|
| |
Capitulum 6. |
Chapter 6. |
|
Discipulus Sufficiat dixisse praedicta de primo modo. Dic nunc secundum modum quo valeat de pertinacia quis convinci. |
Disciple Let what was said above be enough about the first way; describe now a second way by which someone can be convicted of pertinacity. |
|
Magister Qui dicit aliquam partem Novi aut Veteris Testamenti aliquod falsum asserere aut non esse recipiendam a catholicis est pertinax et haereticus reputandus. Unde propter hoc fuerunt Manichei haeretici iudicati, qui Vetus Testamentum respuerunt et Novum Testamentum pro parte tantummodo receperunt. |
Master He who says that some part of the New or Old Testament asserts something false or should not be accepted by catholics should be regarded as pertinacious and a heretic. It was for this reason that the Manichees, who rejected the Old Testament and accepted the New Testament only in part, were condemned as heretics. |
|
Discipulus Nunquid si aliquis laicus qui de libro forte Iosue nunquam audivit fieri mentionem diceret eundem librum Iosue ad Vetus Testamentum minime pertinere esset censendus haereticus? |
Disciple Should some layman be considered a heretic if he has never heard any mention of the book of, say, Joshua and were to say that the book of Joshua does not belong to the Old Testament? |
|
Magister Differentia est inter dicentem aliquam scripturam ad Vetus vel Novum Testamentum minime pertinere et dicentem aliquam partem Novi vel Veteris Testementi non esse recipiendam. |
Master There is a difference between one saying that some writing does not belong to the Old or the New Testament and one saying that some part of the New or the Old Testament should not be accepted. |
|
Primus, si est laicus vel illiteratus non est statim censendus haereticus sed est diligenter examinandus et etiam instruendus. Et si post informationem convenientem non se corrigeret esset pertinax reputandus. Si vero est literatus, sciens quos libros ecclesia reputat esse de integritate Novi et Veteris Testamenti, et tamen hoc non obstante diceret librum Iosue vel alium ad Vetus Testamentum minime pertinere esset statim haereticus et pertinax iudicandus, nec esset expectandus ut se correctus corrigeret, sed statim pro incorrigibili esset habendus. |
In the first case, if it is a layman or someone unlearned, he should not immediately be considered a heretic but should be carefully examined and also instructed. If he were not to correct himself after appropriate teaching he should be regarded as pertinacious. But if he is learned and knows what books the church regards as integral to the New and Old Testament and yet, notwithstanding this, were to say that the book of Joshua, or some other, does not belong to the Old Testament he should be condemned immediately as a heretic and pertinacious; nor should he be waited on so that once corrected he might then correct himself, but he should be held at once to be incorrigible. |
|
Secundus autem, qui scilicet dicit aliquam partem Novi vel Veteris Testamenti non esse recipiendam vel aliquod falsum asserere, sive literatus sive illiteratus extiterit, est statim pertinax iudicandus, nisi forte fuerit adeo simplex quod nesciat quid per "Novum et Vetus Testamentum" importetur et, seductus ab aliis, dicat Novum vel Vetus Testamentum aut aliquam partem recipi non debere, firmiter tamen credens totam fidem ecclesiae esse recipiendam. Talis enim non est inter haereticos computandus sed per simplicitatem et ignorantiam excusandus. Et de talibus simplicibus dicit Augustinus, ut habetur 24. q. 3. c. Haereticus, "Ille autem qui huiusmodi hominibus," scilicet haereticis, "credit imaginatione quadam veritatis est illusus." Et ideo non videtur quod debeat pertinax iudicari nisi credat fidem ecclesiae esse falsam vel alio modo pertinax convincatur. |
However, in the second case, namely someone who says that some part of the New or Old Testament should not be accepted or that it asserts something false, he should be judged immediately as pertinacious, whether he is learned or unlearned, unless perhaps he is so simple that he does not know what is meant by "New and Old Testament" and, led astray by others, says that the New or Old Testament or some part of it should not be accepted even though he firmly believes that the whole faith of the church should be accepted. For such a person should not be counted among the heretics but should be excused by simplicity and ignorance. It is about such simple people that Augustine speaks, as we read in 24. q. 3. c. Hereticus [col.998], "He who believes men of this kind," that is heretics, "has been deceived by some fancy of truth." It does not seem, therefore, that he should be judged as pertinacious unless he believes that the faith of the church is false or is convicted as pertinacious in another way. |
Capitulum 7 |
Chapter 7 |
|
Discipulus Circa istum modum de pertinacia convincendi nolo multum insistere quia non audio quod illi inter quos modo controversia vertitur aliquid tale mutuo sibi imponant nec aliquis alteri. Unum tamen retulisti quod peto declarari quia forte utile erit ad multa eo quod ad multa genera haereticorum applicari poterit ut videtur. Dixisti namque quod si aliquis sciret quos libros Ecclesia reputat de integritate Novi et Veteris Testamenti et tamen hoc non obstante diceret quod aliquem eorum ad Novum vel Vetus Testamentum minime pertinere esset statim pertinax et haereticus iudicandus nec esset expectandus an correctus paratus esset se corrigere sed statim pro incorrigibili esset habendus. De hoc enim ultimo miror quomodo talis sit statim incorrigibilis reputandus. Qui enim corrigi potest non est incorrigibilis. Talis autem corrigi potest. Ergo non est incorrigibilis reputandus. |
Disciple I do not want particularly to pursue that way of convicting of pertinacity because I do not hear that those who are now engaged in controversy attribute any such thing to each other mutually, nor does anyone [of them accuse] any other. You have, however, referred to one thing which I want to be explained because it will be beneficial perhaps to many [problems], in that it can be applied, it seems, to many kinds of heretics. For you said that if someone were to know what books the church regards as integral to the New and Old Testament and yet, notwithstanding this, were to say that any one of them does not belong to the New or Old Testament he should be judged immediately as pertinacious and a heretic and he should not be waited on [to see] whether, once corrected, he would be ready to correct himself but he should be held at once to be incorrigible. For I wonder about this last point, how such a person should be regarded at once as incorrigible; for he who can be corrected is not incorrigible; but such a person can be corrected; he should not be regarded, therefore, as incorrigible. |
|
Magister Multorum iudicio bene dixisti hoc quod petis utile esse ad multa quia nonnulli ex declaratione ipsius multa probare conantur. Dicitur itaque quod sicut "impenitens" dupliciter accipitur, uno modo pro illo qui penitere non potest, alio modo pro illo qui est in proposito minime penitendi, sic incorrigibilis dupliciter dicitur, uno modo ille qui non potest corrigi - et talis non est in hac vita praesertim si non est alienatus a sensu. Aliter dicitur ille incorrigibilis qui est in proposito se nullatenus corrigendi, licet possit corrigi. Et omnis talis incorrigibilis debet pertinax reputari. Unde talis incorrigibilis vocari potest pertinax, contumax, obstinatus et induratus. Non igitur, sicut accipis, qui corrigi potest non est incorrigibilis; imo multi sunt incorrigibiles qui sunt in proposito se nullatenus corrigendi, qui tamen corrigi possunt; et saepe incorrigibiles corriguntur, quia de nullo incorrigibili in vita praesenti est penitus desperandum, sicut nec de aliquo impenitente quamdiu vixerit est desperandum. |
Master In the judgement of many people you have said truly that what you seek is beneficial to many [problems] because some people try to prove a great deal by an explanation of it. And so it is said that just as "impenitent" is taken in two ways - in one way for him who can not do penance, in another way for him who has no intention of doing penance - so "incorrigible" is said in two ways: in one way, he who can not be corrected - and in this life no one is like that, especially if he is not insane - and in another way he is said to be incorrigible who has no intention of correcting himself, although he can be corrected. Everyone incorrigible in this way should be regarded as pertinacious. Consequently such an incorrigible person can be called pertinacious, contumacious, obstinate and hardened. It is not, therefore, as you take it, that he who can not be corrected is incorrigible; rather many are incorrigible who have no intention of correcting themselves although they can, nevertheless, be corrected; and often those who are incorrigible are corrected, because no one who is incorrigible should be wholly despaired of in this life, just as no one who is impenitent should be despaired of as long as he is alive. |
Capitulum 8 |
Chapter 8 |
|
Discipulus Dic alium modum quo de pertinacia debeat quis convinci. |
Disciple Describe another way by which someone should be convicted of pertinacity. |
|
Magister Dicunt nonnulli quod ille debet pertinax iudicari qui tenet ecclesiam universalem errare vel errasse ex quo cepit ecclesia Christiana congregari, licet credat fidem Christianam traditam a Christo et apostolis in nulla sui parte mendacium continere. Talis enim, ut dicunt, non est examinandus an paratus sit corrigi, sed eo ipso quod hoc dicit est pertinax reputandus. |
Master Some say [third way] that he who holds that the universal church errs or has erred since the christian church began to gather together ought to be judged as pertinacious, even if he believes that the christian faith handed down by Christ and the apostles contains nothing which is false. For they say that such a person should not be examined about whether he is ready to be corrected but, by the very fact that he says this, he should be regarded as pertinacious. |
|
Discipulus Nunquid omnes literati sic sentiunt? |
Disciple Do all the learned think this way? |
|
Magister Quidam tenent contrarium, dicentes quod absque pertinacia et haeretica pravitate potest quis ex simplicitate et ignorantia dicere ecclesiam errare vel errasse. Et ideo sic dicens est examinandus sollicite an paratus sit corrigi. Et si quidem paratus sit corrigi non est pertinax nec haereticus iudicandus; si autem corrigi nolit est inter pertinaces et haereticos numerandus. |
Master Some hold the contrary, saying that out of simplicity and ignorance someone can say without pertinacity and heretical wickedness that the church errs or has erred. And one who says this, therefore, should be examined punctiliously about whether he is ready to be corrected; and if he is indeed ready to be corrected he should not be judged as pertinacious or a heretic; if he refuses to be corrected, however, he should be numbered among the pertinacious and the heretics. |
Capitulum 9 |
Chapter 9 |
|
Discipulus Quia nonnulli imponunt domino Iohanne papa 22 quod ipse habet dicere et asserere ecclesiam universalem errare, de quo aliquando tecum collationem habebo, pro assertionibus contrariis supradictis aliquas allegationes adducas? |
Disciple Because some people attribute to the lord pope John XXII the power to say and assert that the universal church errs, about which I will sometime have a discussion with you, would you bring forward some arguments for the contrary assertions mentioned above? |
|
Magister Pro prima assertione potest taliter allegari: fides Christiana est fides universalis ecclesiae, nec inter fidem Christianam et fidem universalis ecclesiae potest aliqua differentia reperiri. Qui ergo dicit ecclesiam universalem errare vel errasse dicit fidem Christianam esse erroneam; qui autem dicit fidem christianam esse erroneam est statim absque ulteriori examinatione pertinax et haereticus reputandus; ergo qui dicit ecclesiam universalem errare vel errasse est statim absque aliqua examinatione pertinax et haereticus iudicandus. |
Master For the first assertion it can be argued as follows. The christian faith is the faith of the universal church and no difference can be found between the christian faith and the faith of the universal church. He who says, therefore, that the universal church errs or has erred is saying that the christian faith is erroneous; he who says that the christian faith is erroneous, however, should be regarded immediately and without further examination as pertinacious and a heretic; he who says that the universal church errs or has erred, therefore, should be judged immediately and without any examination pertinacious and a heretic. |
|
Pro assertione contraria taliter allegatur: qui dicit vel tenet aliquam assertionem cuius contrariam non tenetur explicite credere non est statim pertinax nec haereticus iudicandus, quia qua ratione potest quis tenere unam assertionem haereticalem cuius contrariam non tenetur explicite credere absque hoc quod pertinax et haereticus iudicetur, eadem ratione et aliam quamcunque assertionem haereticalem cuius contrariam non tenetur explicite credere potest dicere et tenere absque hoc quod statim debeat pertinax et haereticus iudicari. Sed non quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite credere quod ecclesia universalis non errat nec erravit. Ergo quamvis aliquis dixerit quod ecclesia universalis errat vel erravit non est statim pertinax et haereticus iudicandus, sed examinandus est an paratus sit corrigi. |
For the contrary assertion it is argued as follows. He who says or holds some assertion the contrary of which he is not bound explicitly to believe should not be judged immediately as pertinacious or a heretic, because by whatever argument someone can hold, without being judged pertinacious and a heretic, an heretical assertion the contrary of which he is not bound explicitly to believe, by the same argument he can also assert and hold any other heretical assertion the contrary of which he is not bound explicitly to believe without his being bound to be judged immediately pertinacious and a heretic. But not every christian is bound explicitly to believe that the universal church does not err and has not erred. Even if someone has said, therefore, that the universal church errs or has erred he should not be judged immediately to be pertinacious and a heretic but should be examined about whether he is ready to be corrected. |
|
Maior istius rationis videtur esse manifesta. |
The major [premise] of this argument seems to be obvious. |
|
Minor probatur quia nullus tenetur explicite credere conclusionem qui non tenetur explicite credere antecedens vel praemissas propter quod vel quas tenetur conclusio. Sed quod ecclesia universalis non errat vel erravit est conclusio quae ideo credenda est quia Christus dixit (Matthaei ultimo), "Vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem seculi", et quia rogavit pro Petro ne deficeret fides eius. Ista autem ex quibus infertur quod universalis ecclesia non erravit nec errat multi non tenentur explicite credere quia multi sunt illiterati qui verba praedicta nunquam audiverunt. Ergo nec tenentur explicite credere quod ecclesia universalis non errat nec erravit. |
The minor is proved because no one is bound explicitly to believe a conclusion unless he is bound explicitly to believe the antecedent or the premises on the basis of which the conclusion is maintained. But that the universal church does not err and has not erred is a conclusion, which should be believed because Christ said, in the last Chapter of Matthew [28:20], "I am with you all days, even to the end of time", and because he asked on behalf of Peter that his faith not fail. Many are not bound explicitly to believe these words from which it is inferred that the universal church has not erred and does not err because many are unlearned and have never heard them. They are not bound explicitly to believe, therefore, that the universal church does not err and has not erred. |
|
Confirmatur haec ratio, quia si quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite credere ecclesiam universalem non errare nec errasse, aut ergo tenetur hoc credere quia in Scriptura Divina asseritur, aut quia ad doctrinam pertinet universalis ecclesiae, aut quia ex doctrina universalis ecclesiae vel ex Scriptura Divina manifeste concluditur, vel quia est ab ecclesia universali explicite approbatum, vel quia apud omnes Christianos tanquam catholicum divulgatum existit. Non propter primum, quia multa in sacra pagina asseruntur quae non quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite credere, nec propter secundum per eandem rationem, nec propter tertium vel quartum propter idem, nec propter quintum quia haec veritas, "ecclesia universalis non potest errare", non est apud omnes Christianos simplices et alios divulgata. Multi enim sunt qui de ea loqui non audierunt omnino. |
This argument is confirmed because if any christian is bound explicitly to believe that the universal church does not err and has not erred he is bound to believe this either because it is asserted in divine scripture or because it pertains to the teaching of the universal church or because it is obviously inferred from the teaching of the universal church or from divine scripture or because it has been explicitly approved by the universal church or because it has been published among all christians as catholic. It is not so for the first reason, because many things which not every christian is bound explicitly to believe are asserted in the holy scriptures, nor for the second for the same reason, nor for the third or fourth for the same reason, nor for the fifth because this truth that the universal church can not err has not been published among all christians, those who are simple and others. For there are many who have not heard anyone at all speak about it. |
|
Discipulus Si haec ratio procederet videretur quod divulgatio apud Christianos esset maioris auctoritatis quam Scriptura Divina, quia propter divulgationem huiusmodi tenerentur omnes Christiani alicui veritati explicite assentire cui tamen non tenerentur propter Scripturam Divinam explicite adhaerere. |
Disciple If this argument were valid it would seem that publication among christians would be of greater authority than divine scripture because all christians would be bound as a result of such publication to assent explicitly to some truth to which nevertheless they would not be bound explicitly to cling because of divine scripture. |
|
Magister Ad hoc dicitur quod divulgatio apud omnes Christianos non est maioris auctoritatis quam Scriptura Divina sed est pluribus nota quam Scriptura Divina. Et ideo quod omnes Christiani tenentur explicite credere veritatem apud omnes Christianos etiam simplices divulgatam et non tenentur omnes explicite credere omnes veritates contentas in Scriptura Divina, non est propter maiorem auctoritatem talis divulgationis quam Scripturae Divinae sed quia talis divulgatio ad notitiam plurium iam pervenit, et per hoc assignatur ratio quare quilibet tenetur explicite credere fidem Christianam esse veram, quia ista veritas apud omnes divulgata existit, sicut et ista fides quam Christus docuit vera est et sana. |
Master To this it is said that publication among all christians is not of greater authority than divine scripture but is known to more people than divine scripture is. And that all christians are bound explicitly to believe a truth published among all christians, even the simple, and are not all bound explicitly to believe all the truths contained in divine scripture is therefore not because the authority of such publication is greater than that of divine scripture but because such publication has by now come to the notice of more people. This is the reason why everyone is bound explicitly to believe that the christian faith is true, because that truth has been published among everyone, as has [the truth that] the faith which Christ taught is true and sound. |
|
Discipulus Dic quomodo respondetur ad rationem pro assertione contraria. |
Disciple Describe how reply is made to the argument for the contrary assertion. |
|
Magister Respondetur quod peccat per fallaciam figurae dictionis, quia licet eadem sit fides Christiana et fides universalis ecclesiae, quando ecclesia non errat, tamen secundum istos universalis ecclesia consignat vel significat Christianos in recto, quos taliter non signat fides Christiana. Et ideo, ut dicunt, non sequitur: quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite credere fidem Christianam esse veram, ergo tenetur credere explicite ecclesiam universalem non errare nec errasse. |
Master It is replied that it is mistaken through the fallacy of "figure of speech", because although the christian faith and the faith of the universal church, when the church does not err, are the same, yet, they say, "universal church" consignifies or signifies christians in the nominative case, and "christian faith" does not signify them in this way. And therefore, they say, that this [argument] does not follow: "Every christian is bound explicitly to believe that the christian faith is true"; therefore, "he is bound explicitly to believe that the universal church does not err and has not erred." |
|
Discipulus Non diffundas te circa illa quae ad rationalem spectant scientiam, sed dic quomodo ad rationem in contrarium respondetur. |
Disciple Do not expatiate on matters that pertain to rational science [i.e. logic] but describe say how reply is made to the argument to the contrary. |
|
Magister Ad rationem illam dicitur quod quandoque magis tenetur quis credere conclusionem explicite quam praemissas ex quibus infertur, propter hoc quod conclusio magis quam praemissae apud catholicos divulgatur. Ita est de ista, "ecclesia universalis non errat nec erravit." Haec enim sub istis verbis vel aequipollentibus apud omnes catholicos divulgatur. Quilibet enim Christianus putat illam esse universalem ecclesiam quae secum in fide concordat, et ideo, sicut quilibet explicite credit se tenere veram fidem et non falsam, ita quilibet credit explicite universalem ecclesiam servare veram et catholicam fidem et non falsam fidem. Quare sicut ista, "fides Christiana est vera fides", est apud omnes Christianos divulgata, et ideo quilibet tenetur eam explicite credere, ita ista, "fides universalis ecclesiae est vera fides" est apud omnes Christianos divulgata. Quare quilibet Christianus eam tenetur explicite credere. Et ideo quicunque illam negat est statim sine maiori examinatione pertinax et hereticus reputandus. |
Master To that argument it is said that sometimes one is more bound explicitly to believe a conclusion than the premises from which it is inferred, on the grounds that the conclusion has been more widely published among catholics than the premises. It is so about [the conclusion] "the universal church does not err and has not erred". For it has been published among all catholics in those words or equivalent ones. For every christian thinks that to be the universal church which agrees with him in faith; and just as everyone believes explicitly that he holds the true faith and not a false faith, so everyone believes explicitly that the universal church preserves the true and catholic faith and not a false faith. Wherefore, just as it has been published among all christians that "the christian faith is the true faith", and everyone is bound, therefore, explicitly to believe this, so it has been published among all christians that "the faith of the universal church is the true faith". Wherefore every christian is bound explicitly to believe this; and whoever denies it, therefore, should be regarded immediately and without additional questioning as pertinacious and a heretic. |
|
Capitulum 10 |
Chapter 10 |
|
Discipulus Isti videntur distinguere inter universalem ecclesiam et multitudinem Christianorum. Nunquid igitur concedunt quod quilibet tenetur credere explicite quod multitudo vel maior pars Christianorum non errat nec erravit in fide? |
Disciple They seem to distinguish between the universal church and the multitude of christians. Do they grant, therefore, that everyone is bound explicitly to believe that the multitude, or the greater part, of christians does not err and has not erred in faith? |
|
Magister Respondetur quod non est necesse credere neque implicite neque explicite multitudinem Christianorum vel maiorem partem non errare in fide nec errasse, pro eo quod fides catholica in paucis potest servari; imo nonnulli dicunt quod in uno solo posset consistere, quia per unum solum posset salvari quicquid Christus promisit apostolis de fide catholica usque ad finem seculi duratura. |
Master The reply is that it is not necessary to believe explicitly or implicitly that the multitude, or the greater part, of christians does not err and has not erred in faith, on the grounds that the catholic faith can be preserved in a few people - indeed some say that it could endure in one person alone, because through one person alone whatever Christ promised to the apostles about the catholic faith's lasting until the end of time could be safeguarded. |
Capitulum 11 |
Chapter 11 |
|
Discipulus Nunquid est adhuc alius modus quo de pertinacia valeat quis convinci? |
Disciple Is there any other way by which someone can be convicted of pertinacity? |
|
Magister Quartus modus, secundum nonnullos, quo statim aliquis pertinax et haereticus iudicatur est si quis Christianus capax rationis et maxime intelligens neget quamcunque assertionem catholicam quae apud omnes catholicos et fideles cum quibus conversatus est tanquam catholica divulgatur et a praedicantibus verbum Dei publice praedicatur, sicut apud omnes catholicos publice divulgatur quod Christus fuit crucifixus, unde et in omni ecclesia crucifixus ostenditur et praedicantes verbum Dei hoc publice annuntiant et affirmant; et ideo si quis inter Christianos nutritus negaret Christum fuisse crucifixum esset statim pertinax et haereticus iudicandus. Et quanto magis fuisset inter Christianos conversatus et plures intrasset ecclesias et verbum Dei a pluribus audivisset et maiorem literaturam in sacra pagina et iure canonico haberet, tanto fortius esset statim pertinax et haereticus iudicandus. |
Master The fourth way, some say, by which someone is immediately judged to be pertinacious and a heretic is if any Christian, who is capable of reason - and, most of all, has understanding - denies any catholic assertion which is published as catholic among all the catholics and the faithful with whom he has been living and is publicly preached by those who preach the word of God. It is, for instance, widely published among all catholics that Christ was crucified - and thus the crucified one is on show in every church and those who preach the word of God publicly announce and affirm this fact - and if anyone brought up among christians, therefore, were to deny that Christ was crucified, he should be judged immediately to be pertinacious and a heretic. And the more that he had lived among christians, the more churches he had entered, the more expositions of the word of God he had heard, the more learned he were to become in the page of scripture and the canon law, so much the more strongly should he be judged immediately to be pertinacious and a heretic. |
|
Discipulus Quia quidam, ut scis, ista de causa putant dominum Iohannem esse haereticum, pro eo videlicet quod negat animas reproborum esse in inferno et animas sanctorum in celo videre Deum et daemones nunc puniri, quas dicunt esse veritates catholicas apud omnes catholicos divulgatas, unde et dicunt quod quamvis sermones suos nequaquam bullaverit tamen est pertinax et haereticus iudicandus, peto quod praedictum modum de pertinacia convincendi fortioribus allegationibus munire coneris ut materiam habeam cogitandi quomodo ad illas et alias pro defensionem domini nostri summi pontificis valeam respondere. |
Disciple Since, as you know, some people think that the lord John is a heretic, for the reason that he denies that the souls of the wicked are in hell, that the souls of the saints in heaven see God, and that the devils are even now being punished, which they say are catholic truths published among all catholics, so also they say that even though he has not published his words in a bull he should be judged nevertheless to be pertinacious and a heretic. I ask you to try to fortify with stronger arguments that way of convicting of pertinacity so that I have material for pondering how I can reply in defence of our lord the the highest pontiff to those and other [allegations]. |
|
Magister Quod negans aliquam assertionem catholicam apud omnes catholicos divulgatam sit statim absque alia examinatione vel discussione inter pertinaces et haereticos computandus ostenditur primo sic. |
Master That someone denying some assertion published as catholic among all catholics should be reckoned immediately, without any other questioning or discussion, among the pertinacious and the heretics is shown first of all as follows. |
|
Sicut nulli licet ignorare illa quae publice fiunt, secundum quod ex sacris canonibus colligitur evidenter dist. 16. Quod dicitis et 12, q. 2, Qui et humanis, sic nemini licet ignorare ea quae publice divulgantur, nuntiantur et tanquam catholica praedicantur. Qui autem negat assertionem catholicam quam sibi ignorare non licet est pertinax et haereticus iudicandus. Ergo qui negat assertionem catholicam, tam publice scilicet apud omnes catholicos divulgatam, est statim pertinax et haereticus iudicandus. |
Just as it is not licit for anyone to be ignorant of those things which are done publicly -- we clearly gather this from the sacred canons, dist. 16. Quod dicitis [col.50; see especially the gloss where the point is made more clearly] and 12. q. 2. Qui et humanis [col.695] -- so it is not licit for anyone to be ignorant of those things which are widely published, affirmed and preached as catholic. He who denies a catholic assertion which it is not licit for him to be ignorant of should be judged to be pertinacious and a heretic. He who denies a catholic assertion that has been so widely published, among all catholics that is, should be immediately judged, therefore, to be pertinacious and a heretic. |
|
Secundo sic. Negans assertionem catholicam potest per solam simplicitatem aut ignorantiam de pravitate haeretica excusari; sed negans assertionem catholicam apud omnes catholicos divulgatam non potest per simplicitatem vel ignorantiam excusari |
Second as follows. Someone denying a catholic assertion can be excused of heretical wickedness only through simplicity or ignorance; but someone denying a catholic assertion published among all catholics can not be excused by (a) simplicity or (b) ignorance. |
|
Quod non per simplicitatem patet quia positum est quod talis negans est capax rationis et intelligens. Si enim careret usu rationis vel esset alienatus a sensu bene excusaretur. Sed intelligens et industrius per simplicitatem excusari non potest. |
That he can not [be excused] by (a) simplicity is clear because it was assumed that the one denying is capable of reason and has understanding. (For if he lacked the use of reason or were insane he would indeed be excused.) But an aware person who has understanding can not be excused by simplicity. |
|
Nec potest per ignorantiam excusari, quia ignorantia iuris divini apud omnes promulgati non excusat, sicut nec ignorantia iuris naturalis excusat, secundum quod legitur in decretis 1, q. 4, para. Notandum. Si ergo assertio negata sit apud omnes catholicos promulgata negans eam nequit de pertinacia et pravitate haeretica excusari. |
Nor can he be excused by (b) ignorance, because ignorance of a divine law that has been made known among everyone does not excuse, just as ignorance of natural law does not excuse, as we read in 1. q. 4. para. Notandum [col.422]. If the assertion denied has been made known among all catholics, therefore, the one denying it can not be excused of pertinacity and heretical wickedness. |
|
Discipulus Quid si in rei veritate ignoraret talem assertionem ad fidem catholicam pertinere? Nunquid apud Deum excusaretur si absque pertinacia eam negaret? |
Disciple What if, in truth of fact, he were ignorant that such an assertion pertains to catholic faith? Would he be excused by God if he were to deny it without pertinacity? |
|
Magister Respondetur quod apud Deum excusaretur et etiam apud ecclesiam si probare valeret se ignorasse assertionem negatam apud catholicos esse tanquam catholicam divulgatam. Sicut si quis inter aliquos Christianos in aliqua una domo semper fuisset a pueritia nutritus, licet postea ex ignorantia diceret Christum non fuisse crucifixum et non pertinaciter adhaereret, eum non deberet ecclesia pertinacem et haereticum reputare si omnes cum quibus fuerat conversatus testimonium perhiberent quod nunquam aliquis eorum de crucifixione Christi fuisset sibi locutus. |
Master The reply is that he would be excused by God, and by the church too if he could prove that he had not known that the assertion he denied was published among catholics as catholic. For example, if someone had been brought up from childhood always in some one house among certain christians and afterwards were to say out of ignorance that Christ had not been crucified and were not to cling to this pertinaciously, the church ought not to regard him as pertinacious and a heretic if all those with whom he had lived were to present testimony that none of them had ever spoken to him about the crucifixion of Christ. |
|
Discipulus Circa tales casus, qui forte nunquam evenerunt, minime te dilates, sed loquamur de illis Christianis qui cum Christianis communiter conversantur, ecclesias intrant, et de his quae ad fidem pertinent Christianam saepe audiunt conferentes. Et de talibus adhuc proba, si vales, quod negantes assertionem catholicam apud omnes catholicos divulgatam statim sunt pertinaces et haeretici iudicandi. |
Disciple Do not enlarge on cases like this, which perhaps have never occurred, but let us talk about those christians who live in a community with christians, go into churches and often hear people discussing matters which pertain to the christian faith. Offer further proof, if you can, that if such people deny an assertion published among all catholics as catholic they should be judged immediately to be pertinacious and heretics. |
|
Magister Hoc tertio sic probatur. Qui negat assertionem catholicam quam debet et tenetur explicite credere est pertinax et haereticus reputandus. Sed quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite credere omnem assertionem catholicam apud omnes catholicos divulgatam. Ergo quicunque negat talem assertionem est tanquam pertinax et haereticus iudicandus. |
Master It is proved in a third way, as follows. He who denies a catholic assertion which he ought and is bound explicitly to believe should be regarded as pertinacious and a heretic; every christian is bound explicitly to believe every catholic assertion published among all catholics; whoever, therefore, denies such an assertion should be judged as pertinacious and a heretic. |
|
Maior ex descriptione pertinacis patet, quia "pertinax est qui persistit in hoc quod debet dimittere". Talis autem est qui negat assertionem catholicam quam tenetur explicite credere, quia ex quo tenetur eam explicite credere tenetur negationem eiusdem dimittere; ergo si negat est pertinax. |
The major [premise] is clear from the description of pertinacious, because "he is pertinacious who persists in that which he should put aside". [See chapter 1] He who denies a catholic assertion which he is bound explicitly to believe, however, is such a person, because from the fact that he is bound explicitly to believe it he is bound to put aside its denial; if he does deny it, therefore, he is pertinacious. |
|
Minor probatur, quia si aliquis tenetur aliquam assertionem catholicam explicite credere, aut ad hoc tenetur quia talis assertio est apud omnes catholicos tanquam catholica divulgata, aut quia sibi patenter ostenditur per Scripturam Divinam vel doctrinam vel determinationem universalis ecclesiae quod catholica est censenda. Si detur primum, habetur intentum, quod quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite credere omnem assertionem catholicam quam scit apud omnes catholicos esse pro catholica divulgatam. Quod si dicat se hoc ignorare oportet eum, si debet apud ecclesiam excusari, hoc probare. Secundum dari non potest, quia tunc nullus teneretur credere explicite Christum natum de virgine vel fuisse crucifixum nec aliquem alium articulum fidei, antequam sibi per Scripturam Divinam probaretur. Et ita quilibet laicus posset impune negare omnem articulum fidei quousque sibi per librum ostenderetur talem articulum in Biblia contineri. Confirmatur haec ratio, quia qui negat fidem Christianam esse veram vel sectam Sarracenorum esse falsam et malam est statim pertinax et haereticus iudicandus. Sed hoc non est nisi quia apud omnes catholicos divulgatur tanquam catholicum quod fides Christiana est vera fides et quod fides Sarracenorum est falsa fides. Ergo per eandem rationem qui negat quamcunque assertionem catholicam apud omnes catholicos divulgatam est statim pertinax et haereticus reputandus, nec potest apud ecclesiam aliqualiter excusari nisi probet se ignorasse assertionem negatam esse taliter divulgatam. |
The minor [premise] is proved because if anyone is bound explicitly to believe some catholic assertion, he is so bound either (a) because such an assertion has been published among all catholics as catholic or (b) because it is clearly shown to him by divine scripture or by the teaching or determination of the universal church that it should be considered catholic. If the first (a) is granted, the point is won because every christian is bound explicitly to believe every catholic assertion that he knows has been published as catholic among all catholics - if he says that he does not know [that it has been so published] he must prove this, if he ought to be excused by the church. The second (b) can not be granted because then no one would be bound explicitly to believe that Christ was born of a virgin or had been crucified or any other article of faith before it was proved to him from divine scripture. And so any layman could with impunity deny every article of faith until it was shown to him in the book that such an article is contained in the bible. This argument is confirmed because anyone who denies that the christian faith is true or that the sect of the Saracens is false and bad should be judged immediately to be pertinacious and a heretic; but this is so only because it is published among all catholics as catholic that the christian faith is the true faith and the faith of the Saracens a false faith; by the same argument, therefore, he who denies any assertion published among all catholics as catholic should be regarded immediately as pertinacious and a heretic and can not be excused by the church in any way unless he proves that he had not known that the assertion he denies was published in this way. |
Capitulum 12 |
Chapter 12 |
|
Discipulus Allega in contrarium. |
Disciple Argue to the contrary. |
|
Magister Negans veritatem catholicam de quo nescitur an per regulam fidei, scilicet per Scripturam Sacram, paratus sit corrigi non est pertinax iudicandus. Hoc auctoritate Augustini superius allegata, quae ponitur 24, q. 3, Dixit apostolus, patenter apparet. Hinc dicit glossa 17, dist. c. Nec licuit, "Eo ipso quod quis errat non dicitur haereticus si paratus est corrigi." Sed possibile est aliquem negare assertionem catholicam apud catholicos divulgatam quamvis nesciatur an paratus sit corrigi per regulam fidei, scilicet per Scripturam Sacram. Potest enim quis talem assertionem negare et tamen offerre se paratum corrigi si sibi ostendatur quod dicta assertio in sacra pagina vel in determinatione ecclesiae continetur. Ergo talis non est statim pertinax et haereticus iudicandus sed examinandus est an paratus sit corrigi. |
Master If it is not known of someone denying catholic truth whether he is ready to be corrected by the rule of faith, that is by sacred scripture, he should not be judged to be pertinacious. This is quite clear from the text of Augustine cited above and found at 24. q. 3. Dixit apostolus [col. 998]. Hence the gloss on [s. v. ad recipiendam] dist. 17, c. Nec licuit [cols.69-70] says: "Just because someone errs, he is not said to be a heretic if he is ready to be corrected." But it is possible for someone to deny an assertion published among catholics as catholic although it may not be known whether he is ready to be corrected by the rule of faith, that is by sacred scripture. For anyone can deny such an assertion and yet present himself as ready to be corrected if it is shown to him that that assertion is contained on the sacred page or in a determination of the church. Such a person, therefore, should not be judged immediately to be pertinacious and a heretic but should be questioned about whether he is ready to be corrected. |
|
Discipulus Ista allegatio videtur fortis et dominum Iohannem sufficienter excusat etiam esto quod erret. |
Disciple That argument seems strong and adequately excuses the lord John even if he errs. |
|
Magister Alii reputant dictam allegationem nullam, quia ex ipsa sequeretur, sicut tactum est prius, quod cuilibet Christiano negare liceret Christum esse verum hominem vel fuisse crucifixum. Posset enim dicere absque pertinacia per allegationem istam, "Nego Christum fuisse crucifixum, tamen paratus sum corrigi si mihi per Scripturam Sacram vel determinationem ecclesiae ostendatur Christum fuisse crucifixum." |
Master Others regard that argument as a nullity because it would follow from it, as was touched on above, that it would be permissible for any christian to deny that Christ was a true man or that he was crucified. For, according to that argument, he could without pertinacity say: "I deny that Christ was crucified; I am ready to be corrected, however, if it is shown to me from sacred scripture or a determination of the church that Christ was crucified." |
|
Discipulus Quare non potest talis excusari ex quo paratus est corrigi? |
Disciple Why can not such a person be excused since he is ready to be corrected? |
|
Magister Ideo, secundum multos, talis excusari non debet quia, esto quod esset possibile quod aliquis talis paratus esset corrigi, tamen contra talem, quantumcunque dicat se paratum corrigi, est de pertinacia et quod non est paratus corrigi tam violenta praesumptio, ex quo non ignorat assertionem negatam esse tam publice praedicatam et assertam per ecclesiam, quod non est sibi credendum cum dicit se paratum corrigi. Dictis enim multorum est fides nullatenus adhibenda. Hinc de tali negante assertionem catholicam publice praedicatam dicit Stephanus papa, ut habetur Extra, De haereticis c. 1, "Nec eis omnino credendum est qui fidem veritatis ignorant". Talibus enim nec cum contra alios testificari nituntur nec cum testimonium perhibent de seipsis est omnino credendum. Quare quamvis dicant se paratos corrigi sunt pertinaces et haeretici reputandi. |
Master Many say that such a person should not be excused because, even if it were possible that any such person would be ready to be corrected, nevertheless, against such a person, however much he says that he is ready to be corrected, there is so violent a presumption that he is pertinacious and not prepared to be corrected, because he is not ignorant that the assertion he denies has been publicly preached and asserted by the church, that he should not be believed when he says that he is ready to be corrected. For there are many people in whose words no trust should be placed. Hence Pope Stephen, as we find in Extra, De hereticis, c. 1, [col. 778] says of someone like this who denies an assertion publicly preached as catholic that "those who do not know the reliability of truth should not be believed at all." For such people should not be believed at all whether they strive to testify against others or present testimony about themselves. Although they say that they are ready to be corrected, therefore, they should be regarded as pertinacious and heretics. |
Go to chapter
13
Return to Table
of Contents