prohibitum,
ibi potest ecclesia gravissimam penam transgredientibus infligere, et
ad servandum preceptum legis divine et legis nature catholicos
obligare. Ubi autem non est nisi preceptum humanum, nisi ex causa
rationabili non voluntaria, non potest ad servandum idem preceptum
catholicos sub gravi artare pena quin saltem pro morte vitanda posset
quis tale preceptum pretergredi. In tali enim casu epyeykes
interpretatur legem humanam non esse servandam in illo intellectu
quem verba prima facie sonare videntur. Sic, sicut allegatum est
supra, Bonifatius martyr iuramentuum suum quod prestitit de non
communicando hereticis interpretatus fuit, quam interpretationem
Zacharias summus pontifex approbavit. Cum igitur communicare
corporaliter excommunicatis non est prohibitum a lege divina neque a
lege nature, per nullum preceptum humanum possunt regulariter
christiani constringi quin pro morte vitanda possint communicare
excommunicatis, licet ex causa et pro culpa aliqui, et pro aliquo
tempore omnes, possint astringi ne cum aliquo excommunicato
communicent etiam pro morte vitanda. Unde et tale quid posset
accidere circa papam hereticum, quod omnes christiani possent
astringi ne communicarent eidem etiam pro morte vitanda, sed hoc non
est regulare de omnibus christianis omni tempore respectu omnium
excommunicatorum. Sed communicare excommunicato aliter quam
corporaliter, puta in crimine, vel in hiis que ad ecclesiasticum
officium pertinent, quo excommunicatus fungi non potest, est
prohibitum a lege divina. Ideo ibi potest ecclesia addicere penam
excommunicationis, ut nullus christianus taliter communicet
excommunicato etiam pro morte vitanda. |
Master: The answer flows from the points just made.
For where something is known to be forbidden by divine law or by
natural law, there the church is empowered to inflict the heaviest of
penalties on delinquents, and to obligate catholics to observe the
commandments of divine law and of natural law. But where there exists
only a human legal provision, the church, except for some reasonable
and involuntary cause, cannot force catholics to observe this
provision under threat of severe penalty, since someone might bypass
the church's command at the very least in order to avoid death. For
in such a situation, a reasonable person [epyeikes: cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean
Ethics V.10] interprets the human law as not to be observed in
the sense which its wording initially seems to convey. Just so, as
was argued earlier, [cf. 1 Dial. 7.58] did Boniface the martyr
interpret his professed oath that he would not communicate with
heretics; and the supreme pontiff Zachary approved this
interpretation. Therefore, since physical communication with
excommunicated persons is forbidden neither by divine law nor by the
law of nature, Christians may not, as a rule, be constrained by any
human precept so as to be prevented from communicating with
excommunicated persons in order to avoid death; although for cause
and fault some individuals, and at certain times all individuals, may
be forcibly ordered not to communicate with some excommunicated
person even in order to avoid death. And something of the sort may
possibly happen with respect to a heretic pope. All Christians may
well be constrained not to communicate with him even in order to
avoid death. However, this is not an operative rule for all
Christians at all times and with respect to all excommunicated
persons. But it is forbidden by divine law to communicate with an
excommunicated person otherwise than physically, for instance to
communicate with him in a crime, or in those issues which pertain to
an ecclesiastical office which the excommunicated person cannot
exercise. Therefore in this case the church may legally assign a
penalty of excommunication, so that no Christian communicate in this
way with an excommunicated person even on order to avoid death. |
|
Capitulum 68 |
Chapter 68 |
|
Discipulus: Aliqua que in
precedenti capitulo recitasti aliquibus forsitan videbuntur obscura,
que in tractatu De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam te
faciam explicare. Ideo, illis omissis, dic qua pena receptatores pape
heretici et sequacium eius sunt plectendi. |
Student: Some of the things
which you have recited in the preceding chapter will perhaps appear
obscure to a few, and I shall endeavour to have you explain them in
the treatise On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith.
Therefore, omitting them for the moment, explain the punishment which
receivers of a heretic pope and of his followers ought to suffer. |
|
Magister: Circa hoc possunt esse opiniones
contrarie. Una, quod pena hereticorum sunt plectendi quia heretici
sunt censendi. Hec videtur esse opinio glosse Extra, De hereticis,
cap. Excommunicamus 1 # Credentes, que super verbo
'receptatores' ait: "sine quibus heretici manere diu non
possunt, arg. ff. De offic. presid. lege Congruit,
ff. De receptatoribus lib. 1. Unde merito isti sunt
puniendi: imo gravius delinquunt, qui aliorum errores defendunt, et
acrius puniri debent, 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum. Et ideo simili
pena cum hereticis puniuntur, 11. q. 3 c. Qui consentit".
Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod receptatores hereticorum
gravius delinquunt quam heretici et simili pena puniendi sunt. |
Master: There may be contrary opinions concerning
this issue. One opinion is that they must suffer the punishment of
heretics because they are to be reckoned heretics. This appears to be
the opinion of the gloss on the word "receptatores" in
Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes,
which states: "without such, heretics cannot remain secure for
long, ff. De offic. presid. lege Congruit, ff. De
receptatoribus lib. 1. Hence, such individuals deserve to be
punished: indeed the crime of those who defend the error of others is
more serious, and they must be punished more harshly, 24 q. 3. Qui
aliorum. And therefore they receive a penalty similar to that
of heretics, 11 q. 3 c. Qui consentit". [col.
1683] We are given to understand from these words that the receivers
of heretics commit a more serious crime than the heretics, and must
suffer a similar punishment. |
|
Alia est opinio quod illi qui solummodo sunt receptatores hereticorum
et non approbant errores eorum, licet timore vel cupiditate tracti
aut ex aliqua causa mala eos nolunt de terra sua fugare nec etiam
detinere, non sunt heretici reputandi, nec sunt quoad omnia pena
hereticorum plectendi, quia legitime sanctiones inter hereticos et
receptatores hereticorum expresse distinguunt, et taxantes penam
receptatorum hereticorum moderatiorem penam infligunt, sicut patet
Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes.
Hoc etiam ex eodem capitulo # Moveantur colligitur
evidenter, ubi sic legitur: "si vero dominus temporalis,
requisitus et monitus ab ecclesia, suam terram purgare neglexerit ab
heretica feditate, per metropolitanum et ceteros conprovinciales
episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur, et, si satisfacere
contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo pontifici, ut ex tunc
ipse vasallos ab eius fidelitate denunciet absolutos, et terram
exponat catholicis occupandam, qui eam, exterminatis hereticis,
absque ulla contradictione possideant". Ex quibus verbis datur
intelligi quod dominus temporalis, licet sit receptator hereticorum,
utpote quia quamvis requisitus et monitus ab ecclesia terram suam non
purgat ab heretica pravitate, non est statim ab omni pena hereticorum
plectendus, quia bona sua sunt statim minime publicanda, nec terra
sua est ab aliis catholicis occupanda, quam tamen penam heretici ipso
facto incurrunt, quia hereticus etiam occultus de iure nichil
possidet (dis. 8 Quo iure). |
There is another opinion, that those who are merely receivers of
heretics and do not approve of their errors (even if, motivated by
fear or cupidity or by some other wicked reason, they refuse to expel
the heretics from their land or even to place them under arrest), are
not to be reckoned heretics, nor suffer in all respects the
punishment of heretics, because legitimate legal rules expressly
distinguish the status of heretics from that of receivers of
heretics, and inflict a lesser punishment on receivers of heretics
when assigning penalties. This is made clear in Extra, De hereticis,
Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes. [col. 788] This is
also evidently gathered from the section Moveantur in the
same chapter, where we read as follows: "if, however, the
temporal lord, asked and warned by the church, should neglect to
cleanse his land of heretical filth, he shall be involved in a bond
of excommunication by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the
province, and, should he scorn to give satisfaction within a year,
notification of this shall be made to the supreme pontiff, so that he
might as of that moment proclaim that the lord's vassals are released
from fidelity to him, and explain that the lord's land is there for
catholics to occupy, who, having exterminated the heretics, may
possess it without any impediment". [col. 788] We are given to
understand from these words that a temporal lord, even if he is a
receiver of heretics (for instance, because although asked and warned
by the church he does not cleanse his land of heretical wickedness),
is not to suffer immediately every punishment due to heretics, since
his properties are not to be immediately confiscated, nor is his land
to be occupied by other catholics, a punishment, on the other hand,
which heretics incur ipso facto; for a heretic, even if occult,
legally possesses nothing (dis. 8, Quo iure). [col. 12-13.
Cf. gloss s.v. nam iure divino, col. 22] |
|
Discipulus: Ista secunda opinio magis videtur michi
consona statutis sanctorum patrum, ideo quomodo ad glossam que
videtur esse in contrarium respondetur declara. |
Student: This second opinion appears to me to be
more in tune with the statutes of the holy fathers, therefore declare
how one responds to the gloss which seems to contradict it. |
|
Magister: Dupliciter respondetur. Uno modo, quod
glossa non est autentica, et aperte veritati repugnat, ideo est
neganda. Nec videtur inconveniens negare glossas decretorum, cum
etiam ipse textus decretorum aperte negetur eo quod in textu
assertiones erronee inserantur. Sicut patet 23 q. 4 # Sed obiicitur,
ubi narrat Gratianus, quod tempore Achab missi fuerunt duo
quinquagenarii ad Helyam qui dicerent: "homo Dei, rex Israel
vocat te". Quod tamen est heresis explicite condempnata, quia
contraria veritas est explicite approbata, videlicet, quod hoc
accidit tempore Ochozie, mortuo rege Achab, quia in scriptura divina
invenitur expresse, et ipse Gratianus, si dicto illo pertinaciter
adhesisset, fuisset hereticus manifestus. Si ideo non fuit hereticus,
hoc accidit quia ex sola ignorantia absque omni pertinacia dixit
predictam heresim opinando, quod sibi ex hoc contingit quod memoriam
libri Regum tunc actualiter non habebat. Unde super verbo 'Achab'
dicit glossa: "confundit historiam, non enim Achab misit illos
quinquagenarios sed rex Ochozias, nec etiam illud contingit tempore
Achab, sed illud contingit sub Ochozia". Et ita patet quod etiam
glossa negat textum libri decretorum. Glossa etiam in pluribus locis
reprobat Gratianum, sicut patet 11 q. 3 # Evidenter itaque,
et 2 q. 3 # 1, et in aliis locis pluribus. Et ideo dicunt quod multo
fortius licet negare glossas que, ut dicunt, nonnunquam divine
scripture repugnant. Interdum etiam canonicas sanctiones allegant
inepte, quod, ut dicunt, ex hoc accidit quod glossatores in
scripturis sacris et scientiis philosophicis nequaquam periti
fuerunt, et ideo quamplura capitula iuris canonici ex scripturis
divinis et originalibus sanctorum accepta nequaquam profunde et
perfecte intelligere potuerunt. |
Master: The answer is twofold. One approach is to
state that the gloss is not authentic, and that it openly contradicts
the truth, therefore it must be rejected. Nor does it seem
inconvenient to negate the glosses of canon law, since the very text
of such law may be openly denied when erroneous assertions are
included therein. This is clear from 23 q. 4 # Sed obicitur,
[Gratian, dictum post c. 29, col. 913] where Gratian tells
the story that in the time of Achab, two fifty-year old men were sent
to the prophet Elias with this message: "man of God, the king of
Israel summons thee". [2 Kings 1:9] The story, however, is an
explicitly condemned heresy, because the contrary truth is explicitly
approved, namely, that this event occurred in the time of Ochozias,
after the death of king Achab, for this is explicitly found in Holy
Writ, and Gratian himself, had he pertinaciously clung to his
statement, would have been a manifest heretic. If therefore he was
not a heretic, this happened because he stated the mentioned heresy
as an opinion, out of sheer ignorance and without any pertinacity,
something he became involved in because at that moment he did not
actually remember the exact words of the Book of Kings. Whence the
gloss states on the word "Achab": "he [Gratian]
confuses historical events, for it is not Achab who sent these
fifty-year-old men, but king Ochozias, nor did this event occur in
the time of Achab, but all this happened under Ochozias". [col.
1316] And so it is clear that even a gloss negates the text of the
canon law book. The gloss texts also criticize Gratian in many
contexts, which is clear in 11 q. 3 # Evidenter itaque,
[Gratian, dictum post c. 24, col. 651. Cf. gloss s.v. ab
ingressu, and s.v. Item Gregorius, col. 932] and in 2 q. 3 # 1,
[Gratian, dictum ante c. 1, col. 451. Cf gloss s.v. quia
autem est notandum, col. 632] and in many other places. And therefore
these thinkers say that one is permitted even more to negate glosses
which, as they say, are sometimes inconsistent with Divine Scripture.
Glosses occasionally even cite canonical decisions in argument
incompetently, which, they say, is due to the fact that the authors
of these glosses were not learned in the Sacred Scriptures and in the
philosophical sciences, and therefore could not understand deeply and
perfectly many chapters of canon law which were borrowed from the
Divine Scriptures and from the writings of saints. |
|
Aliter dicitur quod glossa predicta non dicit receptatores
hereticorum gravius delinquere quam hereticos et consimiliter
puniendos, sed transeundo de receptatoribus hereticorum ad defensores
hereticorum, dicit defensores hereticorum gravius puniendos et
gravius delinquere, quod bene intellectum de defensoribus hereticorum
continet veritatem. |
Another approach is to say that the gloss in question does not state
that receivers of heretics commit a more serious crime than the
heretics and must receive a similar punishment, but, making a
transition from receivers of heretics to defenders of heretics, the
gloss states that defenders of heretics are to be punished more
severely and commit a more serious crime, and this, well understood,
is indeed true with respect to defenders of heretics. |
|
Capitulum 69 |
Chapter 69 |
|
Discipulus: Post inquisitionem distinctam licet
propter amplitudinem materie brevem de credentibus, fautoribus,
defensoribus, et receptatoribus hereticorum, peto ut absque
probationibus magnis, causa prolixitatis vitande, dicas secundum
aliquam opinionem an omnes credentes, et similiter omnes fautores, et
omnes defensores, et omnes receptatores pape heretice et aliorum
hereticorum sint equaliter reprehensibiles iudicandi. |
Student: After this specific investigation
concerning believers, abettors, defenders, and receivers of heretics,
brief though it was due to the abundance of the material, I ask that
you examine by reference to some opinion, but without major probative
arguments so as to avoid unwelcome length in the presentation,
whether all believers, and similarly all abettors, and all defenders,
and all receivers of a heretic pope and of other heretics, are to be
judged equally reprehensible. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod aliquos esse magis vel
minus aut equaliter reprehensibiles iudicandos dupliciter potest
intelligi, scilicet, secundum iudicium divinum, et humanum. Secundum
iudicium divinum, illi sunt magis reprehensibiles iudicandi qui ex
maiori contemptu Dei vel ex maiori negligentia peccant in aliquo
predictorum. Hoc autem est notum soli Deo. |
Master: The answer is that there are two ways of
understanding that some are to be judged as more, or less, or equally
reprehensible, namely, by reference to divine judgement, and by
reference to human judgement. According to divine judgement, they are
to be judged more reprehensible who sin in one of the mentioned
situations with greater contempt of God or with greater negligence.
However, this is known only to God. |
|
Discipulus: Non intendebam querere nisi qui essent
reprehensibiles iudicandi secundum humanum iudicium, et hoc non
simpliciter, sed quoad aliquid et quoad quid. Nolo enim intricatas et
secundum aliquos fantasticas questiones in hoc opere pertractari. |
Student: I did not intend to inquire about any save
those who would be judged reprehensible according to human judgement,
and furthermore, not in some absolute fashion, but by reference to
specific circumstances and events. For I don't want involved (and
according to some, fantastic) questions to be analyzed in this work. |
|
Magister: Ad intentionem tuam dicunt nonnulli quod,
secundum humanum iudicium, credentium hereticis et heretice pravitati
gravius peccant literati quam illiterati, quia literati, ceteris
paribus, possunt facilius cognoscere veritatem. Item, inter literatos
gravius peccant, ceteris paribus, theologi quam alii, et inter
theologos gravius peccant illi qui magis nutriti fuerunt in contraria
veritate. Si enim aliquis papa vel alius dogmatizaret et asserere
conaretur errores quorundam magistrorum Parisiensium a summis
pontificibus condempnatos, qui statum mendicantium, scilicet
Predicatorum et Minorum, erronee dampnaverunt, inter omnes credentes
erroribus illis pape vel alterius, Predicatores et Minores gravius
delinquere noscerentur. Quia quanto magis aliquis cognoscit vel habet
cognoscere veritatem, tanto magis peccat si veritatem negat eandem.
Cum ergo ad Predicatores et Minores specialissime spectat cognoscere
veritatem status sui, magisque quam alii sint in notitia status sui
nutriti, si, cupientes pape placere vel ex alia causa credent
erroribus quibus status dampnatur eorum, magis quam alii, ceteris
paribus, peccare noscuntur. Et si illi errores in fidem impingunt,
non solummodo ordinum suorum sed etiam proditores christianitatis
sunt censendi, nec unquam christianitas poterit de eis confidere
tempore temptationis. Si enim ille est proditor veritatis qui non
libere pronuntiat veritatem quam pronuntiare oportet (11 q. 3 Nolite),
multo fortius ille est proditor veritatis qui credit errori quem
antea reputavit errorem. In casu ergo predicto et in omni consimili
Predicatores et Minores ultra omnes peccarent huiusmodi credendo
erroribus. Inter ipsos autem gravius peccarent literatiores, sive
essent magistri sive discipuli. Sepe enim hiis diebus discipuli
superant magistros in veritatis cognitione. Nam quia acceptatores
personarum ad magisterium ambitiosos exaltant, plures magistri istis
temporibus rursum indigent ut doceantur que sunt elementa exordii
sermonum Dei, et facti sunt quibus lacte opus sit, non solido cibo,
et ideo literatiores, sive sint discipuli sive magistri, gravius
peccant credentes erroribus. |
Master: Focusing on your intention, one responds
that there are a few thinkers who say that, according to human
judgement, of those who believe heretics and heretical wickedness,
the learned sin more seriously than the unlearned, because the
learned, other things being equal, may come to know the truth more
easily. Again: among the learned, other things being equal, the
theologians sin more seriously than do the others, and among the
theologians, they sin more seriously who were more comprehensively
educated in the contrary truth. For if some pope, or someone else,
were to officially teach and attempt to assert the errors of certain
Parisian masters condemned by supreme pontiffs, masters who had
erroneously criticized the status of mendicants, namely that of the
Preachers [Dominicans] and of the Minors [Franciscans], it is these
very Preachers and Minors who would be known to have committed the
more serious offence among all the believers of such errors of the
pope or of someone else. For to the extent that someone has or is in
a position to have a greater knowledge of some truth, to that extent
does he commit a more serious sin if he denies that truth. Therefore,
since it pertains most specifically to Preachers and to Minors to
know the truth of their status, and since they were more intensely
educated than others in the knowledge of their status, if, desiring
to please the pope or for some other reason, they believe the errors
by which their status is criticized, they are known, other things
being equal, to be committing a greater sin than others. And if these
errors impact on the faith, they must be understood to have not only
betrayed their Orders, but Christendom as well, nor may Christendom
ever have confidence in them in a time of temptation. For if he is a
traitor to the truth who does not freely profess a truth which needs
to be proclaimed (11 q. 3 Nolite), [cols. 649-650] all the
more strongly is someone a traitor to the truth who believes an error
which he previously considered to be such. Therefore in the case just
mentioned, and in any similar cases, Preachers and Minors would sin
beyond all others by believing these errors. And among them those
more learned would sin more seriously, whether they were masters or
students. For in our times, students are frequently superior to
masters in knowledge of the truth. Indeed, because those prone to
show undue favouritism to persons elevate the ambitious to master
status, many masters in our times are again in dire need of being
taught the rudimentary elements of the words of God, and have become
as those who require milk rather than solid food. Therefore those who
are more learned, whether they are students or masters, sin more
seriously by believing errors. |
|
Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius inter fautores pape
heretici et sequacium eius. |
Student: Who sin more seriously among the abettors
of a heretic pope and his followers. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod reges et principes
scienter faventes pape heretico, ratione potentie temporalis qua
absque periculo temporali valent sibi resistere, gravius peccant quam
alii. Nam alii, qui non tanta vallantur potentia, absque forte
aliquali periculo pape heretico resistere non valerent, et ita timor
periculi attenuaret peccatum eorum. Et ex isto concluditur quod,
quanto aliqui maiorem defensionem haberent quam alii, tanto gravius
peccarent pape heretico favendo. Si enim aliquis rex vel princeps
omnes resistentes pape heretico in dominio suo manentes defenderet,
vel eos minime impugnaret, multo gravius delinquerent qui, manentes
in dominio illius regis vel principis, pape heretico aliquo modo
faverent, quam alii commorantes in dominiis regum et principum qui
resistentes pape heretico nequaquam defenderent sed persequerentur,
vel persequi et molestari ab aliis minime prohiberent. |
Master: The answer is that kings and princes who
knowingly support a heretic pope, sin more seriously than others, by
reason of the temporal power which would make it possible for them to
resist this pope without temporal danger. For others, not having such
power to safeguard them, would perhaps not be in a position to resist
the heretic pope without some danger, and thus the fear of danger
would reduce the seriousness of their sin. And from this one
concludes that to the extent that some would have greater defense
capabilities than others, to that extent they would sin more
seriously in supporting a heretic pope. Indeed, if some king or
prince were to defend (or fail to attack) all those residing in his
dominion who resisted a heretic pope, they would commit a far greater
offence who would support the heretic pope in some manner while
residing in the dominion of this king or prince, than others residing
in the dominions of kings and princes who would not defend opponents
of a heretic pope, but either persecute them or fail to prevent their
being persecuted and harmed by others. |
|
Discipulus: Mirum videtur quod reges et principes in
hoc casu gravius peccarent quam prelati, cum magis pertineat ad
prelatos obviare pape heretico quam ad reges et principes. |
Student: It seems astonishing that in this case
kings and princes would sin more seriously than prelates, since it is
more the function of prelates to resist a heretic pope than that of
kings and princes. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quidam prelati inter
principes, ratione temporalis potentie, computantur, et ideo illi
prelati favendo pape heretico peccarent gravissime, quia peccatum
aliorum aliquo modo attenuaret timor periculi temporalis. Cum vero
dicis quod ad prelatos magis spectat obviare pape heretico quam ad
reges et principes, respondetur quod ad omnes spectat obviare pape
heretico, quia, sicut notat glossa Extra, De hereticis, Vergentis:
"quod in religionem divinam committitur, in omnium fertur
iniuriam, et publicum crimen committitur, Codice, eodem titulo, lege Manichaeos".
Sic etiam, ut habetur dis.1: "ius publicum est in sacris et
sacerdotibus et magistratibus", ubi dicit glossa: "unde qui
ledit sacerdotes, vel res sacras, ab omnibus tanquam pro publico
crimine potest accusari". Multo magis ius publicum in fide
christiana consistit, et multo fortius qui ledit et impingit fidem
catholicam tanquam pro publico crimine potest ab omnibus accusari,
quare omnes tenentur pape heretico tanquam publicum crimen
committenti resistere. Et ita ad reges et principes spectat pape
heretico obviare. Et hoc similiter spectat ad prelatos qui etiam
inter principes nullatenus numerantur, sed quodammodo aliter. Quia ad
reges et principes spectat contra papam hereticum exercere potentiam
temporalem, nisi essent aliqui qui vellent sponte ex instinctu divino
subire martyrium, quemadmodum legio Thebeorum ad martyrium se sponte
obtulit, licet, si voluisset, armis materialibus restitisset. |
Master: The answer is that some prelates are
numbered among princes by reason of their temporal power, and
therefore these prelates would sin most seriously by favouring a
heretic pope, since the sin of the other prelates would be diminished
in some measure by their fear of temporal danger. When you claim,
however, that it is more the function of prelates to resist a heretic
pope than that of kings and princes, the answer is that all have the
function of resisting a heretic pope, because, as the gloss to Extra, De
hereticis, Vergentis notes: "what is committed
against the Christian religion is an injury which affects everyone,
and it is the commission of a public crime, Codice, eo.tit.,
l. Manichaeos". [s.v. longe sit gravius, col. 1676]
Similarly, we have this in dis. 1: "public right consists in the
sacred, the priesthood, and the administration", [c. 11, col. 3]
where the gloss states: "hence, he who does harm to priests, or
to sacred objects, may be accused by all as one who has committed a
public crime". [col. 6] Much more does public right consist in
the Christian religion, and much more strongly may someone who harms
and impacts upon the catholic faith be accused by all as one who has
committed a public crime. Therefore everybody is obligated to resist
a heretic pope as someone who is committing a public crime. And thus
kings and princes have the function of opposing a heretic pope. This
pertains in similar fashion even to those prelates who are not
numbered among the princes, but here the approach is somewhat
different. For it is the task of kings and princes to exercise
temporal authority against a heretic pope, unless there be some among
them who wish to submit voluntarily to martyrdom by divine
inspiration, just as the Theban legion spontaneously offered itself
to martyrdom, although, had it wanted to, it could have involved
itself in armed resistance. |
|
Ad prelatos autem qui non sunt principes, spectat scripturarum
testimoniis et sanctis exhortationibus, secularis auxilii brachium
invocando, pape heretico obviare. Porro quia reges et principes
essent extra timorem periculi quamvis papam hereticum impugnarent,
multi autem prelati absque periculo temporali papam hereticum
impugnare non possent, ideo reges et principes pape heretico favendo
gravius peccarent quam prelati in periculo constituti. Et etiam
religiosi ac predicatores et doctores qui essent extra periculum
quamvis papam hereticum impugnarent, favendo pape heretico gravius
peccarent quam reges et principes, pro eo quod maiorem habent
notitiam veritatis, et ad opera spiritualia , inter que impugnatio
pape heretici non obtinet infimum locum, se artius obligaverunt. |
But to prelates who are not princes, it pertains to oppose the
heretic pope by citing Scriptures, proferring holy exhortations, and
requesting the assistance of the secular arm. Furthermore, because
kings and princes would fear no danger in the process of opposing a
heretic pope, while many prelates would be unable to oppose a heretic
pope without temporal danger, kings and princes who support a heretic
pope would sin more seriously than prelates threatened by danger. And
likewise religious, preachers, and doctors [masters] , who would not
be in danger if they opposed a heretic pope, would sin more seriously
by supporting a heretic pope than kings and princes, in that they
would possess a better knowledge of the truth, and because they had
obligated themselves more strictly to the performance of spiritual
deeds, among which opposition to a heretic pope hardly occupies an
insignificant place. |
|
Discipulus: Nunquid sufficit regibus et principibus
defendere impugnantes papam hereticum. |
Student: Is it sufficient for kings and princes to
simply defend the opponents of a heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod non, quia si non
potenter, cum potuerint, impugnaverint papam hereticum, sed solummodo
defenderint impugnantes, non erunt calidi nec frigidi sed tepidi, et
ideo incipiet eos Deus evomere de ore suo. Et consimiliter esset
iudicandum de regibus et principibus si aliquos sequaces viles et
pauperes pape heretici acriter invaderent, et ipsum papam hereticum
satagerent excusare. Tales enim nequaquam adverterent illud
Deuteronomi 1: "ita parvum audietis ut magnum nec accipietis
cuiusquam personam quia Dei iudicium est". Quod non attendere,
quamvis in omnibus iudicibus et potestatem habentibus sit dampnabile,
tamen in regibus et principibus multo dampnabilius et ignominiosius
esse dinoscitur. Acceptio enim persone pape heretici in regibus et
principibus qui eius potentiam temporalem nullatenus pertimescunt,
vel contemptui fidei christiane, aut nimis defectu zeli ad fidem
catholicam, aut avaritie effrenate, vel pusillanimitati, aut stolide
fatuitati, vel alicui alio vitio quod dignitati regie et principum
est probrosum, debet ascribi. |
Master: One replies that it is not. For if, having
the power to do so, they did not strongly oppose the heretic pope,
but merely defended his opponents, they would be neither hot nor cold
but lukewarm, and hence God would begin to spew them out of his
mouth. [Revelation 3:16] And a similar judgement must be made with
respect to kings and princes were they to take harsh measures against
some poor and insignificant followers of a heretic pope, while
attempting to find excuses for the heretic pope himself. For such
would hardly be taking notice of the following remark in Deuteronomy
1: "ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not
be afraid of the face of man; for the judgement is God's".
[Deuteronomy 1:17] To ignore this precept, while being condemnable in
the case of all judges and power wielders, is known to be much more
condemnable and ignominious in the case of kings and princes. And
this unwarranted favouritism shown to the person of a heretic pope by
kings and princes who hardly fear his temporal power, should be
ascribed either to contempt for the Christian faith, or to a sad lack
of zeal on its behalf, or to limitless avarice, pusillanimity, dull
stupidity, or some other vice disgraceful to the royal or princely dignity. |
|
Discipulus: Dic qui inferiores regibus et
principibus gravius peccant favendo pape heretico, utrum videlicet
prelati vel doctores, clerici seculares vel religiosi. |
Student: State who among those inferior to kings and
princes sin more seriously by supporting a heretic pope, namely,
whether it is the prelates or doctors, the secular clerks or the religious. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quo ad aliquid prelati
gravius peccant quam doctores. Quia enim prelati curam simplicium
susceperunt, et eos non diligenter informant contra errores pape
heretici, quantum ad hoc gravius peccant quam magistri qui curam
illorum minime gerunt. Illi autem qui sunt prelati et doctores
gravissime peccant. Ratione autem scientie maioris qua pollent
doctores ultra prelatos simplicis literature, gravius peccant
doctores quam prelati huiusmodi. Religiosi autem, ceteris paribus,
gravius peccant favendo pape heretico quam clerici seculares, inter
quos illi peccarent gravissime quorum statum vel aliquid contingens
statum eorum papa hereticus erronee condempnaret. |
Masters: The answer is that as to certain things,
prelates sin more seriously than doctors. Indeed, since prelates have
responsibility for the spiritual care of the populace, and do not
diligently enlighten it against the errors of the heretic pope, they
sin more seriously in this connection than masters who do not have
such spiritual responsibilities. And those who are both prelates and
doctors sin most seriously. Further: because of the greater knowledge
by which doctors prevail over unlearned prelates, doctors sin more
seriously than such prelates. Again: other things being equal,
religious sin more seriously in favouring a heretic pope than do
secular clerks, and among religious they would sin most seriously
whose status or something pertinent thereto the heretic pope would
have erroneously condemned. |
|
Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius, fautores pape
heretici vel credentes erroribus pape heretici. |
Student: Who sin more seriously, abettors of a
heretic pope, or those who believe his errors. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod si sunt aliqui fautores
pape heretici qui non sunt credentes eius erroribus, credentes eo
quod sunt heretici gravius peccant quam fautores qui non sunt
credentes. Aliter dicitur quod quia fautores peccant scienter si non
sunt credentes, credentes vero ignoranter peccant, fautores gravius
peccant quam credentes. |
Master: One responds that if some are abettors of a
heretic pope but do not believe his errors, believers (because they
are heretics) sin more seriously than abettors who are not believers.
Another response is that since abettors, if they are not believers,
knowingly commit a sin, while believers sin in ignorance, abettors
sin more seriously than believers. |
|
Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius, fautores vel
defensores pape heretici. |
Student: Who sin more seriously, abettors or
defenders of a heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quia omnis defensor
hereticorum est fautor eorum et non econverso, ideo qui sunt
defensores pape heretici gravius peccant quam qui sunt tantummodo fautores. |
Master: The answer is that because every defender of
heretics is their abettor, but not conversely, therefore those who
defend a heretic pope sin more seriously than those who are merely abettors. |
|
Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius inter defensores
pape heretici. |
Student: Who among defenders of a heretic pope sin
more seriously. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod inter defensores scienter
pape heretici, gravius peccant reges et principes ac potentes qui
potentiam pape heretici non formidant. Inter defensores autem
ignoranter pape heretici qui laborant ignorantia, crassa et supina
dampnabilior est in prelatis, et gravius peccant (et doctores et
religiosi), quam in regibus et principibus qui rebus secularibus ex
officio sunt intenti. |
Master: The answer is that among the conscious
defenders of a heretic pope, it is the kings, the princes, and the
powerful who do not fear the power of the heretic pope, who sin more
seriously. While among those who defend a heretic pope in ignorance,
grossly passive ignorance is more to be condemned in prelates than in
kings and princes whose normal function consists in the
administration of secular affairs, and it is prelates who sin more
seriously, along with doctors and religious. |
|
Discipulus: Dic de receptatoribus pape heretici, qui
gravius peccant. |
Student: State who sin more seriously among
receivers of a heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quanto receptatores pape
heretici muniuntur maiori potentia temporali et minus timent
potentiam temporalem pape heretici, tanto gravius peccant. Et ideo
gravius peccaret rex potens receptando papam hereticum quam dux vel
baro, aut castrum vel civitas, nisi ex aliqua causa rex plus haberet
timere potentiam temporalem pape heretici quam alius minoris potentie
temporalis. Et ex isto concluditur quod, ceteris paribus, inter omnes
reges et principes, ille qui esset maioris potentie et quem plus
timeret papa hereticus, gravius contra Deum et christianitatem
delinqueret si papam hereticum minime impugnaret. |
Master: The answer is that to the extent that
receivers of a heretic pope are endowed with greater power and have
less to fear from the temporal power of a heretic pope, to that
extent do they sin more seriously. And therefore a powerful king, by
receiving a heretical pope, would sin more seriously than a duke, or
a baron, or a fortress, or a city, unless for some reason this king
would have more to fear from the temporal power of a heretic pope
than someone of lesser temporal power. And from this one concludes
that, other things being equal, among all kings and princes, he would
be more seriously remiss against God and Christendom if he refrained
from opposing a heretic pope, who would have greater power and who
would be feared more intensely by the heretic pope. |
|
Capitulum 70 |
Chapter 70 |
|
Discipulus: De papa heretico ac credentibus,
fautoribus, defensoribus, et receptatoribus pape heretici, ut modo
michi videtur, nonnulla discussimus. Nunc autem rogo ut de gravitate
periculi tempore pape heretici, si unquam aliquis papa a fide
deviabit catholica, perscruteris, an scilicet tempore pape heretici
grave imminebit periculum christianis. |
Student: As presently appears to me, we have
discussed a number of issues concerning a heretic pope, and the
believers, abettors, defenders, and receivers of a heretic pope. But
now I would ask that you scrutinize the seriousness of the danger
which would arise in the time of a heretic pope, if some pope should
ever deviate from the catholic faith, namely, whether, in the time of
a heretic pope, a serious danger would threaten Christians. |
|
Magister: Interrogatio tua, ut eam proponis, aliquid
supponit et aliquid querit. Supponit enim quod aliquis erit papa
hereticus. Querit autem quale tunc periculum christianis instabit. De
illo vero quod supponit fuerunt opiniones, quibusdam dicentibus quod
erit futurus papa hereticus, aliis dicentibus quod temerarium fuit et
est dicere quod erit papa hereticus, et temerarium est negare. Circa
illud etiam quod interrogatio tua querit, sunt diverse opiniones. Una
est quod, si unquam aliquis papa erit hereticus, non grave periculum
fidelibus imminebit, quia cardinales, prelati, et magistri statim
sibi resistent, quibus reges et principes ac alii seculares potenter
assistent, et ideo statim perfidiam pape heretici extirpabunt. Alia
est opinio que de futuris non reputat divinandum. Tenentes enim
opinionem illam dubitant quod si unquam erit papa hereticus,
gravissimo periculo catholici exponentur, ita quod timent quod maius
instabit periculum christianis si aliquis papa diu victurus erit
hereticus quam si tota christianitas a sarracenis vel aliis
infidelibus caperetur. |
Master: Your question, in the form in which you put
it, contains both an assumption and a query. For it assumes that
someone will become a heretic pope. And it asks what danger will then
threaten Christians. As to what it assumes there were various
opinions, some saying that there would be a future heretic pope,
others retorting that is was and is foolhardy to state that there
would be a heretic pope, but just as reckless to deny it. And with
respect to what your question specifically asks, there also exist
diverse opinions. There is the view that, if some pope ever became a
heretic, no grave danger would threaten the faithful, because the
cardinals, the prelates, and the doctors would immediately resist
him, and kings and princes and other secular authorities would give
them powerful assistance, and therefore they would immediately root
out the heretic pope's treachery. But there is another opinion which
holds that one should not make guesses as to future events. Indeed,
those who propound this opinion think it arguable that should there
ever be a heretic pope, catholics will be exposed to extreme danger;
and they fear that a greater peril will threaten Christians if some
pope should long prevail as a heretic than if the whole of
Christendom were to be conquered by Saracens or by other non-believers. |
|
Discipulus: Miror quod aliqui de hoc valeant
dubitare, quia si sarraceni omnes regiones christianorum per
potentiam subiugarent, omnes christianos extinguerent vel subderent
servituti. Papa autem hereticus hoc minime attemptaret, et ita ista
opinio ratione carere videtur. De te tamen motivum eius audire desidero. |
Student: I am astonished that some feel this to be
an arguable point, for if the Saracens were to conquer by force all
the Christian lands, they would eradicate or enslave all the
Christians. A heretic pope, on the other hand, would hardly attempt
this, and thus this second opinion appears to lack rational
foundation. However I would like to hear from you the motive of this opinion. |
|
Magister: Si affectas scire motivum eorum, primo
opinionem eorum intelligas. |
Master: If you wish to know what motivates the
thinkers who advance this opinion, you should first understand the
substance of the opinion. |
|
Discipulus: Puto quod intelligo. |
Student: I believe I do. |
|
Magister: Non apparet, quia tu videris intelligere
de periculo temporali. Ipsi autem principaliter intelligunt de
periculo spirituali, quamvis etiam secundario intelligant de periculo
corporali, quia dubitant quod papa hereticus, nisi refrenetur timore
catholicorum, cogitabit omnes christianos extinguere vel cogere aliam
sectam suscipere. |
Master: This is not apparent, for you appear to
understand it as referring to temporal danger. They, on the other
hand, are primarily thinking of spiritual danger, although they also,
secondarily, include physical peril in their understanding, since
they feel it arguable that a heretic pope, unless restrained by his
fear of catholics, will plan to eradicate all Christians or force
them to adopt another religious persuasion. |
|
Discipulus: Narra motivum eorum, intelligendo de
periculo spirituali. |
Student: Outline their reasoning, understanding that
it applies to spiritual danger. |
|
Magister: Motivum eorum est tale. Quanto quis
pluribus modis quorum nullus impedit alium, sed quilibet efficacior
sit per quemlibet, nititur aliquem expugnare, tanto illum citius
superabit vel dubitandum est quod citius superabit. Sed papa, si erit
hereticus, pluribus modis quam sarraceni, quibus tota christianitas
non posset corporaliter obviare, conabitur populum christianum
expugnare et spiritualiter iugulare. Modi autem impugnandi quibus
uteretur essent eque efficaces vel efficaciores quam modum impugnandi
sarracenorum. Unusquisque modus alium nequaquam impediet, sed
quilibet quemlibet efficaciorem reddet. Ergo papa, si erit hereticus,
citius quam sarraceni populum christianum spiritualiter superabit,
vel dubitandum est quod citius superabit. Spiritualiter autem
superari et in anima cruciari periculosius est et peius quam morti
succumbere corporali. Ergo gravius periculum imminebit vel poterit
imminere populo christiano si papa efficietur hereticus quam si
sarraceni totam terram christianorum sue subderent ditioni. |
Master: Their reasoning is as follows. To the extent
that someone attempts to attack someone else by using a number of
methods, none of which obstructs the other, but each of which is
rendered more effective by convergence, to that extent will the
attacker triumph more quickly over the enemy, or it is arguable that
he will so triumph. But the pope, if he becomes a heretic, will
attempt to conquer and spiritually destroy the Christian people by
methods more numerous than those of the Saracens, which we assume
that the whole of Christendom would be unable to physically resist.
And the methods of attack the heretic pope would use would be just as
effective or more effective than those of the Saracens. Each and
every method of the pope would in no way obstruct the other, but each
would rather make the other more effective. Therefore the pope, if he
were to become a heretic, would spiritually triumph over the
Christian people more swiftly than the Saracens, or it is arguable
that he would. But it is more dangerous, indeed worse, to be defeated
spiritually, and to have one's soul crucified, than to succumb to
physical death. Therefore a more serious danger will threaten, or
might threaten, the Christian people if the pope should become a
heretic than if the Saracens were to subject the whole land of the
Christians to their rule. |
|
Discipulus: Qui sunt illi modi quibus papa, si esset
hereticus, catholicos et christianos populos impugnaret. |
Student: What would be the methods by means of which
the pope, if he were a heretic, would attack the catholic and
Christian peoples. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod catholicos et sibi
resistentes forte non minus acerbe quam sarraceni corporaliter
procuraret invadi. Quia mandaret episcopis et inquisitoribus heretice
pravitatis ut eos ubicunque possent satagerent captivare, et nisi a
suo proposito resilirent, eos traderent curie seculari, qui, ut pape
heretico complacerent et ab eo aliquod beneficium obtinerent, tanquam
belue crudelissime mandatum pape heretici totis viribus conarentur
effectui mancipare. Secundo, papa, si esset hereticus, per
scripturarum testimonia ad suum sensum intorta christianos invaderet
et multos ad suam traheret voluntatem, eo quod intelligentiam
scripturarum nequaquam habentes ad verum intellectum pervenire
nescirent. Tertio, impugnaret christianos per speciem veritatis et
religionis, cui non adherere videretur multis stultum et insanum.
Quarto, impugnaret catholicos per ecclesiasticam auctoritatem, cui
non obedire putaretur a nonnullis inobedientie crimen incurrere. |
Master: The answer is that he would perhaps provide
for a physical assault on catholics and on those resisting him no
less cruel than that of the Saracens. For he would issue a command to
bishops and to inquisitors of heretical wickedness, that they strive
to capture such opponents wherever possible, and hand them over to
the secular arm unless they recanted their conviction; and these
papal agents, in order to please the heretic pope and to obtain some
benefice from him, would, like the most cruel of beasts, attempt to
effectively carry out the heretic pope's mandate with all the powers
at their disposal. Secondly, the pope, if he were a heretic, would
attack Christians with Scriptural citations twisted in support of his
interpretation, and would win over many to his will, in that, not
having a proper understanding of the Scriptures, they would not know
how to grasp their true meaning. Thirdly, he would attack Christians
by an illusion of truthfulness and religious devotion, not to support
which would seem to many a mark of foolishness or madness. Fourthly,
he would attack catholics by relying on ecclesiastical authority, not
to obey which would be thought by some to be a commission of the
crime of disobedience. |
|
Discipulus: Probabile michi videtur quod istis modis
et aliis papa, si esset hereticus, niteretur
christianos suis erroribus subiugare et eos spiritualiter iugulare.
Sed christiani sibi nequaquam acquiescerent, imo nec etiam
tolerarent, sed statim de eo facerent iustitie complementum. Quare
cum ipse esset unus cui omnes resisterent christiani, sarraceni autem
quamplurimi, nullo modo tantum posset imminere periculum si papa
efficeretur hereticus sicut si sarraceni sibi terram christianorum subiicerent. |
Student: It seems probable to me that the pope, if
he were a heretic, would attempt to subjugate Christians to his
errors by these and by other methods, and to destroy them
spiritually. But Christians would in no way yield to him, indeed they
would hardly tolerate him, but would immediately subject him to the
final process of justice. Therefore, since the heretic pope would be
but a single individual whom all Christians would resist, while the
Saracens would be quite numerous, in no manner would it be possible
for a similar peril to arise if the pope became a heretic, as would
be the case if the Saracens conquered the land of the Christians. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod si christiani vellent
pape heretico obviare, non incumberet eis tantum periculum spirituale
sicut si sarraceni regiones christianorum sibi subiicerent. Sed
dubitant isti quod multitudo christianorum pape heretico nullatenus
obviaret, imo suis erroribus adhereret, ipsique sponte faveret. |
Master: The answer is that if Christians wanted to
stand up to a heretic pope, they would not be faced with as great a
spiritual danger as they would have to deal with if the Saracens were
to conquer the Christian territories. But these thinkers consider it
arguable that the multitude of Christians would not in fact stand up
to a heretic pope, indeed that it would rather participate in his
errors, and voluntarily support him. |
|
Discipulus: Unde posset accidere quod multitudo
christianorum pape heretico adhereret. |
Student: How might it come to pass that the
multitude of Christians would join the cause of a heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Dicunt quod ex multis causis forte
accideret, et aliqui adhererent ex una causa, alii ex alia. |
Master: They say that this would perhaps happen for
a variety of causes. Some would join him for one reason, others for another. |
|
Discipulus: Enumera aliquas causas ex quibus posset accidere. |
Student: List some of the causes which might lead to
this situation. |
|
Magister: Dicitur quod una causa ex qua aliqui pape
heretico adhererent est falsa et erronea estimatio quam habent
nonnulli de papa. |
Master: It is said that one cause whereby some would
join the camp of a heretic pope is the false and erroneous conviction
which many have concerning the papal status. |
|
Discipulus: Que est illa falsa et erronea estimatio. |
Student: What is this false and erroneous conviction. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod est multiplex. Quidam
enim putant quod papa non potest peccare, quemadmodum quidam
Sergiani, ut in quodam libro antiquo legi, in favorem Sergii pape
tradiderunt. Unde quidam, ut audivi, hiis temporibus publice dicunt
quod papa est deus in terris, non quidem sicut omnes sacerdotes
dicuntur dii, qui tamen peccare possunt, sed sic ut malefacere
nequaquam possit, et in terris omnia que vult possit. Quidam putant
quod papa contra fidem errare non potest. Quidam putant quod licet
papa peccare et errare possit contra fidem, de omnibus tamen que
facit debemus supponere quod sint bene facta, et de nullo quod facit
licet nobis iudicare quod sit male factum. Quidam putant quod licet
valeamus reputare aliqua facta pape esse mala et male facta, tamen
nulli licet christiano papam arguere vel iudicare, reprehendere, aut
aliquam contra eum iudicialiter ferre sententiam. Et ex hiis quattuor
estimationibus falsis de papa, et ex qualibet illarum, accideret
quod, papa effecto heretico, ei christiani aliqui adhererent. |
Master: The answer is that it is multifarious. For
instance, some people think that the pope cannot sin, as certain
Sergians claimed on behalf of pope Sergius, a contention I read in a
very old book. Hence there are some, as I have heard, who are
publicly stating in these times of ours that the pope is a God on
earth, indeed not in the sense in which all priests are said to be
gods (who nevertheless may commit sins), but with the implication
that he can in no way do wrong, and that he may do on earth
everything that he wants. Others believe that the pope cannot err
against the faith. Still others believe that although the pope may
sin and err against the faith, we must nevertheless assume that all
the things that he has done have been done well, and that nothing
that he does may we judge as having been done wrongly. Some think
that although we may consider that some things done by the pope are
bad and done badly, nevertheless no Christian is allowed to question
or to judge the pope, to rebuke him, or to pass legal sentence
against him. And from these four false convictions about the papal
status, or from any single one of them, it might happen that some
Christians would join the camp of a pope who had become a heretic. |
|
Discipulus: Prime due estimationes false michi
videntur. De quarta autem tractatum est prius. Ideo dic secundum
istos in quo tertia estimatio a veritate recedit. |
Student: The first two convictions appear to me to
be false, while the fourth has been dealt with earlier. [Cf. 1 Dial.
6.1ss] State therefore in what way, according to these thinkers, the
third conviction deviates from the truth. |
|
Magister: Dicitur quod quantum ad omnia que non
possunt bono animo fieri est contraria veritati. Quicquid enim papa
fecerit quod non potest bono animo fieri, nec recta intentione, licet
cuilibet hoc scienti iudicare de papa quod male facit et inique, et
quod peccat mortaliter. Unde si viderem papam fornicantem, vel
simoniam committentem, vel mentientem in doctrina religionis aut in
proximi nocumentum, vel innocentem aliquem diffamantem, vel aliquid
contra Deum precipientem, aut aliquid huiusmodi, liceret michi et
deberem iudicare, non quidem iudicialiter sed certa credulitate,
papam peccare mortaliter. |
Master: The answer is that this conviction
contradicts the truth with respect to all things which cannot be done
with a good conscience. For whatever the pope will have done which
cannot be done with a good conscience or with right intention, anyone
who knows this is permitted to judge as having been done wrongly and
criminally on the part of the pope, and as constituting the pope in a
state of mortal sin. Hence, were I to see the pope involving himself
in fornication, or committing simony, or lying about religious
doctrine, or lying with harmful consequences to his neighbour, or
defaming some innocent person, or uttering some command against God
or something of this kind, I would have both the right and the duty
to judge that the pope had committed a mortal sin, and while my
judgement would not carry legal effect it would possess indubitable
cognitive consequences. |
|
Discipulus: Secundum istam sententiam ita passim
liceret iudicare de papa quod malefaciat sicut de quocunque alio christiano. |
Student: According to this principle, I would be
allowed to constantly pass judgement on the pope's misdeeds as much
as on those of any other Christian. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod non, quia multa licent
pape que aliis illicita dinoscuntur. Et ideo de talibus, si faciat ea
papa, non licet iudicare quod papa malefaciat, de aliis tamen hoc
licet. Propter quod, quia sunt aliqua que sunt illicita pape que
tamen aliis licent, de talibus licet iudicare quod papa peccat, sed
de aliis hoc minime licet. |
Master: The reply is negative, because many things
are permitted to the pope which are known to be forbidden to others.
And therefore if the pope were to do such things, it would not be
permitted to judge that he is doing wrong, while it would be
permissible to make such a judgement with respect to others. On the
other hand, because there are matters which are forbidden to the pope
while allowed to others, it is permitted with respect to such matters
to judge that the pope is sinning, but it is not permitted to make
such a judgement of other people. |
|
Discipulus: Videtur quod isti parum reputant de
persona pape, licet forte de officio pape multum estiment. |
Student: It seems that these theorists have little
regard for the person of the pope, although perhaps they think highly
of the papal office. |
|
Magister: Isti reputant papam hominem mortalem,
peccabilem, innumeris periculis spiritualibus expositum. Multos autem
summos pontifices qui fuerunt, reputant fuisse viros sceleratissimos,
omni confusione dignos, et quod hoc licet asserere et sentire, et ita
de quolibet summo pontifice licet hoc sentire in speciali, quandoque
facit aliquid (et constat eum posse facere) quod bono animo nequaquam
facere potest. Unde assertionem qua dicitur quod debemus reputare
bene factum quicquid fecerit, heresim perniciosissimam et
periculosissimam arbitrantur. |
Master: They believe the pope to be a mortal man,
capable of committing sins, and exposed to countless spiritual
dangers. They further believe that many supreme pontiffs of past ages
were the most heinously criminal of men, worthy of every retribution.
They think that it is permitted to state this fact, and to feel it,
and thus that one is allowed to feel this reaction specifically
concerning any pope, whenever he does anything (and it stands to
reason that he is capable of doing this) which can in no way be done
with a good conscience. Hence they consider the contention stating
that we must believe well done whatever the pope has done to be a
heresy most pernicious and most dangerous. |
|
Discipulus: Suntne alique alie estimationes false et
erronee que facerent multos pape heretico adherere. |
Student: Are there any other false and erroneous
convictions which would influence many to join the camp of the
heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod sic. Putant enim quidam
quod cohertio pape heretici spectat solummodo ad concilium generale.
Quidam autem putant quod cohertio pape heretici spectat solummodo ad
clericos et nullo modo ad laicos, nisi fuerint per prelatos ecclesie
requisiti. Quidam vero putant quod cohertio, et similiter vitatio
pape heretici solummodo spectat ad cardinales. Quidam putant quod
solummodo spectat ad maiores prelatos ecclesie, puta ad patriarchas
et episcopos. Quidam putant quod simplices et laici de spiritualibus
nichil facere debent, nisi quod fuerit eis per episcopos suos
iniunctum. Et ideo de papa heretico se intromittere non debent, nisi
quod eis preceperint episcopi eorundem. Quidam putant quod quamdiu
papa hereticus toleratur a multitudine christianorum nullus debet eum
aliqualiter impugnare. Quidam putant quod multitudo est in omnibus
sequenda, et ideo ille pro papa est habendus quem multitudo
christianorum habet pro papa. Ex hiis omnibus estimationibus et
qualibet illarum, aliisque quam pluribus estimationibus falsis et
erroneis, accideret quod si papa fieret hereticus quamplures ei
firmiter adhererent. |
Master: The answer is affirmative. Some, for
instance, think that the forcible suppression of a heretic pope
pertains only to a general council. Others, however, believe that the
forcible suppression of a heretic pope pertains only to clerks, and
in no way to laymen, unless they were requested to do this by
prelates of the church. And some think that suppression (and
similarly avoidance) of the heretic pope is strictly the affair of
cardinals. Some think that this only pertains to the major prelates
of the church, such as patriarchs and bishops. Some think that the
unlearned and the laymen must do nothing about spiritual matters
except what they have been enjoined to do by their bishops, and
therefore they must not become involved in the matter of a heretic
pope except to follow the instructions given to them by their
bishops. Some believe that no one should in any fashion oppose a
heretic pope so long as he is tolerated by the multitude of
Christians. Some believe that the multitude is to be followed in all
things, and therefore he is to be recognized as pope whom the
multitude of Christians holds to be so. From all of these
convictions, and from any one of them in particular, as well as from
other most numerous false and erroneous convictions, it might well
happen that if a pope were to become a heretic, very many would
firmly place themselves in his camp. |
|
Discipulus: Dixisti unam causam divisam in plures ex
qua accideret quod si papa efficeretur hereticus christiani plures
adhererent eidem. Ideo nunc dic alias causas ex quibus idem accideret. |
Student: You have stated one cause, divided into
particulars, wherefore it might happen that were a pope to become a
heretic, many Christians would join his camp. Proceed, therefore, to
mention other causes which might lead to the same eventuality. |
|
Magister: Alia causa sive occasio, secundum istos,
quare multi christiani pape heretico adhererent, est timor mundanus
sive humanus iunctus diffidentie qua unus christianus diffidit de
alio, et ista causa oritur ex defectu zeli ad catholicam fidem. Quia
enim multi propter catholicam fidem nollent aliquod detrimentum
corporis vel rerum incurrere, vel saltem non magnum, et nescientes an
alii christiani vellent eis assistere contra papam hereticum, ab
impugnatione pape heretici omnino desisterent et eidem cum aliis
adhererent, saltem quousque alius potens aliquis inciperet papam
hereticum impugnare. Putant enim tenentes opinionem predictam, quod
si papa esset hereticus et aliquis rex potens eum invaderet toto
posse, multi qui prius pape heretico adheserunt eum fortissime
impugnarent. Et hec est una causa, secundum istos, quare reges et
principes ac alii potentes qui temporalem potentiam pape heretici non
timerent, gravius peccarent quam alii si pape heretico scienter
faverent, quia eorum negligentia esset quampluribus occasio pape
heretico adherendi. Alia causa sive occasio quare multi adhererent
pape heretico est cupiditas et ambitio. Cupiditas enim obtinendi
divitias et pecunias ac beneficia ecclesiastica et honores a papa
heretico multos faceret eidem consentire. |
Master: According to these theorists, another cause
or opportunity which might prompt many Christians to join the camp of
the heretic pope, is wordly or human fear mingled with the lack of
confidence whereby one Christian distrusts another. And this cause is
rooted in a lack of zeal for the catholic faith. For since many would
not want to experience any injury affecting body or property because
of the catholic faith (or at least no great injury), and not knowing
whether other Christians would be prepared to assist them against a
heretic pope, they would totally refrain from opposing such a pope
and would join his camp along with others, at least until some other
powerful individual began to attack the heretic pope. Indeed those
who hold the opinion we are discussing believe that if the pope was a
heretic and some powerful king made war on him with all his might,
many who had previously joined the heretic pope's camp would also
oppose him most strongly. And this is one reason, according to these
theorists, why kings and princes and other potentates unafraid of the
heretic pope's temporal power, would sin more seriously than others
if they knowingly supported the heretic pope, because their
negligence would provide very many with the opportunity of joining
the camp of the heretic pope. Another cause or opportunity which
might prompt many to join the camp of the heretic pope is greed and
ambition. For the lustful yearning to acquire riches, and monies, and
ecclesiastical benefices and honours from the heretic pope would
drive many to acquiesce in his legitimacy. |
|
Capitulum 71 |
Chapter 71 |
|
Discipulus: De impugnatoribus pape heretici sepe
fecimus mentionem, de quibus unum obsecro ut pertractes, qui
videlicet ad impugnandum papam hereticum sunt idonei reputandi. |
Student: We have frequently mentioned the opponents
of a heretic pope. I would beseech you to deal with one question
concerning these, namely, which persons are to be considered as
qualified to oppose a heretic pope. |
|
Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod omnes catholici
discretionem habentes ad impugnandum papam hereticum uno modo vel
alio debent idonei reputari. |
Master: The answer is that all catholics endowed
with reason must be deemed in one sense or another to be qualified
opponents of a heretic pope. |
|
Discipulus: Ista responsio est tam generalis quod ad
mentem meam nequaquam vadit. Scio enim quod cum papa hereticus sit
omnium fidelium inimicus, omnes fideles ratione utentes ad
impugnandum ipsum aliquo modo idonei sunt censendi. Oportet tamen
quod inter ipsos sint quidam qui sint quasi duces, directores, et
capita aliorum, de quibus interrogationem quam proposui intellexi. |
Student: This reply is so general that it hardly
touches on what I have in mind. For I know that since a heretic pope
is the enemy of all the faithful, all believers endowed with reason
are in some way to be considered his qualified opponents. However, it
is proper that there should be some among them who would act as
leaders, directors, and heads of the rest, and it is of such
individuals that I understood my proposed question. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod virtutibus excellentes,
in sacris literis eruditi, in arduis rebus experti et potentia
prediti temporali, ut sint duces et capita impugnantium papam
hereticum, sunt censendi idonei. Contingit enim dupliciter papam
hereticum impugnare, scilicet corporaliter contra ipsum, si
oportuerit, materialia arma movendo, et spiritualiter tam ipsum quam
errores eius auctoritatibus et rationibus convincendo. Primo modo,
potentia prediti temporali debent idonei reputari ad papam hereticum
impugnandum. Secundo modo, in sacris literis eruditi sunt idonei ut
sint quasi duces et principales impugnatores pape heretica pravitate
maculati. Virtutum autem eminentia et rerum experientia opportune
videntur utrisque, ut sicut oportet et quando oportet papam hereticum
et complices eius impugnent. |
Master: The answer is that they should be considered
qualified to be leaders and heads of the heretic pope's opponents who
are pre-eminent in virtues, learned in the sacred letters, experts in
difficult tasks, and possessing temporal power. For one can oppose a
heretic pope in two ways: namely, by physically attacking him with
material arms, if this is convenient, and by spiritually rejecting
both his person and his errors by authorities and reasons. In the
first instance, those possessing temporal power must be considered
qualified to oppose a heretic pope. In the second instance, it is the
learned in Sacred Letters who are qualified to be the leaders and
principal opponents of a pope stained by heretical wickedness. But
pre-eminence as to virtues and practical experience seem convenient
to both categories of opponents in order that they may attack the
heretic pope and his accomplices as and when convenience dictates. |
|
Discipulus: Adhuc ista reponsio est magis generalis
quam vellem. Unde precor ut secundum aliquam sententiam aliquas
prerogativas speciales assignes, quibus oportet principales
impugnatores pape heretici preeminere ad hoc quod idonei censeantur. |
Student: Again, this response is more general than I
would like. Hence I pray that you follow some opinion in listing
certain special prerogatives which it is proper for the opponents of
a heretic pope to possess in the highest degree in order to be
considered fit to perform their task. |
|
Magister: Speciales prerogative tales sunt innumere. |
Master: There are innumerable special prerogatives
of this kind. |
|
Discipulus: Aliquas paucas tange. |
Student: Mention a few of them. |
|
Magister: Dicunt quidam quod ad hoc quod quis
impugnator pape heretici idoneus censeatur, requiritur quod sit
firmiter stabilitus in veritatibus contrariis erroribus pape
heretici, ut scilicet nulla ratione ab illis veritatibus possit
avelli. Unde quantum ad veritates illas assertiones suas neque
correctioni pape, neque correctioni concilii generalis, neque
correctioni angelorum de celo debet submittere, sed quemadmodum
beatus Paulus scripsit Galatis dicens: "licet nos aut angelus de
celo evangeliset vobis preter quam quod evangelizavimus vobis,
anathema sit", ita quilibet impugnator idoneus pape heretici
dicat in corde suo et proferat ore cum fuerit opportunum: "licet
ego, aut papa, aut concilium generale, aut tota congregatio
christianorum, aut tota multitudo angelorum de celo errores pape
heretici evangelizare, asserere vel affirmare presumpserit, anathema
sit". Ideo autem non debet impugnator idoneus pape heretici
assertiones suas quantum ad veritates contrarias erroribus pape
heretici alicuius correctioni submittere, quia illas veritates non
tanquam ab homine, sed tanquam a Deo, qui correctione non eget,
traditas suscepit, amplectitur, et veneratur. Et ex isto, ut dicunt,
eliditur error quorundam dicentium quod omnis christianus fidem suam
debet supponere correctioni beatissimi pape. Quod probant per
exemplum de beato Hieronymo, qui fidem suam quam didicerat in
ecclesia, et in qua nutritus fuit, supposuit correctioni et iudicio
beatissimi pape. Sed hoc, dicunt isti, esse erroneum, imo hereticum
manifeste, quod exemplis et ratione probare conantur. Primo quidem
exemplo beati Pauli, qui, ut legitur ad Galatos 2, cum reprehenderet
papam, scilicet beatum Petrum, assertionem suam correctioni pape
nequaquam submisit, imo voluit quod papa se correctioni sue
committeret. Ideo enim reprehendit papam, ut de excessu commisso in
preiudicium evangelice veritatis corrigeret. Secundo, probant hoc
exemplo clericorum romanorum qui se a communione Anastasii pape 2i
laudabiliter abegerunt, de quibus constat quod assertionem suam
correctioni pape nullatenus submiserunt. |
Master: There are those who say that in order that
someone may be considered a fit opponent of a heretic pope, it is
expected that he be firmly grounded in the truths which contradict
the errors professed by the heretic pope, namely, that no reason
would sway him from these truths. Hence, he must not submit his
stated convictions as to these truths to the correction of the pope,
nor to the correction of a general council, nor to the correction of
angels from heaven. But just as blessed Paul wrote to the Galatians,
saying: "though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed", [Galatians 1:8] so ought every qualified opponent of
a heretic pope say in his heart and utter verbally at the opportune
moment: "were I myself, or the pope, or the general council, or
the entire congregation of Christians, or the whole multitude of
angels in heaven, to presume to preach, assert, or affirm the errors
of a heretic pope, let each and every one be accursed". And that
is why the qualified opponent of a heretic pope must not submit to
someone's correction his assertions with respect to truths which
contradict the errors of the heretic pope, because he has received,
he holds, and he venerates these truths as given to him not by man,
but by God, and God does not require correction. This point, they go
on to say, eliminates the error of some interpreters who claim that
every Christian must submit his faith to the correction of the most
holy pope. They prove this claim by the example of blessed Jerome,
who submitted his faith, which he had learned in the church, and in
which he was educated, to the correction and judgement of the most
holy pope. But the thinkers we are reporting say that this claim is
erroneous, and even obviously heretical, a judgement they attempt to
prove by examples and by reason. And first by the example of blessed
Paul, who, as we read in Galatians 2, when he rebuked the pope
(namely blessed Peter), in no sense submitted his assertion to the
correction of the pope, but rather wanted the pope to submit to his
own (Paul's) correction. [Galatians 2:11] Indeed he rebuked the pope
so that the pope could correct himself as to a deviation committed in
prejudice of evangelical truth. Secondly, they prove this judgement
by the example of the Roman clerks who removed themselves in
praiseworthy manner from communion with pope Anastasius II, and it is
established that these clerks in no way submitted their assertion to
the correction of the pope. |
|
Discipulus: Forte dicetur istis quod clerici illi
non submiserunt assertionem suam correctioni pape heretici qualis
fuit Anastasius 2us, sed submiserunt correctioni futuri pontificis catholici. |
Student: It might perhaps be objected to these
thinkers that the clerks in question did not submit their assertion
to the correction of a heretic pope, which Anastasius II was, but
submitted it to the correction of a future catholic pontiff. |
|
Magister: Hoc reprobatur, quia Anastasium secundum
reputaverunt hereticum propter hoc, quod assertioni eorum quam
acceperant a sanctis patribus contradixit. Et propter eandem
rationem, quicunque futurus papa postea contradixisset, eundem
hereticum reputassent. Quare nullius hominis correctioni volebant
assertionem suam submittere. Et ideo dicunt isti quod christianus
assertionem catholicam correctioni pape non debet submittere, quod
etiam ratione probare nituntur. Nam veritatem infallibilem et
immutabilem non debet quis correctioni illius submittere qui falli
potest et errare. Veritates autem catholice sunt infallibiles et
immutabiles, papa vero falli potest et errare, ergo tales veritates
nullus debet correctioni pape submittere. Unde minimam veritatem
contentam in scriptura divina non debet quicunque submittere
correctioni pape, quia certa, sicut discussione non indigent, ita et
correctione non egent. Quare, cum omnia asserta in scripturis divinis
sint certa, nulla correctione egent. Quare nullius correctione debent
submitti. Cum vero dicitur quod beatus Hieronymus fidem suam quam
didicerat in ecclesia supposuit correctioni beatissimi pape,
respondetur quod hoc simpliciter est falsum, quod tamen ex verbis
beati Hieronymi male intellectis elicitur. Unde, ut mentem beati
Hieronymi cunctis aperiant, verba ponunt eiusdem, qui, ut habetur 24
q. 1 cap. Hec est fides, ait: "hec est fides, papa
beatissime, quam in catholica ecclesia didicimus, quamque semper
tenuimus; in qua si minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid
positum est, emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri et sedem tenes et
fidem. Si autem hec nostra confessio apostolatus tui iudicio
comprobatur, quicunque me culpare voluerit, se imperitum, vel
malivolum, vel etiam non catholicum, sed hereticum comprobabit".
Ex quibus verbis concludunt quidam quod beatus Hieronymus fidem suam,
quam in ecclesia didicerat, supposuit correctioni beatissimi pape.
Sed dicunt alii quod isti verba beati Hieronymi minus bene
intelligunt. Non enim intendit Hieronymus fidem suam quam didicerat
in ecclesia correctioni beatissimi pape supponere, quia si papa illi
fidei contradixisset, beatus Hieronymus ipsum hereticum reputasset.
Didicit enim Hieronymus in ecclesia quod Christus fuit verus Deus et
verus homo, cui si papa obviasset, pro heretico pessimo eum
Hieronymus habuisset. |
Master: This explanation is rejected. These clerks
considered Anastasius II to be a heretic because he had contradicted
their assertion, which they had received from the holy fathers. And
for the same reason, they would have considered a heretic whichever
future pope might have subsequently contradicted this. Therefore they
did not want to submit their assertion to the correction of any man.
And that is why these thinkers say that a Christian must not submit a
catholic assertion to the correction of the pope, a contention they
also attempt to prove by reason. For someone must not submit a truth
which is infaillible and immutable to the correction of one who may
err or be misled. But catholic truths are infaillible and immutable,
while the pope may err or be misled, therefore no one must submit
such truths to the correction of the pope. Hence, one must not submit
to the correction of the pope even the least weighty of the truths
contained in Divine Scripture, because matters which are certain,
just as they do not require discussion, so likewise do they not
require correction. Therefore since all the matters asserted in the
Divine Scriptures are certain, they require no correction at all.
Therefore they must not be submitted to anyone's correction. When it
is claimed, however, that blessed Jerome submitted his faith, which
he had learned in the church, to the correction of the most holy
pope, the answer is that this is plainly false, and that the claim is
derived from badly understood words of blessed Jerome. Hence, in
order to explain the intention of blessed Jerome to everyone, the
thinkers we are reporting cite his words. Blessed Jerome (we find
this in 24 q. 1 c. Hec est fides) states: "this is the
faith, most holy pope, which we have learned in the catholic church,
and which we have always held; should we have affirmed something in
our presentation thereof which is unlearned or perhaps lacking in
caution, we desire to be corrected by you, who hold both Peter's see
and his faith. But if this confession of ours is approved by the
judgement of your apostolicity, then whoever would want to fault me
will prove himself unlearned, or malicious, or even not a catholic
but a heretic". [col. 970] Some deduce from these words that
blessed Jerome submitted his faith, which he had learned in the
church, to the correction of the most holy pope. But others reply
that such interpreters misunderstand blessed Jerome's words. Indeed,
Jerome did not intend to submit to the correction of the most holy
pope his faith which he had learned in the church, for had the pope
contradicted this faith, blessed Jerome would have considered him a
heretic. For Jerome had learned in the church that Christ was true
God and true man. Had the pope denied this, Jerome would have held
him to be the worst of heretics. |
|
Discipulus: Quid ergo supposuit beatus Hieronymus
correctioni pape. |
Student: What, then, did Jerome submit to papal correction. |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod beatus Hieronymus
absolute nichil supposuit correctioni pape, sed conditionaliter
tantum, quod verba eius aperte declarant cum dicit: "in qua si
minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum est emendari
cupimus a te etc.," que verba, sicut de se patet, conditionalia sunt. |
Master: The answer is that Jerome submitted nothing
absolutely (but only conditionally) to the correction of the pope,
which his words openly declare when he states: "should we have
affirmed something in our presentation thereof which is unlearned or
perhaps lacking in caution, we desire to be corrected by you
etc." It is inherently obvious that these words are conditional. |
|
Discipulus: Saltem ex forma verborum apparet quod
Hieronymus fidem suam quam didicerat in ecclesia conditionaliter
supposuit correctioni pape. Quia primo dicit: "hec est fides,
papa beatissime, quam in catholica ecclesia didicimus", et
postea subiungit: "in qua si minus etc." |
Student: It appears at least from the form of the
words that Jerome conditionally submitted his faith, which he had
learned in the church, to the correction of the pope. For he
initially states: "this is the faith, most holy pope, which we
have learned in the church", and afterwards he adds; "should
we have affirmed etc." |
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis absque periculo
Hieronymus potuerit conditionaliter fidem suam supponere correctioni
pape, quia conditionalis nichil ponit, (unde et hec conditionalis
vera est: "si in evangelio aliquod falsum asseritur, corrigendum
est") tamen beatus Hieronymus in verbis premissis non intendebat
fidem suam supponere correctioni pape, sed expositionem suam circa
fidem intendebat conditionaliter supponere correctioni pape, ut iste
sit sensus verborum suorum: "in qua", id est circa quam,
scilicet fidem, exponendam et explanandam, "si minus perite aut
parum caute forte aliquid positum est, emendari cupimus a te,
etc." Quemadmodum si quis postillator evangelii diceret;
"hoc est evangelium, in quo si aliquid minus bene dixi, paratus
sum corrigere". |
Master: The answer is that although Jerome could
have conditionally submitted his faith to the correction of the pope
without danger (for a conditional statement affirms nothing; hence
this conditional statement is true: "if something false is
asserted in the Gospel it must be corrected"), nevertheless
blessed Jerome had not intended in the cited words to submit his
faith to the correction of the pope, but had intended to
conditionally submit his exposition concerning the faith to the
correction of the pope. Therefore his words should be interpreted as
follows: "in our presentation thereof", that is, concerning
its (namely the faith's) exposition and explanation, "should we
have affirmed something which is unlearned, or lacking in caution, we
desire to be corrected by you etc." This is similar to a
commentator of the Gospel saying: "this is the gospel; should I
have stated something badly in my exposition, I stand ready to be corrected". |
|
Capitulum 72 |
Chapter 72 |
|
Discipulus: Si de predicto modo circa alias
prerogativas quibus preeminere debet impugnator idoneus pape heretici
dilatares, multis lectoribus operis huius fastidium generares, ideo
alias succincte percurras. |
Student: If you offer similarly expanded comments
concerning the other prerogatives which the qualified opponent of a
heretic pope must possess in pre-eminent fashion, you would arouse
boredom in many readers of this work, therefore be brief in your
description of other prerogatives. |
|
Magister: Alie prerogative impugnatoris pape
heretici assignantur. Quarum alique sunt communes impugnantibus
corporaliter et spiritualiter pape heretici, alique vero sunt proprie
impugnantibus spiritualiter papam hereticum. Oportet eos qui
corporaliter vel spiritualiter papam hereticum magnam sequelam
habentem satagunt impugnare, tanquam directores et capita aliorum,
novarum viarum existere inventivos. Quia sicut, teste beato Augustino
ad Bonifatium, ut legitur dis. 50 cap. Ut constitueretur,
cogunt multas invenire medicinas multorum experimenta morborum, ita
casus novi et extranei emergentes cogunt industrios ad occurrendum
vias novas et extraneas invenire. Cum ergo sit valde extraneum atque
rarum quod papa sit pravitate infectus heretica, ad ipsum viriliter
impugnandum oportet vias extraneas cogitare, presertim si potentum
fuerit favore munitus. Quicunque contra papam hereticum voluerit
solumodo uti communibus, erit forsitan similis medico imperito qui
uno collirio omnium oculos vult curare. Non sufficit autem
impugnatori idoneo pape heretici contra ipsum vias extraneas
invenire, nisi, cum fuerit expediens, ipsas curaverit effectui
mancipare, ut, videlicet, non timeat aggredi novitates. Quamvis enim
novitates inutiles, perniciose, et periculose sint omnino vitande,
novitates tamen perutiles, necessarie, et salubres sunt carius
amplectende. Non est aptus ad quecunque ardua peragenda qui omnes
horruerit novitates. Si Alexander Macedo novitates aggredi timuisset,
maiorem partem mundi sibi nullatenus subdidisset. Si civitas Romana
novitates minime attemptasset, nunquam pacem in universo orbe
fecisset. Quid loquar de seculi hominibus, cum apostoli, si novitates
inducere formidassent, ad novam legem gentes nullatenus
convertissent. Non sunt ergo novitates penitus respuende, sed sicut
vetusta cum apparuerint onerosa sunt omnimode abolenda, ita novitates
cum utiles, fructuose, necessarie, et expedientes secundum rectum
iudicium videbuntur, sint animosius amplectenda. Non autem sufficit
impugnatori idoneo pape heretici novitates, cum opportunum fuerit,
attemptare, nisi etiam, cum expediens fuerit, periculis et laboribus
et etiam morti, si opportuerit, se exponat. Qui enim omnia pericula
expavescit, similis est illi de quo dicitur Ecclesiasti 11: "qui
observat ventum non seminat, et qui considerat nubes nunquam metet". |
Master: Here is a listing of other prerogatives of
the heretic pope's opponent. Some of these are common to both
spiritual and physical opponents of a heretic pope, while others are
proper to those who oppose this pope spiritually. It is appropriate
that the persons directing and heading others in physical or
spiritual opposition to a heretic pope who has a large following,
should be discoverers of new and fresh methods of action. For just
as, witness blessed Augustine writing to Boniface (as we read in dis.
50 c. Ut constitueretur), the experience of many diseases
promotes the discovery of many cures, so does the emergence of new
and unusual problems prompt diligent individuals to intensify the
discovery of new and unusual solutions. Therefore, since it is quite
unusual and rare for the pope to become infected with heretical
wickedness, it is appropriate to discover unusual methods of firmly
opposing him, especially if he were well protected by the support of
the powerful. Whoever would wish to merely employ common tactics
against a heretic pope would perhaps resemble the untalented doctor
who wants to heal everyone's ocular ailments with just one kind of
eye-salve. Nor would it suffice for the qualified opponent of a
heretic pope to discover unusual tactics against him, unless he put
them into practice given the opportunity to do so, and, namely, did
not fear to implement these novelties in reality. For although
useless, harmful, and dangerous innovations are to be entirely
avoided, innovations which are quite useful, necessary, and salutary
should be eagerly embraced. He who would abhor all novelties is
ill-equipped to engage himself in difficult tasks. Had Alexander the
Macedonian feared to implement novelties, he would not have conquered
most of the world. Had the city of Rome not performed novelties, it
would never have established peace in the whole world. But why do I
speak of secular personalities, when the apostles, had they been
afraid to introduce novelties, would not have converted peoples to
the New Law. Therefore innovations are not to be unreservedly
rejected, but, just as old ways are to be entirely abolished should
they appear burdensome, so must innovations be heartily embraced when
they shall appear useful, fruitful, necessary, and expedient by
reference to right reason. And, furthermore, it does not suffice for
the qualified opponent of a heretic pope to embark upon innovations
when the opportunity to do so arises, unless he also, when expediency
demands, exposes himself to dangers, labours, and even death if need
be. For he who takes fright at all dangers is similar to the person
about whom Ecclesiastes 11 states: "he that observeth the wind
shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap".
[Ecclesiastes 11:4] |
|
Rursus, si habet divitias, debet esse paratus expensas effundere,
quia nulla eleemosyna corporalis extra articulum necessitatis extreme
est ita necessaria. Neque enim monasteriorum constructio, neque
pauperorum quorumcunque sustentatio, neque ecclesiarum edificatio,
neque miserabilium personarum defensio, neque captivorum redemptio,
neque pro terre sancta recuperatione largitio, potest equiparari
expensis que fiunt ad impugnandum papam hereticum et fidem catholicam
defendendam et exaltandam, eo quod exaltatio et defensio fidei
catholice est omnibus temporalibus preferenda. |
Again, if he possesses wealth, he should be prepared for considerable
expenses, for no physical alm is as indispensable as this one, save
for such as would be forthcoming in a situation of extreme necessity.
Indeed, neither the construction of monasteries, nor the sustenance
of all categories of the poor, nor the building of churches, nor the
defense of miserable persons, nor the ransoming of captives, nor the
financial contribution towards the reconquest of the Holy Land, can
be compared to the expenses which need to be incurred in order to
combat a heretic pope, and to defend and exalt the catholic faith,
because the exaltation and defense of the catholic faith must take
precedence over all temporal concerns. |
|
Amplius, impugnator idoneus pape heretici perditionem rerum, honorum,
et fame nullatenus expavescat. Hec enim omnia sunt inter bona minima
computanda. Nec propter ista est defensio fidei aliquatenus
obmittenda. Quamvis enim unusquisque, si convenienter potest, famam
suam, que inter omnia temporalia preeminere videtur, ad edificationem
proximi et propter scandalum evitandum servare tenetur, propter ipsam
tamen servandam non est defensio fidei relinquenda. Quia absque fama
est salus, et sepe fama est causa perditionis eterne. Et ideo qui de
perditione fame nimium contristatur, ut aliquid spectans ad honorem
Dei vel salutem suam vel proximorum obmittat, non est dignus regno
Dei. Talis enim cum Apostolo nequaquam propter Christum omnia velut
stercora arbitratur, sed gloria vexatur inani, omnia opera sua
faciens ut ab hominibus videatur. |
Further, the qualified opponent of a heretic pope should not fear the
loss of property, of honours, and of reputation. For all these should
be reckoned among the least weighty of goods. Nor should the defense
of the faith be in any way renounced on their account. For although
everyone is obligated, if conveniently possible, to reserve one's
good reputation (apparently the most significant of temporal goods)
for the edification of neighbours and to avoid scandal, the defense
of the faith must not be abandoned in order to preserve one's good
name. For there can be salvation without reputation, and reputation
is frequently the cause of eternal perdition. And therefore, he who
is overly saddened by loss of reputation, and proceeds to renounce
something pertinent to the honour of God, or to his own or his
neighbours' salvation, is unworthy of the kingdom of God. Indeed,
such a person will never, in emulation of the Apostle, consider all
things as dung for the sake of Christ, [Philippians 3:8] but desirous
of vainglory, [Galatians 5:26] will perform all of his activities so
as to gain popular attention. |
|
Iterum, impugnator idoneus pape heretici omnem duplicitatem evitet,
ne scilicet facto, verbo vel scripto patenter ostendat quod ipsum
habet pro vero summo pontifice. Quamvis enim nonnunquam licitis et
utilibus simulationibus uti expediens censeatur, tamen uti
duplicitate que falsitatem includit semper est illicitum reputandum,
teste sapiente, qui Ecclesiastici 2 ait: "ve duplici corde et
peccatori terram ingredienti duabus viis". |
Further, the qualified opponent of a heretic pope will avoid all
duplicity lest, namely, he openly suggests by deed, word, or script,
that he holds the heretic pope to be a true pope. For although at
times it is believed expedient to utilize legitimate and useful
pretences, nevertheless the use of duplicity which includes falsehood
is always to be considered illegitimate, witness a wise person who
states in Ecclesiasticus 2: "woe to him who is of a double
heart, and to the sinner that goeth on the earth two ways".
[Ecclesiasticus 2:14] |
|
Sit insuper in prosequendo negotia fidei contra papam hereticum
calidus, non tepidus. Tepidus enim in hoc negotio, presertim si est
magnus et potens, non solummodo de ore Dei evometur, sed etiam
pauperibus et simplicibus sibi adherentibus erit causa et occasio
confusionis et destructionis, non tantummodo temporalis, sed etiam
forsitan spiritualis. Quia si non ferventer defendit eos, papa
hereticus et complices sui tanquam belue crudelissime ipsos tam
spiritualiter quam corporaliter satagerent trucidare. |
Moreover, let the opponent be ardent and not lukewarm in pursuing the
interest of faith against a heretic pope. For one who is lukewarm in
this process, especially if he is a great and powerful individual,
will not only be spewed out of God's mouth, but will also become a
cause and opportunity of disorder and destruction, not merely
temporal, but perhaps also spiritual, to his poor and unlearned
supporters. For if he does not vehemently defend the latter, the
heretic pope and his accomplices will, like beasts most cruel,
attempt to exterminate them both spiritually and physically. |
|
Oportet etiam impugnatores idoneos pape heretici amore et concordia
fortius adiuvari, ne, si dissensionibus et contentionibus, odio,
emulationibus, et scismatibus disiungantur, facilius desolentur.
Quia, teste Salvatore: "omne regnum divisum contra se desolatur
et omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se non stabit". Quare
impugnatores pape heretici, quantumcunque iustam causam habuerint,
non sperent quod propter ipsos tam laudabilem finem accipiant si
inter se discordes extiterint dampnabiliter et divisi. Tales enim non
sunt de semine illorum per quos fides orthodoxa exaltabatur, sed per
aliam occasionem Deus causam fidei feliciter terminabit. |
It is also proper that opponents of a heretic pope strongly rely on
mutual love and concord, lest, if divided by disagreements and
quarrels, hatred, jealousies, and schisms, they be more easily
forsaken. Because, witness the Saviour: "every kingdom divided
against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house
divided against itself shall not stand". [Matthew 12:25]
Therefore the opponents of a heretic pope, no matter how just their
cause, should not expect that they will manage to succeed in
accomplishing such a praiseworthy goal through their own efforts if
damnable discord and division exists among them. For if this is what
they are involved in, then they are not of the seed of those who had
once exalted orthodox faith, and God will choose another set of
circumstances to bring the cause of faith to a happy conclusion. |
|
Impugnator ergo idoneus pape heretici gloriam propriam minime querat,
quasi velit quod per ipsum solummodo victoria habeatur, sed gaudeat
per quemcunque causa fidei licite adiuvetur. Nec facta et consilia
minorum despiciat, quia sepe parvulis revelantur que a sapientibus et
prudentibus absconduntur. Sit consiliativus, assidue inquisitivus, et
interrogativus viarum et modorum quibus est contra papam hereticum
procedendum. Quia, teste Salomone: "erit salus ubi multa sunt
consilia". Et quamvis minorum consilia sepe minime sint
spernenda, tamen a sapientibus est maxime in hoc casu consilium
requirendum, nec aliquis de sapientia propria tanquam sit sufficiens
quoquo modo confidat. Si enim mille carentes potentia temporali,
quorum quilibet sapientiam Salomonis excederet, papam hereticum regum
et principum favore fulcitum satagerent impugnare, aliorum consilio
indigerent. Nec tamen propter hoc pauciores et minus sapientes debent
aliqualiter formidare contra papam hereticum bellum accipere. Quia
quamvis nichil de contingentibus obmittere debeant, in sua tamen
sapientia vel virtute sperare non debent, sed in virtute Dei, qui, si
certaverint usque ad mortem, expugnabit pro eis inimicos eorum.
Quamobrem nullam multitudinem adherentium pape heretico expavescant,
quia sicut allegatum est supra, teste Iuda Machabeo: "non est
differentia in conspectu Dei celi liberare in multis et in
paucis". Et Exodi 23 unicuique fideli in hec verba mandatur:
"non sequeris turbam ad faciendum malum, nec in iudicio
plurimorum acquiesces sententie ut a vero devies". Cuius
rationem assignat Psalmista dicens: "defecit sanctus quoniam
diminute sunt veritates a filiis hominum, vana locuti sunt
unusquisque ad proximum". Et alibi ait: "omnes
declinaverunt simul, inutiles facti sunt. Non est qui faciat bonum
non est usque unum". Rationem etiam eiusdem assignat Salomon
Ecclesiasti 1 dicens: "stultorum infinitus est numerus".
Nec Isaias rationem eius tacuit cum dixit: "omne caput languidum
et omne cor merens a planta pedis usque ad verticem non est in eo
sanitas". Imo etiam Salvator ipse rationem dicti prioris
expressit cum dicit Matthei 7: "Lata porta et spaciosa via que
ducit ad perditionem et multi sunt qui intrant per eam quam angusta
porta et arta via que ducit ad vitam et pauci sunt qui inveniunt
eam". Et alibi ait: "multi autem sunt vocati, pauci vero
electi". Ex quibus aliisque innumeris nonnulli accipiunt
argumenta ad probandum quod propter quantamcunque multitudinem
adherentium pape heretico non debent pavere paucissimi contra papam
hereticum patenter insurgere. Ante omnia tamen ab omni peccato
mortali se servare conantur, quia sicut non est speciosa laus in ore
peccatorum ita defensio fidei vel impugnatio pravitatis heretice per
scelestum coram Deo est minime preciosa, licet utilis aliis esse
possit. Oportet igitur impugnatorem idoneum pape heretici non solum
peccata carnalia sed etiam spiritualia declinare. Propter quod
nonnulli putant quod hiis diebus essent paucissimi impugnatores
idonei pape heretici, quia fere totum mundum, tam clericos quam
laicos, tam seculares quam religiosos, dubitant peccatis mortalibus
spiritualibus, fornicatione et furto peioribus, esse enormiter
irretitos, ut ambigant non minus modo quam tempore Noe verificari
illud Genesis 6: "corrupta est autem terra coram Deo, et repleta
est iniquitate". |
Therefore let the qualified opponent of a heretic pope not seek his
own glory, as if wishing that victory be achieved through him alone,
but let him rejoice in whoever legitimately assists the cause of
faith. And let him not despise the deeds and counsels of lesser
people, for matters are frequently revealed to the simple which are
hidden from the wise and the prudent. Let him seek advice,
assiduously investigating and querying the ways and means whereby one
ought to proceed against the heretic pope. For as Solomon witnesses:
"in multitude of counsellers there is safety". [Proverbs
24:6] And although the counsels of the lesser are frequently not to
be despised, it remains that in such an enterprise it is above all
the counsel of the wise which must be sought, nor should one in any
way be confident of the sufficiency of one's own wisdom. For if a
thousand individuals not endowed with temporal power, each of whom
exceeded the wisdom of Solomon, were to oppose a heretic pope who was
strengthened by the favour of kings and princes, they would need the
counsel of others. Yet for all that, the fewer in number and the less
wise must not fear in any way to undertake a war against a heretic
pope. For although they must not omit any of the relevant
preparations, neither must they place exclusive expectation on their
own wisdom and virtue, but rather on the virtue of God, who will
defeat their enemies on their behalf if they fight unto death. For
that reason they should not fear the multitude of the heretic pope's
supporters, because, as earlier argued, [1 Dial. 7.47] witness Judah
Maccabee: "with the God of heaven it is all one, to deliver with
a great multitude, or a small company". [1 Maccabees 3:18] And
in Exodus 23 a command is issued to every believer in these words:
"thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt
thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgement".
[Exodus 23:2] And the reason for this is laid down by the Psalmist,
who states: "for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail
from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his
neighbour". [Psalms 12:1-2] And elsewhere he states: "they
are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is
none that doeth good, no, not one". [Psalms 14:3] The reason for
this is also laid down by Solomon, who states in Ecclesiastes 1:
"the foolish are infinite in number". [Ecclesiastes 1:15]
Nor did Isaiah mute this reason when he stated: "the whole head
is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even
unto the head is no soundness in it". [Isaiah 1:5-6] Indeed, the
Saviour himself expresses the reason of the prior statement when he
says in Matthew 7: "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that
leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat;
because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto
life, and few there be that find it". [Matthew 7:13-14] And
elsewhere he states: "for many are called, but few are
chosen". [Matthew 22:14] From these texts, and from innumerable
others, many derive arguments to prove that the very few must not
fear to rise up openly against a heretic pope, no matter what
multitude of supporters he possesses. But above all, opponents of a
heretic pope must preserve themselves from any mortal sin, because,
just as praise in the mouth of sinners is not impressive, likewise is
the defense of the faith or the assault on heretical wickedness made
by a criminal of no value before God, though it might be useful to
others. It is therefore appropriate for the qualified opponent of a
heretic pope to avoid not only physical but also spiritual sins. And
this is why many believe that in our times there would be exceedingly
few qualified opponents of a heretic pope, because these thinkers
argue that practically the entire world, clerks as much as laymen,
seculars as much as religious, are involved without measure in the
commission of spiritual mortals sins, worse than fornication and
theft, and these thinkers believe that the following statement of
Genesis 6 is presently verified no less than it was in the time of
Noah: "the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was
filled with violence". [Genesis 6:11] |
|
Capitulum 73 |
Chapter 73 |
|
Discipulus: De isto ultimo
dicto vehementer admiror, cuius motiva in tractatu De gestis circa
fidem altercantium orthodoxam sollicite indagabo. Nunc autem, cum
plures prerogativas tetigeris quibus secundum quorundam sententiam
oportet impugnatores idoneos pape heretici preeminere, que omnes
communes impugnatoribus corporaliter et spiritualiter papam hereticum
michi videntur, numera aliquas prerogativas speciales quibus expedit
preeminere impugnatores pape heretici, per testimonia scripturarum
precipue, si papa hereticus errores coloratos et latentes conatus
fuerit diffinitive populis tradere christianis. |
Student: I am tremendously astonished by this last
statement, and shall diligently inquire about its motives in the
treatise On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith. Now,
however, since you have touched on many prerogatives which, according
to the opinion of some, it is proper for qualified opponents of a
heretic pope to possess in the highest degree, prerogatives all of
which appear to me to be common to those who oppose a heretic pope
physically and spiritually, proceed to list certain particular
prerogatives which should be present in the highest degree in those
who oppose the pope specifically by relying on the witnesses of
Scriptures, if this heretic pope should definitively have attempted
to impart to Christian peoples errors both flagrant and hidden. |
|
Magister: Dicitur quod huiusmodi impugnatores
idoneos pape heretici oportet sanctarum habere intelligentiam
scripturarum ut, scilicet, non solum memoriam verborum retineant, sed
intellectum capiant veritatis. Quia, teste Hieronymo, ut legitur 1 q.
1 cap. Marcion: "nec putemus in verbis scripturarum
esse evangelium, sed in sensu; non in superficie, sed in medulla; non
in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis". Multi enim quamvis
memoria vigeant ut literas multas retineant, et prompte que voluerint
recitent et allegent, carent tamen iudicio et acumine rationis, unde
ad verum intellectum, nisi forte aliquando casualiter, per seipsos
nesciant pervenire. Et de istis potest verificari illud Apostoli 2
Timotheo 3: "semper discentes et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis
pervenientes". Tales autem non sunt idonei ad impugnandum
errores occultos et latentes. Alii sunt vigentes rationis iudicio,
quamvis in memoria deficere videantur, et illi, quamvis interdum cum
magno labore et tarde, sunt idonei errores occultos et latentes ac
coloratos pape heretici impugnare. Quamvis enim sepe sint imperiti
sermone ut eloquentia careant et ornatu verborum, non tamen scientia,
quia illi sciunt ex paucis multa elicere, et illi perspicue vident
que veritati sunt contraria, que consona, que antecedentia, que
consequentia, que impertinentia sunt censenda. Qui etiam per rationes
sophisticas et auctoritates male intellectas non de facili
seducuntur. Per quam autem scientiam rationis iudicium ad predicta
potissime adiuvetur libro nono De optimo genere addiscendi poteris
invenire. Qui autem memoria et iudicio prepollent, quod raro accidit
ut quidam estimant, et essent in sacris literis eruditi, essent
maxime idonei impugnatores errorum pape infecti heretica pravitate.
Oportet autem impugnatores idoneos pape heretici summe cavere ne
assertiones ipsius ambiguas contra mentem eius, vel etiam preter
mentem ipsius ad perversum nitantur trahere intellectum. Et multo
fortius assertiones eius veras in omni sensu pervertere minime
debent. Si enim aliquod fecerint predictorum, presertim scienter, vel
etiam ex ignorantia crassa et supina, non solum coram Deo peccare
mortaliter iudicabuntur, sed etiam apud intelligentes maligni vel
invidi aut iniusti apparebunt. In primis igitur, mentem ipsius ex
omnibus dictis eius, quando assertio eius est ambigua, investigent.
Si enim assertio eius non est ambigua sed sensum habens tantummodo
falsum, non est necesse ad alia dicta eius recurrere. Cum vero
patuerit manifeste sensum eius esse erroneum, non cavillose, non
sophistice, non per auctoritates male intellectas, non per
assertiones dubias et de quibus est licitum disputare, non per
rationes fantasticas, non intelligibiles, et intricatas, non per
dicta illorum quos licitum est negare, sed per scripturas autenticas
bene et sane intellectas, ac per rationes apertas, evidentes, et
irrefragabiles, studeant reprobare et fundare solidissime contrariam
veritatem. Hec autem omnia amore faciant veritatis et odio
falsitatis, ut ira, rancore, vel odio persone pape heretici
nullatenus moveantur. |
Master: One responds that it is proper for such
qualified opponents of a heretic pope to possess sound knowledge of
Scriptures, namely, so that they not only remember their words, but
also grasp the meaning of their truth. Because, witness Jerome (as we
read in 1 q. 1 c. Marcion): "nor should we believe the
Gospel to be found in the mere words of the Scriptures, but in their
meaning; not on the surface, but in the marrow; not on the written
pages, but in the rational foundation". [col 381] For there are
many individuals who, although endowed with sufficient memory to
retain many of Scripture's words, and able to instantly recite and
argue these at will, nevertheless lack proper judgement and
intellectual penetration as to these words' true meaning, and do not
know how to arrive at this by their own power, unless they manage it
occasionally and by accident. And it is of such interpreters that may
be verified the following comment of the Apostle in 2 Timothy 3:
"ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth". [2 Timothy 3:7] Such persons are indeed not fitted to
oppose errors both flagrant and hidden. There are others, however,
endowed with rational discernment, although they seem to lack memory,
and it is they who are qualified to oppose the secret, hidden, and
flagrant errors of a heretic pope, even if it sometimes takes them
much time and effort to perform the task. Indeed, although they
frequently are unskilled in qualities of speech, and lack eloquence
and verbal flourish, they do not lack knowledge, for they know how to
deduce much from little, and it is they who clearly see which claims
are contrary to the truth and which are in harmony with it, which
statements are to be considered the premises of an argument, which
the conclusions, and which are altogether irrelevant. These
individuals are not easily misled by sophistical reasons and
misunderstood authorities. You will, by the way, be able to discover
in Book Nine [?] of The best method of learning [cf. Introduction
to 1 Dial. 6. 16-35] by which rational science judgement is most
potently assisted in these contexts. It is those who posses both
superior memory and superior judgement (some consider this confluence
to occur but rarely), and who are learned in the Sacred Letters, who
would be the best qualified opponents of the errors of a pope
infected by heretical wickedness. It is also proper that the
qualified opponents of a heretic pope be supremely careful not to
attempt to forcibly convert his ambiguous assertions into
interpretations which run counter to his intention, or, equally, to
strain these assertions into perverse meanings which go beyond his
intention. And much more significantly, they must not pervert those
assertions of his which are true in every sense. For if they did any
of the aforementioned, especially if they did this knowingly, or on
the basis of grossly passive ignorance, they will not only be judged
as mortal sinners before God, but will also appear to be malicious,
or envious, or unjust in the eyes of intelligent observers. Therefore
let them initially analyze the heretic pope's ambiguous assertion on
the foundation of all his statements. But if his assertion is not
ambiguous, and can only have a sense which is false, it is not
necessary to refer to his other statements. If, however, it were
clear and obvious that the papal assertion was erroneous, let the
opponents proceed to reject it and to lay most solid foundations for
the contrary truth: not in quibbling fashion, not by sophistry, not
by misunderstood authorities, not by doubtful assertions concerning
which debate is permissible, not by fantastic, unintelligible, and
involved allegations, not by the statements of those thinkers one is
permitted to reject, but by authentic Scriptures, well and solidly
understood, and by reasons which are clear, evident, and irrefutable.
And let them do all this from love of truth and from hatred of
falsehood, so that they be in no way motivated by anger, resentment,
or hatred towards the person of the heretic pope. |
|
Discipulus: Cum instarem quod hoc opus inciperes,
arbitrabar brevem tractatulum De hereticis nos facturos, qui preter
estimationem meam in longum aliquantulum est protensus, quem si omnes
difficultates nunc michi de papa heretico eiusque complicibus
occurrentes tibi disserendas exponerem, oporteret extendere in
immensum. Sane cum opera prolixa pluribus dinoscantur ingrata
modernis, sit hic presens sermo noster De hereticis consummatus. Tue
autem benevolentie gratias ago, quod personam induens recitantis,
votis meis, nunc abbreviando, nunc falsas sententias recitando et pro
eis fortiter allegando, nunc ad rationes probabiles respondendo, nunc
argumentationes sophisticas non solvendo, nunc veritates absque
probationibus referendo, et quantum ad omnia alia, condescendere
studuisti. Istum autem modum utilem reputavi, quia sic nec ad
probandum nec ad reprobandum aliquod prescriptorum amor vel odium
persone tue quemcunque movebit, sed omnibus legentibus materia
dabitur cogitandi. Puto enim quod cum ista fuerint divulgata, tum
propter raritatem, tum propter utilitatem, viri literati et
intelligentes zelum veritatis et boni communis habentes, que vera
sunt rationibus manifestis et testimoniis scripturarum apertis
satagent confirmare, et que falsa sunt reprobare studebunt. Tu etiam,
ut estimo, cum mentem tuam ceperis aperire de predictis, opera facies
magnifica et preclara, plana veritate referta, ad omnium utilitatem
fidelium, et Dei omnipotentis honorem. Cui sit gloria, laus, et
imperium in secula seculorum. Amen. |
Student: When I urged you to begin this work, I
thought that we would compose a brief little treatise On heretics.
The actual product has expanded, beyond my expectation, into a rather
long treatise. If I were to submit to you for discussion all the
problems which now occur to me concerning a heretic pope and his
accomplices, the treatise would swell into immensity. But since long
works are not viewed with favour by many of our contemporaries, let
this present discourse of ours On heretics be herewith concluded. I
am indeed grateful for your kindness. Assuming the persona of a
reciter, you took care to acquiesce to my wishes, sometimes
abbreviating the material being discussed, sometimes reciting false
opinions and arguing firmly in support of them, sometimes responding
to strong and probable reasons, sometimes leaving sophistical
arguments unsolved, sometimes simply declaring truths without proving
them; and your generosity applied to all the other issues which I
raised. I have certainly found this approach to be useful, because,
as a result, the love or hatred of your person will not influence
anybody either to support or to reject argumentatively any of the
issues we have written about. This approach will rather give all
readers food for thought. Indeed, I do believe that when these
materials will be published, learned and intelligent men who possess
zeal for truth and for the common good will respond both to their
originality and their usefulness, by attempting to confirm the truths
contained herein through manifest arguments and open witnesses of the
Scriptures, and by studiously rejecting all the peripheral
falsehoods. I further reckon that when you begin to reveal your own
opinion on these issues, you will write splendid and magnificent
works, presenting the unambiguous truth, for the utility of all the
faithful, and for the honour of Omnipotent God. May glory, praise,
and dominion be His for ever. Amen. |