In making this analysis I have consulted Pierre D'Ailly's Abbreviatio
(Ian Murdoch, Critical
Edition of Pierre D'Ailly's "Abbreviatio dyalogi okan",
Ph D thesis Monash University, 1981).
In the translations, much information is taken from Knysh's notes
in the printed edition, ABMA vol.
42.
See also his introduction to that volume.
Chapter 1 Who should be regarded as
“believers”? (1) Those who believe the heretic’s errors, (2) those who do not
believe the errors but believe that the heretic is
genuinely a Catholic. (1a) Those who know that the errors
have been condemned by the Church ; (1b) those who do not know
that , (1bi) those who adhere to the errors pertinaciously,
(1bii) those who are ready to be corrected.
(1) Believers in the pope's heretical teaching
(Chapters 1-7)
Those who pertinaciously believe an
error they know to be contrary to Church teaching are heretics. It
is permissible and obligatory to contradict an erroneous teaching
of the pope, despite risk of schism (provided there is no risk of
dangerous disturbance without benefit). When the pope errs,
Catholics should hold to the previous teaching of the Church.
Chapter
2.
(1bi) What if the pope’s determination also has a Catholic
sense? Is someone a believer in heresy if he takes the pope’s
determination in a Catholic sense that the pope does not mean?
Some say yes. Others say no, because this person does not err
about the faith but about the pope's meaning. A person who gives
the pope's statement a Catholic meaning, if he knows it is not
the pope's meaning, lies, which is a mortal sin.
Chapter
3. What
if they draw to a Catholic sense a definition that cannot have a
Catholic sense? Some say that such people are believers in a
heresy, and if they defend it and attack its critics they are
pertinacious and therefore heretics. Others say it depends on
whether these people have skill in distinguishing ambiguities,
and whether they are ready to be corrected.
Chapter
4. What
of a prelate who makes a statute that his subjects should
respect the pope and the pope’s (heretical) definition? Some say
this prelate is a believer in heresy and a heretic. Others say
that if the order is framed so as to apply to true popes, but
seeming to apply to the heretic pope, it may be justifiable as a
deception. (Discussion of when deception is legitimate,
and how ambiguous statutes
should be interpreted.) If the prelate's order can apply only to
the heretic pope, he is a believer in a heresy and a heretic.
Chapter
5. What
of an inferior prelate who publishes the pope’s errors without
endorsing them? Some say He must be considered a believer and a
heretic. Otherwise it is said that he should be regarded as a
believer but not as a heretic, since one who merely publishes is
not convicted of pertinacity.
Chapter
6.
Which sin is more grave: to believe a heresy, or to preach it
without believing it out of worldly motives? Some say that
heresy is worse, others that lying is worse. Both should incur
the punishment of heretics. A liar should never be trusted.
Chapter
7.
(1bii) What of people who do not know that the pope’s definition
is heretical and so not pertinaciously adhere? If a person is
bound to believe explicitly, he is a heretic; if only
implicitly, he is not a heretic.
(2) Believers in the
heretic (i.e. that he is a Catholic) (Chapters 8-23)
Chapter 8. Are believers in heretics
themselves heretics? Some say: In the strict sense, no; in a
broad sense, yes. Others say: not in either sense, because their
error is not immutable.
Chapter 9. Is it a sin to believe that a heretic is a Catholic if one does not know that his beliefs are heresies? Not unless the ignorance is culpable ("crass and supine"), which is the case with people who do not want to listen to those who try to warn them. But should detractors be listened to? Not if they are known to be detractors, but sometimes even then [Cf. Book VI, Chapter 79.]
Chapter
10.
Catholics accusing a pope of heresy should be heard, especially
if they have been hitherto of good reputation.
Chapter 11. On those culpably ignorant that the pope is a heretic and refuse to listen: are they heretics, believers, supporters or defenders or receivers of the heretic pope? Some say that they are believers, not in the pope's errors but in a heretic (i.e. that the heretic pope is a Catholic). Their penalty is assessed in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus 1 (about which there are disagreements).
Chapter
12. Should
credence be given to people who wish to declare the
faithlessness of a heretic pope? Arguments that it should
not, until the accusation is proved in court.
Chapter 13. Arguments that it should,
introduced by five distinctions leading to 7 conclusions to be
explained in chapters 13-21. First conclusion: Speaking of
the belief that pertains to a judge, no one should believe those
reporting that the pope is a heretic unless it is notorious or
proved with the judicial order observed.
Chapter 14.
Second conclusion: Speaking of
belief outside the court, according to which one equal (socius)
believes another, no one is bound to believe a single person,
whatever his fame or opinion, who tells him that the pope is a
heretic. Third conclusion: If only one person of good fame and
opinion asserts that the pope is a heretic, one can believe him
without sin, though one is not bound to believe him.
Chapter
15.
Fourth conclusion: If several
honest and discreet people report that a certain pope is a
heretic, one is bound to believe them outside of court.
Chapter
16.
Fifth conclusion: Prudent and
honest men who report through public fame that the pope is a
heretic should be believed.
Chapter
17.
Sixth conclusion: Whoever
brings lawful proofs or clear indications that the pope is a
heretic should be believed. Continues about proofs through
chapters 18
(on ignorance, e.g. of papal bulls, as excuse), 19
(whether accusations made by criminals should be taken
seriously); about "clear indications", 20
(suspicion, probable or "violent" presumption).
Chapter
21.
Seventh conclusion: Anyone who
is criminal and is in bad fame, unless they declare by lawful
proofs or clear indications that the pope is a heretic, should
not be believed at all.
Chapter
23. Whether those
who refuse to believe reports that the pope is a heretic, when
he is, and who refuse to read or see writings against a heretic
pope, should be counted among the blameworthy believers in a
heretic pope.
Chapter
24.
Answer to the first argument of Chapter 12. Should one be “quick
to believe” that someone is bad or has done something bad?
Chapter
25.
Whether prelates, the rich, the powerful, are more likely to be
unjustly defamed than subjects and the poor? Almost
all adults are involved in the vice of detraction, which
is very serious.
Chapter
26.
Answer to the other arguments of Chapter 12.
SUPPORTERS
("Fautors", translated variously as "supporters", "abettors",
"collaborators".)
Chapter 27. Supporters [1]
not of the heretics' persons but of their errors (e.g. by
approving and teaching their errors), [2]
of the persons of heretics but not of their errors (e.g. by
trading with the Saracens); some support both the heretics and
their errors. Some knowingly, some out of blameworthy
ignorance, some out of blameless ignorance.
(1) Supporters of heretical
wickedness (chapters 28-56)
Chapter
28
Some ways of supporting, specifically, a pope's heresy that are
unlikely in supporting heresy of others: consent to his
definition, advising him to make it, teaching it, failing to
attack it, attacking its attackers, blocking or burning their
writings, swearing to maintain it, inventing new errors
to support it.
Chapter
29.
Consent may be to the doctrine defined, or to the defining of
it. Kinds of consent: negligence, counsel, cooperation,
authority, defense. (Continues to Chapter 34.)
Chapter
30
How these are kinds of consent. Negligence: A
person agrees by negligence to the definition if, knowing it to
be heretical, he does not resist it. How non-resistance counts
as consent. Counsel: Advising the pope to make the definition.
Cooperation: Writing drafts and arguments for the definition.
Defense: Offering to defend the definition.
Chapter
31.
How/when they are sinful: Negligence: Is the consent of
negligence a mortal sin? One opinion: Keeping silent is wrong
when speaking out could prevent the heretical definition, not
wrong if speaking out would have no good effect. Applied to a
college and its individual members, e.g. the Cardinals. Another
opinion: Whether one can prevent the definition or not,
one must speak out, except when this would fruitlessly do damage
to the Christian community.
Chapter
32.
Counsel and cooperation: Those who advise and cooperate in
making a heretical definition sin mortally and cannot be excused
by ignorance. Role of the Cardinals as advisers. Inferiors can
rebuke a pope intending to define a heresy, and if they do not
they consent.
Chapter
33.
Those who consent to a heretical definition should be punished
as heretics.
Chapter
34.
Since those
who consent to a heretical definition are heretics, consenting
Cardinals would lose the power to elect a pope and could not be
elected pope.
Bishops
Chapter
35.
Begins treatment of various ranks, beginning with
Archbishops, bishops, other prelates who may support a pope’s
heretical definition by publishing or spreading it. Some say
that prelates who spread the pope's heretical definition are
supporters of heresy and heretics; others say they may be
excused by ignorance.
Chapter
36.
Some say that prelates who spread a heretical definition are
supporters whether they are ignorant or not.
Chapter
37.
Intermediate between positions of chapters 35 and 36: whether
ignorance excuses prelates who spread a definition containing
heresy depends on whether the heresy has been condemned
explicitly or only implicitly. Is it permissible to dispute
papal decisions? Merely preaching and teaching a
heresy, without solemn definition, does not make a person a
heretic.
Chapter
38.
Bishops and prelates who allow followers of the pope to publish
a pope’s heretical definition: whether the bishops count as
supporters depends on whether they know the pope's doctrine is
being spread by his followers, and whether it is a doctrine
condemned explicitly or only implicitly. The followers cannot appeal against
the bishop. When there would be great disruption without
advantage, prelates may for a time cease coercing
those who publish the pope’s heresy. Texts from Bible and fathers
on the bishops' duty; three propositions.
Chapter
39.
The penalties for prelates who do not coerce followers of the
heretic pope: excommunication, suspension from office,
deposition.
Chapter 40. Summary of what bishops
should do.
Chapter
41.
Bishops who harass attackers of heretic pope: they must
undo the damage they have done, and incur various penalties.
Teachers
Chapter
42.
(Doctors, masters, preachers, etc.). If they teach the pope's
heretical doctrine, and are bound explicitly to believe the
contrary truth, they are collaborators
and heretics; if they are not bound, they should be
examined to see whether they are ready to be corrected. Whether
they are bound or not, if they teach the heretical doctrine as
obligatory to believe, they are collaborators and heretics,
because pertinacious.
Chapter
43
Teachers must attack the pope's heretical doctrine. Should they
wait for a superior to command them to attack? No, the command
to fight has already been issued by Christ.
Chapter
44.
The Church would not tolerate a heretic pope if it knew he was a
heretic. Those who know are bound to reveal it.
Chapter
45.
The command of a superior is not needed. More arguments for this
in Chapter 46.
Chapter
47. A
minority of teachers have the obligation to defend the faith
even when a majority side with the heretic pope.
Chapter
48.
Summary of what teachers must do if a heretic pope ever comes
(cf. Chapter 40). If
they do not do so they are supporters of heresy; fear
of death may excuse them somewhat.
Chapter
49.
Teachers who harass other teachers who attack the
heretic pope. Various cases distinguished; some excused. Those
who argue against a truth they are not bound to believe
explicitly are not supporters of heresy and do not sin. Also
those who are blamelessly ignorant of orthodox doctrine. But
those who harm the pope's critics are supporters of heresy.
Chapter
50.
What to think of teachers who defend or to excuse an
erroneous papal doctrine and condemn, misrepresent, and falsify
the meaning of doctrines held by others.
Members of religious orders
Chapter 51. Members of religious orders. Some travel round, others do not: the former are likely to know what is happening in the Church, the latter may not. Those who know may be at fault if they do not oppose his heresy, or if they obey him. What religious should do if the pope ever becomes a heretic (cf. Chapter 40).
Seculars
Chapter
52.
Kings and rulers, public powers, communities: are they
"supporters" is they do not repress the pope's heresy? It
depends on how much they know or can find out. If repressing the
pope's heresy would fruitlessly lead to turmoil they may wait.
Chapter
53.
What should a ruler do if he hears a rumour? Should a ruler
prohibit dissemination of the error? Can it be tolerated for the
sake of peace?
Chapter
54.
Can a ruler tolerate dissemination of the pope's heresy if
repression seems likely to do no good but cause turmoil? [See
Knysh, ABMA
vol. 42, p.16ff.]
Chapter
55.
Public powers and communities inferior to kings: the same as for
kings.
Chapter
56.
Simple people with no power over others should resist the pope's
heresy. How rulers and other public powers should deal with experts
on heresy.
Chapter
57.
Supporters of heretics are those who do not believe their errors
but support them to defend their persons, or to make
them richer, greater, or more powerful against others. See above,
Chapter 27. How should
they be punished? See Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus,
1o § Credentes.
THOSE WHO COMMUNICATE WITH OR OBEY A HERETIC
POPE
Chapter
58
(to chapter 64) Communication with a heretic
pope and his supporters, first bodily. Eating, speaking etc.
with a heretic does not make one a supporter, but it may be a
sin. Some say that it is forbidden only by human law and cannot
be forbidden when non-communication would be detrimental to any
Christian community.
Chapter
59 Communication
in religious rituals and other things that pertain to the papal
office. First opinion: That it is permissible to communicate
with a heretic pope in religious matters until he has been
condemned by a general council.
Chapter
60.
Another opinion, that those who knowingly (or out of culpable
ignorance) communicate with a heretic pope in religious matters
are supporters of heretics and heretical wickedness, unless they
do so out of fear. This gives rise to questions about 4
propositions: (1) That it
is not permissible to communicate in religious matters with a
heretic pope. (2) That those who do so, without fear of death
and grave torments, are supporters of heretics and heretical
wickedness. (3) That those who communicate out of fear
of death or grave torments are not supporters of
heretics or heretical wickedness. (4) That those who communicate
in religious matters with a heretic pope sin mortally.
Discussion of (1). What if the heretic pope retracts,
either during a council, or just by a change of mind? He was, at
least at one time, a heretic and therefore deposed. No need to convene
a council if the heresy already condemned.
Chapter
61.
Discussion of (2), (3) and (4). It is every Catholic’s duty to
defend the faith, in an appropriate way.
Chapter
62.
Those who communicate with a heretic pope in ignorance.
Culpable ignorance does not excuse, "invincible and probable"
ignorance does excuse.
Chapter
63.
Those who obey a heretic pope. Obedience in temporal
matters (unless it harms the Church or some person, or causes
scandal) is not sinful. Obedience in spiritual matters
makes one a supporter of a heretic and of heresy. Culpable
ignorance does not excuse, non-culpable ignorance does.
Chapter
64.
Answer to arguments of Chapter 59.
Chapter
65. Defenders. What defending
means. Defenders of a heretic pope. What is the penalty.
Non-culpable ignorance may excuse.
Chapter
66.
Defenders of heretical wickedness are themselves heretics
(depending on whether they are obliged to believe the contrary
truth explicitly, whether their ignorance is culpable, whether
they are pertinacious).
Chapter
67. Receivers
(as distinguished from believers and supporters) are those
who allow heretics to reside in their territory. Catholics
(including simple people) must detain a heretic pope if he
enters their territory. "Plenitude of Power" is a
doctrine that urgently needs to be clarified. Notwithstanding
Plenitude of Power, the Church cannot oblige Catholics never to
communicate physically with heretics.
Chapter
68.
The punishment due to receivers: is it the same as for heretics?
Or (another opinion) is it different, as prescribed in canon
law?
Chapter
69.
Whether believers, supporters, receivers and defenders are
equally reprehensible. Human judgment may regard believers who
are learned
as worse than the unlearned. In the other categories,
those with more temporal power are worse than others with less
power.
Chapter 70. On the
seriousness of the danger in the time of a heretic pope. Some
say one should not try to predict the future. But if ever there
is a heretic pope, the spiritual danger would be worse
than if the Saracens conquered Christendom. The methods by
which a heretic pope might gain control over the whole Church. He
would turn the inquisition against the orthodox; he would
misinterpret Scripture and use an illusion of truthfulness and
devotion, he would demand obedience. False opinions among
Christians would facilitate his efforts: that the pope cannot sin,
that he is infallible, that we must assume that what he does is
right, that a pope cannot be questioned, judged or rebuked.
Arguments against these false opinions.
Chapter
71. On
the attackers of a heretic pope: which persons are
qualified? Those who are pre-eminent in virtues, learned in the
sacred letters, experts in difficult tasks, and possessing
temporal power. (Did Jerome say that Catholics
must submit their faith to the correction of the pope?)
Chapter 72. Attackers must be innovative
in their methods, generous with resources, willing to lose
property, honours, reputation; they must be unified, open to
advice from others active in defense of the faith; they should
avoid all sin. As in the time of Noah, "The earth is filled with
violence."
Chapter 73. Attackers need knowledge of
Scripture, not just memory of the words, but deep understanding of
the meaning, and skill in logic. They should not
deliberately misinterpret the heretic pope's intentions; they
should not be motivated by hatred of the pope.
Return to Analysis of the argument of the Dialogus