# WILLIAM OF OCKHAM, DIALOGUS

## 1 Dial. 6.68-78
Text by George Knysh,
translation by John Kilcullen,
as at March, 2025

Capitulum 68 | Chapter 68
Discipulus: Postquam de papa super crimine heresis mendaciter diffamato plura quesivi, et quedam interserui de papa effecto heretico, volo nunc de papa vere heretico indagare. In primis autem, exoro ut disseras an papa, si efficiatur hereticus, ipso facto sit omni auctoritate et ecclesiastica dignitate nudatus. | Student: After I have asked many questions [primarily] about a pope falsely defamed on the charge of heresy, and mixed in some inquiries about a pope who has [truly] become a heretic, I now wish to inquire [primarily] about a pope who is truly a heretic. First of all, I beg you to discuss whether a pope, if he becomes a heretic, is by that very fact stripped of all authority and ecclesiastical dignity.
Magister: De hoc videntur esse diverse sententie. Una est quod papa, si efficiatur hereticus, sive manifestus sive occultus, ipso facto est papatu privatus. Alia est quod non est papatu privatus quamdiu ab ecclesia tolleratur. | Master: There seem to be different opinions on this. One is that a pope, if he becomes a heretic, whether manifest or hidden, is by that very fact deprived of the papacy. Another is that he is not deprived of the papacy as long as he is tolerated by the Church.
Discipulus: Quo iure dicunt papam esse papatu privatum si hereticam incurrerit pravitatem. | Student: By what law do they say that the pope is deprived of the papacy if he incurs heretical wickedness?
Magister: Dicunt quod iure divino est privatus. | Master: They say that he is deprived by divine law.
Discipulus: Quomodo possunt hoc dicere, cum in tota Scriptura Divina de papa heretico nulla mentio penitus habeatur. | Student: How can they say this, since in the whole of Divine Scripture there is no mention at all of a heretic pope?
Magister: Respondent quod, licet in Scriptura Divina non fiat de papa heretico mentio specialis et vocalis, plura tamen universalia in Scriptura Sacra reperiuntur, que possunt ad papam hereticum applicari. Ex quibus (et ista vel consimili: papa est hereticus ) concluditur evidenter quod papa hereticus non est verus papa, et per consequens quod est papatu privatus. | Master: They answer that, although in the Divine Scripture there is no special and verbal mention of a heretic pope, yet several generalities are found in Sacred Scripture that can be applied to a heretic pope. From these (together with this or the like: "The pope is a heretic") it is evidently concluded that a heretic pope is not a true pope, and consequently that he is deprived of the papacy.
Discipulus: Hoc scire desidero, scilicet, quomodo ex contentis in Scriptura Divina probare nituntur quod papa, si efficiatur hereticus, non est verus papa. | Student: I desire to know how they try to prove from the contents of the Divine Scripture that a pope, if he becomes a heretic, is not a true pope.
Magister: Hoc per plures rationes probare conantur, quarum prima est hec. Verus papa, quantumcunque sceleratus et impius, a catholicis est sequendus, quia, licet eius opera imitanda non sunt, eius tamen doctrina est servanda, Ipsa Veritate testante, que Matthei 23 ait: "Super cathedram Moysi sederunt scribe et pharisei, omnia ergo quecunque dixerint vobis servate et facite, secundum opera vero eorum nolite facere." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod sacerdotes veteris legis sequendi fuerunt quantum ad doctrinam et precepta. Ergo multo magis papa sequendus est quamdiu manet papa. | Master: They try to prove this by several arguments, the first of which is this. A true pope, however wicked and impious, must be followed by Catholics, because, although his works are not to be imitated, yet his doctrine must be observed, as the Truth itself testifies, Matthew 23: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses chair; therefore whatever they tell you, observe and do, but do not do according to their works." From these words it is gathered that the priests of the old law were to be followed as to doctrine and precepts. Therefore, much more is a pope to be followed as long as he remains pope.
Sed si papa efficiatur hereticus, nullatenus est sequendus, precipiente Christo qui, ut habetur Luce 21, ait: "Multi enim venient in nomine meo dicentes 'quia ego sum', et 'tempus appropinquavit', nolite ergo ire post illos." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod, qui venerit in nomine Christi, et tamen est adversarius Christi, non est eundum post eum. Sed quicumque dicit se esse vicarium Christi, venit in nomine Christi, et, si errat contra fidem, est adversarius Christi. Ergo non est eundum post illum, nec est aliquo modo sequendus, et per consequens non est verus vicarius Christi, quia verus vicarius Christi est sequendus, et ita papa, quam cito fit hereticus, sentencia Christi est papatu privatus. | But if the pope becomes a heretic, he is not to be followed at all, as Christ commands, who, as is found in Luke 21, says: "For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he', and 'the time is at hand'; therefore do not go after them." From these words it is gathered that whoever comes in the name of Christ, and yet is an adversary of Christ, is not to be followed. But anyone who says that he is the vicar of Christ comes in the name of Christ, and, if he errs against the faith, is an adversary of Christ. Therefore, we should not go after him and he is not to be followed in any way, and consequently he is not the true vicar of Christ, because the true vicar of Christ must be followed, and thus the pope, as soon as he becomes a heretic, is deprived of the papacy by the Christ's judgment.
Discipulus: Ista ratio tripliciter videtur deficere. Primo, quia male intelliguntur verba Christi cum dicit "Multi enim venient in nomine meo dicentes 'ego sum'." Non enim loquitur Christus de illis qui venturi erant in nomine Christi, asserturos se esse vicarios Christi, quales sunt summi pontifices. Sed loquitur de illis qui venturi errant in nomine Christi dicturi se habere potestatem et dignitatem ac sublimitatem Christi, et illi nullo modo sunt sequendi. Si enim aliquis papa primo catholicus postea diceret se esse Christum, et quod honor divinus esset ei impendendus, nullo modo esset eundum post ipsum. | Student: This argument seems to fail in three ways. First, because the words of Christ are misunderstood when he says, "For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he'." For Christ is not speaking of those who would come in the name of Christ claiming to be Christ's vicars, as the highest pontiffs do. Rather, he is speaking of those who would come in error in the name of Christ saying that they have the power, dignity, and sublimity of Christ [i.e. to be Christ], and they are in no way to be followed. For if some pope were to be Catholic at first and then say that he was Christ, and that divine honor was to be bestowed upon him, in no way should he be followed.
Secundo videtur deficere ratio supradicta, quia ire post papam contingit dupliciter: vel sequendo eius doctrinam, vel sequendo precepta ipsius. Quamvis ergo, si papa efficeretur hereticus, non esset eundum post ipsum sequendo eius doctrinam, quia doctrina heretica est omnimodo vitanda, esset tamen eundum post ipsum eius obediendo preceptis, et ita maneret verus papa | Secondly, the above argument seems to fail, because following the pope can be done in two ways: either by following his teaching, or by following his precepts. Although, therefore, if the pope became a heretic, one should not go after him by following his doctrine, because heretical doctrine must be avoided in every way, nevertheless one should go after him by obeying his precepts; and thus he would remain a true pope.
Tertio deficit ratio supradicta, quia, si ipsa concluderet, probaret aperte quod, si papa absque omni pertinacia erraret contra fidem, esset papatu privatus. Nam, qui docet falsam doctrinam, sive pertinaciter sive non pertinaciter, non est in hoc sequendus, et ita, qui veniret in nomine Christi dicens "Ego sum papa et vicarius Christi", et teneret quomodocunque doctrinam contra fidem, non esset eundum post illum, et per consequens esset papatu privatus, quod est omnino contrarium veritati. | Thirdly the above argument fails, because, if it concluded, it would clearly prove that if a pope erred against the faith without any pertinacity, he would be deprived of the papacy. For he who teaches false doctrine, whether pertinaciously or not, is not to be followed in this, and so he who came in the name of Christ saying "I am the pope and the vicar of Christ", and held in any way a doctrine against the faith, one should not follow him, and consequently he would be deprived of the papacy, which is entirely contrary to the truth.
Magister: Istas instantias tuas quidam pro re frivolas arbitrantur, putantes per ipsas demonstrative probare conclusionem intentam. Per primam enim ostendunt, ut eis videtur aperte, quod papa, si efficiatur hereticus, voce Christi est papatu privatus. Talem namque faciunt rationem. Idem iuris est de heresi minima et de maxima, quia idem iuris est in parvis et in magnis. Sic etiam deferendum est pro causa minima sicut pro maxima interiecte appellationi. Furtum eciam ita committitur in re minima sicut in maxima. | Master: Some consider these objections of yours to be frivolous in reality, thinking by them to demonstratively prove the intended conclusion. For by the first they show, as seems clear to them, that the pope, if he becomes a heretic, is deprived of the papacy by the word of Christ. For they make an argument as follows. The same law is applicable to the smallest and the largest heresy, because the same law is applicable to small and great matters. Thus, too, it is necessary to *refer, by putting in an appeal, for the smallest cause as for the greatest. Theft is also committed in the smallest matter as in the largest.
Sed si aliquis papa, effectus hereticus, diceret se esse Christum et verum Deum sicut Christus fuit verus Deus, voce Christi esset papatu privatus, cum dicit "Nolite ire post illos." Illis enim verbis Christus precepit nullum esse sequendum qui diceret se Christum et Deum, et per consequens eisdem verbis papam papatu privavit, si presumeret se asserere Christum et verum Deum. Ergo, consimiliter, Christus eisdem verbis papatu privavit omnem papam qui in quamcunque, etiam minimam, heresim laberetur. Et per hoc respondent ad instantiam memoratam, dicentes quod verba Christi predicta debent intelligi tam de illis qui dicturi erant se dignitatem Christi habere, quam de omnibus hereticis asserentibus se doctrinam veram asserere. | But if any pope, having become a heretic, were to say that he is Christ and the true God just as Christ was the true God, he would be deprived of the papacy by the word of Christ, when he says, "Do not go after them." For in those words Christ commanded that no one should be followed who said that he was Christ and God, and consequently in those same words he deprived the pope of the papacy if he presumed to assert that he was Christ and the true God. Therefore, in a similar way, Christ by the same words deprived of the papacy every pope who fell into any heresy, even the smallest. And by this they respond to the aforementioned objection, saying that the aforesaid words of Christ must be understood as much of those who were going to say that they have the dignity of Christ as of all heretics who assert that they assert true doctrine.
Per secundam etiam instantiam conclusionem intentam probare nituntur, quia, si papa est sequendus, aut est sequendus quantum ad doctrinam, aut quantum ad precepta. Sed neutro modo papa hereticus est sequendus, ergo non est verus papa. Maior videtur aperta. Minor probatur. Quia, quod non sit sequendus quo ad doctrinam patet, quia nulla doctrina heretica est sequenda. Quod etiam non sit sequendus quantum ad precepta patet, quia unum de principalibus preceptis pape est ut subditi eius doctrinam observent. Si ergo papa hereticus non est sequendus quo ad doctrinam, nec etiam quo ad precepta est sequendus, et per hoc patet responsio ad instantiam quam adducis. | By the second objection also they strive to prove the intended conclusion, because, if the pope must be followed, he is either to be followed as to doctrine, or as to precepts. But a heretic pope is not to be followed in either way, therefore he is not the true pope. The major seems clear. The minor is proved: Because it is clear that he is not to be followed as to doctrine, because no heretical doctrine must be followed. That he is also not to be followed as to precepts is clear, because one of the pope's chief precepts is that his subjects observe his doctrine. Therefore, if a heretic pope is not to be followed as to doctrine, neither is he to be followed as to precepts, and by this the response to the objection you adduce is clear.
Ad tertiam, respondetur quod papa non in omnibus est sequendus. Si enim male vivit, eius vita nullatenus est sequenda, et ideo, si docet aliquid absque omni pertinacia contra fidem, in hoc minime est sequendus. Papa tamen, manens papa, quantum ad illa que irrevocabiliter docet est sequendus, et ideo, si irrevocabiliter aliquid docet contra fidem, sit eo ipso non verus papa, et est papatu privatus. Si autem aliquid docet contra fidem et paratus est corrigi, non est propter hoc papatu privatus. | To the third, it is answered that the pope is not to be followed in all things, for if he lives badly, his life is not to be followed at all. And therefore, if he teaches something without any pertinacity against the faith, he is not at all to be followed in this. However, the pope, while remaining pope, must be followed in respect of the things he teaches irrevocably, and therefore, if he teaches irrevocably something against the faith, he is by that very fact not a true pope, and is deprived of the papacy. But if he teaches something against the faith and is ready to be corrected, he is not deprived of the papacy on this account.
Discipulus: Quomodo scietur quod papa docet aliquid irrevocabiliter contra fidem, et aliquid non irrevocabiliter. | Student: How is it known that the pope teaches something irrevocably against the faith, and something not irrevocably?
Magister: Ad hoc dicitur quod hoc iudicari debet per verba et opera eius. Quandoque enim convincendus est per verba que dicit, quandoque per opera que agit, sicut ex quarto huius potes advertere. | Master: To this it is said that this must be judged by his words and actions. For sometimes he must be convicted by the words he says, sometimes by what he does, as you can see from the fourth of this [* i.e. 1 Dialogus 4.*].
Discipulus: Suntne plures rationes pro assertione predicta. | Student: Are there several arguments for the aforesaid assertion?
Magister: Secunda ratio, in Scriptura Divina fundata, est talis. Universi pseudoprophete et pseudochristi a cunctis fidelibus sunt vitandi, Ipsa Veritate testante, que, ut habetur Matthei 24, ait: "Surgent enim pseudochriste et pseudoprophete et dabunt signa magna et prodigia ita ut in errorem inducantur, si fieri potest, etiam electi, ecce predixi vobis, si ergo dixerint vobis 'ecce in deserto est', nolite exire, 'ecce in penetrabilibus', nolite credere." | Master: A second argument, based on Divine Scripture, is as follows. All false prophets and false Christs are to be avoided by all believers, as the Truth itself testifies, who, as is found in Matthew 24, says: "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have foretold this to you. Therefore, if they say to you, ' Behold, he is in the wilderness', do not go out; 'Behold, he is in the inner rooms', do not believe it."
Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod pseudoprophete et pseudochristi sunt vitandi. Sed papa, si efficiatur hereticus, inter pseudoprophetas et pseudochristos est censendus. Ergo voce Christi, quam cito scitur esse talis, a cunctis catholicis est vitandus, et per consequens voce Christi est papatu privatus, quia verus papa a catholicis nullatenus est vitandus. | By these words it is given to be understood that false prophets and false Christs are to be avoided. But if a pope becomes a heretic, he must be counted among the false prophets and false Christs. Therefore, by the word of Christ, as soon as he is known to be such [i.e. a heretic], he must be avoided by all Catholics, and consequently by the word of Christ he is deprived of the papacy, because a true pope is in no way to be avoided by Catholics.
Tertia ratio talis est. Qui est de medio fidelium auferendus, non est verus papa, cum verus papa sit a cunctis fidelibus honorandus. Sed papa hereticus, etiam si signa faceret, et prediceret aliquid, et ita eveniret, est de medio fidelium auferendus, eo quod sententia divina lata est contra ipsum Deuteronomio 13, ubi sic legitur: "Si surrexerit in medio tui prophetes aut qui sompnium vidisse se dicat et predixerit signum atque portentum et evenerit quod locutus est et dixerit tibi, 'eamus et sequamur deos alienos quos ignoras, et serviamus eis', non audies verba prophete illius aut sompniatoris, quia temptat vos Dominus Deus vester." | A third argument is as follows. Anyone who must be removed from the midst of the faithful is not a true pope, since the true pope must be honored by all the faithful. But a heretic pope, even if he were to perform signs and predict something and it were to happen, must be removed from the midst of the faithful, because the divine sentence was passed against him in Deuteronomy 13, where we read: "If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer who says that he has seen a dream and predicts a sign or a wonder, and what he spoke comes true, and he says to you, ' Let us go and follow other gods which you have not known, and Let us serve them', you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer, for the Lord your God is testing you."
Et infra: "Propheta autem ille aut fictor sompniorum interficietur, quia locutus est ut vos averteret a Domino Deo vestro qui eduxit vos de terra Egipti et redemit de domo servitutis, ut errare te faceret de via quam precepit tibi Dominus Deus tuus, et auferes malum de medio tui." | And below: "But that prophet or dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to make you err from the way which the Lord your God has commanded you, and you shall remove the evil from your midst."
Ex quibus verbis colligitur, quod quicumque, nullo excepto, visus fuerit a via Domini et a veritate catholica fideles avertere, est de medio fidelium auferendus. Sed papa, si est hereticus et pravitatem docuerit hereticam, a fide conatur fideles avertere, ergo est de medio fidelium auferendus, et per consequens verus papa minime est censendus. | From these words it is gathered that whoever, without exception, is seen to turn the faithful away from the way of the Lord and from the Catholic truth, must be removed from the midst of the faithful. But if a pope is a heretic and teaches heretical wickedness, he attempts to turn the faithful away from the faith, therefore he must be removed from the midst of the faithful, and consequently he must not be considered a true pope.
Discipulus: Si papa doceret servire diis falsis vel colere idola, videtur quod eo ipso non esset reputandus verus papa, sed propter quamlibet heresim non videtur quod sit statim papatu privatus | Student: If the pope were to teach to serve false gods or to worship idols, it seems that for that very reason he would not be considered a true pope; but it does not seem that he is immediately deprived of the papacy because of just any heresy.
Magister: Hic concedis quod est aliqua heresis, quam, si papa incurreret, statim ipso facto est papatu privatus voce Dei. Ergo pro omni heresi cui pertinaciter adheserit est ipso facto per divinam sententiam papatu privatus, quia de heresi una et alia quantum ad hoc consimiliter est dicendum. | Master: Here you concede that there is some heresy, which, if the pope were to fall into it, he is by that fact deprived of the papacy by the voice of God. Therefore, for every heresy to which he adheres pertinaciously, he is ipso facto deprived of the papacy by divine judgment, because in this respect it must be said similarly about one heresy and another.
Quarta ratio est hec. Antichristus non est verus Christi vicarius reputandus. Sed papa hereticus est veraciter Antichristus, teste beato Iohanne, qui, in canonica sua prima c. quarto, ait: "Omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum ex Deo non est, et hoc est Antichristi quod audistis quoniam venit." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod, quicunque negat fidem Christi, Antichristus est censendus. Papa ergo hereticus est Antichristus, et per consequens non est verus vicarius Christi, ex quo sequitur quod est papatu privatus. | A fourth argument is this. Antichrist is not to be considered the true vicar of Christ. But a heretic pope is truly Antichrist, as blessed John testifies, who, in his first canonical epistle, fourth chapter, says: "Every spirit that renounces Jesus is not from God, and this is of Antichrist, which you have heard is coming." From these words we are to understand that whoever denies the faith of Christ must be considered Antichrist. Therefore a heretic pope is Antichrist, and consequently he is not the true vicar of Christ, from which it follows that he is deprived of the papacy.
Quinta ratio est hec. Ille non est verus papa cui fideles minime communicare debent, quia pape est communicandum et obediendum. Sed pape heretico fideles communicare minime debent, ergo papa hereticus non est verus papa. Maior est manifesta. Minor probatur auctoritate beati Iohannis, qui, in canonica sua secunda, ait: "Si quis venerit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non affert, nolite recipere eum in domum, nec 'ave' ei dixeritis, qui enim dicit illi 'ave' communicat operibus eius malignis." Que verba Beda, ut legitur 24 q. 1 c. c. Omnis, exponens, ait: "Si quis venerit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non affert, nolite recipere eum in domum, nec 'ave' ei dixeritis. Qui enim dicit illi 'ave', communicat operibus eius malignis." | A fifth argument is this. He is not the true pope to whom the faithful should not communicate at all, because the pope should be communicated with and obeyed. But the faithful should not communicate at all with a heretic pope, therefore a heretic pope is not a true pope. The major is clear. The minor is proved by a text of blessed John, who, in his second canonical epistle [2 John 1:10-11], says: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor say 'Greetings!' to him, for whoever says 'Greetings!' to him shares in his evil works." Explaining these words, Bede, as we read in 24 q. 1 c. Omnis, says: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor say 'Greetings!' to him. For whoever says to him 'Greetings!' shares in his evil works."
Hec Iohannes de hereticis sive schismaticis devitandis que verbis docuit eciam factis exhibuit. Narrat enim de illo auditor eius sanctissimus et martir fortissimus Policarpus, Smirneorum antistes, quod tempore quodam, cum apud Ephesum balneas lavandi gratia fuisset ingressus, et vidisset ibi Cherinthum, coexiliret continuo, et discessit non lotus, dicens "Fugiamus hinc, ne et balnee ipse corruant, in quibus Cherinthus lavatur inimicus veritatis." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod illi qui non affert doctrinam Christi est nullatenus communicandum. Papa autem hereticus non affert doctrinam Christi, ergo ei nullatenus est communicandum, et per consequens non est verus papa. | This is what John taught and demonstrated by his words and deeds about avoiding heretics or schismatics. For his hearer, the most holy and valiant martyr Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, tells us of him [John] that at a certain time, when he had entered the baths at Ephesus to wash, and had seen Cherithus there, he immediately jumped up and left without washing, saying, "Let us flee from here, lest the baths also be destroyed, in which Cherithus, the enemy of the truth, bathes." From these words we understand that we must not communicate in any way with someone who does not bring the doctrine of Christ. But a heretic pope does not bring the doctrine of Christ, therefore we must in no way communicate with him, and consequently he is not a true pope.
Discipulus: Beatus Iohannes non loquitur de papa heretico, sed de aliis hereticis quibus non est communicandum. | Student: Blessed John is not speaking of a heretic pope, but of other heretics with whom we must not communicate.
Magister: Hec responsio impugnatur. Primo, quia beatus Iohannes inter papam non afferentem doctrinam Christi et alium non distinguit, sed dat pro regula generali quod, quicunque non attulerit doctrinam Christi, non est communicandum eidem. | Master: This answer is attacked. First, because Blessed John does not distinguish between a pope who does not bring the doctrine of Christ and anyone else, but gives as a general rule that we must not communicate with anyone who does not bring the doctrine of Christ.
Secundo, ostenditur ex ratione beati Iohannis quod regula sua magis intelligenda est de papa heretico quam de aliis hereticis. Assignans enim pro ratione quare hereticus est vitandus, et non est ei dicendum "Ave", ait: "Qui enim dicit illi 'ave' communicat operibus eius malignis." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod qui dicit "ave" heretico communicat operibus eiusdem malignis. Sed operibus malis neque pape heretici neque aliorum hereticorum est communicandum quoquo modo, ymmo minus communicandum videtur operibus malis pape heretici quam aliorum hereticorum, eo quod propter dignitatem qua fungitur papa hereticus, magis nocere valebit fidei orthodoxe, si fautores, sequaces, et defensores habuerit, quam alii heretici, | Secondly, it is shown from Blessed John's argument that his rule must be understood more of a heretic pope than of other heretics. For giving the reason why we must avoid a heretic and not say "Greetings!", he says: "For anyone who says to him 'Greetings!' shares in his evil works." From these words we are given to understand that whoever says "Greetings!" to a heretic shares in his evil works. But we should not in any way share in the evil deeds of either a heretic pope or of other heretics; indeed it seems we should communicate less in the evil deeds of a heretic pope than of other heretics, because, on account of the high office a heretic pope exercises, he will be able, if he has supporters, followers, and defenders, to harm the orthodox faith more than other heretics,
teste beato Augustino, qui, ut legitur dist. 83 c. Nemo, ait: "Nemo quippe in ecclesia amplius nocet, quam qui perverse agens nomen vel ordinem sanctitatis et sacerdotis habet. Delinquentem namque hunc nullus redarguere presumit, et in exemplum culpa vehementer extenditur, quando pro reverentia ordinis peccator honoratur." Ex quibus verbis infertur quod nemo amplius nocere potest ecclesie Dei quam papa perverse agens et heresim dogmatizans, si pro reverentia papalis officii honoratur. Si ergo operibus malis aliorum hereticorum catholici communicare non debent, multo magis communicare non debent operibus malis pape heretici, et per consequens ei dicere "Ave" minime debent, quia, secundum beatum Iohannem, qui dicit cuicunque heretico "Ave" communicat operibus illius malignis. | as blessed Augustine testifies, who, as we read in dist. 83, c. Nemo, says: "For no one in the Church does more harm than one who acts perversely and has the name or order of holiness and priesthood. For no one dares reprove this offender, and the fault is vehemently extended as an example, when out of reverence for the order honour is given to a sinner." These words imply that no one can do more harm to the Church of God than a pope acting perversely and dogmatizing heresy, if he is honored out of reverence for the papal office. If, therefore, Catholics should not share in the evil works of other heretics, much more should they not share in the evil works of a heretic pope, and consequently they should not say "Greetings!" to him, because, according to Blessed John, whoever says "Greetings!" to any heretic shares in his evil works.
Discipulus: Alias rationes adducas. | Student: Give other arguments.
Magister: Sexta racio est hec. Ille non est verus papa qui neque in spiritualibus neque in temporalibus debet esse iudex fidelium, quia verus papa est verus iudex omnium christianorum. Sed papa hereticus neque in temporalibus neque in spiritualibus debet esse iudex fidelium. Quod autem non in temporalibus, patet per Apostolum qui, 1 Corinth. 6, Corinthios reprehendit quod coram infidelibus litigabant, dicens sic: "Non est inter vos sapiens quisquam qui possit iudicare inter fratrem suum sed frater cum fratre iudicio contendit, et hoc apud infideles." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod fideles, eciam pro temporalibus, non debent coram infideli contendere, si inter se sapientem habuerint, qui inter ipsos sciat et valeat iudicare. Ex quo concluditur quod multo fortius infidelis in spiritualibus non debet esse iudex fidelium. Papa autem hereticus est infidelis, ergo non debet esse iudex fidelium, et per consequens non est verus papa. | Master: A sixth argument is this. No one is a true pope if he should not be the judge of the faithful either in spiritual or temporal matters, because a true pope is the true judge of all Christians. But a heretic pope should not be the judge of the faithful either in temporal matters or spiritual matters. That he should not be the judge of the faithful in temporal matters is clear from the Apostle who, in 1 Corinthians 6[:5- 6], reproaches the Corinthians for litigating before unbelievers, saying: "Is there not one wise man among you able to judge between his brothers, but brother contends with brother in court, and this before unbelievers?" From these words we understand that the faithful, even for temporal matters, should not contend before an unbeliever, if they have among themselves a wise man who knows and is able to judge between them. From this it is concluded that, much more strongly, an unbeliever should not be the judge of the faithful in spiritual matters. But a heretic pope is an unbeliever, therefore he should not be the judge of the faithful, and consequently he is not a true pope.
Septima racio est hec. Ille qui, tanquam proprio iudicio condempnatus, est a fidelibus devitandus, non est verus papa, quia verus papa nec est condempnatus nec est a fidelibus devitandus. Sed papa hereticus, tanquam proprio iudicio condempnatus, est a fidelibus devitandus, teste Apostolo qui, ad Titum tertio, ait: "Hereticum hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita, sciens quia subversus est qui eiusmodi est et delinquit proprio iudicio condempnatus." Ex quibus verbis patet quod papa hereticus, tanquam proprio iudicio condempnatus, est vitandus. | A seventh argument is this. He who, as being condemned by his own judgment, must be avoided by the faithful, is not a true pope, because a true pope is neither condemned nor to be avoided by the faithful. But a heretic pope, as being condemned by his own judgment, must be avoided by the faithful, as the Apostle testifies, Titus 3[:10-11]: "A man that is a heretic, after a first and a second correction, avoid, knowing that such a man is subverted and sins, condemned by his own judgment." From these words it is clear that a heretic pope, as being condemned by his own judgment, must be avoided.
Quod etiam Ambrosius, ut habetur 24 q.1 c. Que dignior, asserit manifeste, ita dicens: "Fides ergo in primis ecclesie querenda mandatur, in qua, si Christus habitator sit, haud dubie sit legendum. Si vero populus perfidus, aut preceptor hereticus deformet ecclesie habitaculum, vitanda hereticorum communio, fugienda sinagoga censetur, excutiendus pedum puluis, ne fatiscentibus perfidie sterilis siccitatibus tanquam humi arido arenosoque mentis tue vestigium polluatur. Nam sicut corporeas infirmitates populi fidelis suscipere in se debet evangelii predicator, iuxta quod scriptum est 'Quis infirmatur, et non infirmor', ita, si qua est ecclesia que fidem respuat, nec apostolice predicationis fundamenta possideat, ne quam labem perfidie possit aspergere, deserenda est. Quod Apostolus quoque evidenter asseruit dicens 'hereticum hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita'." | Ambrose, 24 q.1 c. Qui dignior, also clearly asserts this, saying: "Therefore we are commanded to seek faith in the first place in the Church, in which, if Christ dwells these, it is undoubtedly to be read. But if a perfidious people, or a heretical teacher, disfigures the dwelling place of the Church, the communion of heretics must be avoided, their synagogue must be shunned, you must shake the dust off your feet, lest the footsteps of your mind be polluted by the barren dryness of faithlessness, as if on dry and sandy ground. For just as the preacher of the gospel must take upon himself the bodily infirmities of the faithful people, according to what is written, 'Who is weakened, and I am not weakened' [2 Corinthians 11:29], so also, if there is any church that rejects the faith and does not possess the foundations of apostolic preaching, lest it be able to sprinkle any stain of perfidy, it must be abandoned. The Apostle also clearly asserted this, saying, 'A man that is a heretic, after a first and a second correction, avoid'."
Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod papa hereticus, etiam absque omni humana sentencia, est vitandus. Ratio enim quare Ambrosius asserit hereticos devitandos, est "ne quos labe perfidie", scilicet pravitatis heretice, "possint aspergere." Papa autem hereticus inter omnes hereticos efficacius, fortius, celerius et universalius potest aspergere pravitate heretica populos christianos. Ergo papa hereticus, ante omnem humanam sententiam, est a catholicis, tanquam divina condempnatus sententia, devitandus, et per consequens verus papa minime est censendus. | By these words are are given to understand that a heretic pope, even without any human judgment, must be avoided. Because the reason why Ambrose asserts that heretics are to be avoided is so that they cannot "sprinkle any stain of perfidy", namely, heretical wickedness. But a heretic pope, of all heretics, can most effectively, strongly, quickly and universally sprinkle the Christian peoples with heretical wickedness. Therefore, a heretic pope, even before any human judgment, as being condemned by a divine judgment, must be avoided by Catholics, and consequently must not be considered a true pope at all.
Discipulus: Verba Apostoli videntur ostendere quod papa hereticus non est sententia divina condempnatus, cum dicat Apostolus "Hereticum hominem post unam et secundam correctionem devita", aperte insinuans quod ante primam et secundam correctionem non est a fidelibus devitandus. Ex quo infertur quod papa hereticus ante primam et secundam correctionem non est divina sentencia condempnatus. | Student: The Apostle's words seem to show that a heretic pope is not condemned by divine judgment, since the Apostle says, "A man that is a heretic, after a first and a second correction, avoid", clearly suggesting that he is not to be avoided by the faithful before a first and second correction. From this it is inferred that a heretic pope before a first and second correction is not condemned by divine judgment.
Magister: Ad istam obiectionem respondetur quod prima et secunda correctio minime requiruntur ad condempnationem pape heretici, nec precedunt condempnationem eius, quia absque omni correctione papa hereticus est dampnatus. Cum enim correctio sententiam dampnationis nequaquam contineat, et nullus absque omni sententia divina et humana est vitandus, si papa hereticus post primam et secundam correctionem sic est vitandus, constat quod ante correctionem primam et secundam papa hereticus aliqua sententia divina vel humana extitit condempnatus, et ita prima et secunda correctio non precedunt sententiam condempnationis pape heretici. | Master: To this objection it is answered that a first and second correction are not at all required for the condemnation of a heretic pope, and they do not precede his condemnation, because a heretic pope is condemned without any correction. For since correction by no means contains a sentence of condemnation, and no one should be avoided without any divine or human sentence, if a heretic pope after the first and second correction must be avoided in this way, then clearly the heretic pope was [already] condemned, before the first and second correction, by some divine or human sentence; and thus the first and second corrections do not precede the sentence condemning a heretic pope.
Sed sepe quando aliquis sit hereticus, quia negat veritatem quam non tenetur explicite credere, ad hoc quod sciatur esse condempnatus divina sententia, et per consequens ut constet quod est a catholicis devitandus, requiritur prima et secunda correctio, quia sepe aliter constare non potest quod est pravitate heretica irretitus. Quandoque enim per primam correctionem minime innotescit quod errans contra fidem pertinaciter errat, et ideo adhuc non constat quod est vitandus. Per secundam autem correctionem constat an paratus sit corrigi, vel in sua sententia pertinaciter perseveret, et ideo tunc scitur an sit divina sententia condempnatus, et per consequens an sit a fidelibus evitandus. Per primam ergo et secundam correctionem intelligit Apostolus omnem correctionem qua innotescit errantem esse in sua sententia pertinacem, et per consequens qua constat ipsum esse divina sententia condempnatum et a catholicis devitandum. | But often, when someone is a heretic, because the truth he denies is one which one is not bound explicitly to believe, in order for it to be known that he is condemned by the divine judgment, and consequently that it is certain that he must be avoided by Catholics, a first and a second correction are required, because often it is not otherwise certain that he is ensnared in heretical wickedness. For sometimes it is not at all clear from the first correction that the errant errs against faith pertinaciously, and therefore it is not yet certain that he must be avoided. But it is certain from the second correction whether he is ready to be corrected, or whether he perseveres in his opinion pertinaciously, and therefore it is known then whether he is condemned by divine judgment, and consequently whether he must be avoided by the faithful. By the first and second correction, therefore, the Apostle understands every correction by which it is known that an errant is pertinacious in his opinion and by which it is consequently certain that he is condemned by divine judgment and must be avoided by Catholics.
Discipulus: Suntne plures rationes pro assertione predicta. | Student: Are there more arguments for the aforementioned assertion?
Magister: Octava ratio est hec. Qui est anathematizatus non est verus papa, quia talis est ab ecclesia separatus. Verus autem papa est ab ecclesia minime separatus, cum sit caput ecclesie. Caput vero ab ecclesia separatum non est verum caput, sicut nec caput a corpore separatum est amplius caput, quemadmodum homo mortuus non est homo, et, ut dicit quidam, caput est capitati caput. Sed papa hereticus est anathematizatus, teste Apostolo, qui, ad Galatos 1o cap., ait: "Licet nos aut angelus de celo evangelizet vobis preter quam quod evangelizavimus vobis anathema sit, sicut prediximus et nunc iterum dico, si quis vobis evangelizaverit preter id quod accepistis, anathema sit." Ergo papa hereticus non est verus papa. | Master: An eighth argument is this. Anyone who is anathematized is not a true pope, because such a person is separated from the Church. But a true pope is not at all separated from the Church, since he is the head of the Church: but a head separated from the Church is not a true head, just as a head separated from the body is no longer a head, just as a dead man is no longer a man (and, as some say, a head is the head of something headed [Cf. Aristotle, Categories c.7, 7a15]. But a heretic pope is anathematized, as the Apostle testifies, who, in Galatians 1[:8-9], says: "Even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema; as we have said before and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you any other gospel than that which you have received, let him be anathema." Therefore a heretic pope is not a true pope.
Discipulus: Videtur quod ista ratio non concludit, quia Apostolus non dicit quod talis evangelizator anathema est, sed dicit anathema sit , insinuans quod talis non est anathematizatus sed anathematizandus, et ita papa hereticus non est anathematizatus sed anathematizandus. | Student: It seems that this argument does not conclude, because the Apostle does not say that such an evangelist is anathema, but says "let him be anathema", suggesting that such a one has not been anathematized but must be anathematized, and thus a heretic pope has not been anathematized but must be anathematized.
Magister: Respondetur quod verba Apostoli non recte intelligis. Non enim dicit Apostolus "anathema sit" quia evangelizator hereticalis doctrine est anathematizandus non anathematizatus, sed ideo dicit anathema sit quia vult verba sua intelligi conditionaliter, scilicet, si aliquis evangelizaret contra doctrinam Apostolicam, sequitur quod sit anathema, ita quod talis conditionalis est vera: si aliquis evangelizaret contra doctrinam Apostoli ipse est anathema. | Master: It is answered that you do not understand the words of the Apostle correctly. For the Apostle does not say "let him be anathema" because an evangelizer of heretical doctrine is to be anathematized, not having been anathematized, but he says let him be anathema because he wants his words to be understood conditionally, namely, if someone were to evangelize against the Apostolic doctrine, it follows that he is anathema, so that this conditional is true: If someone were to evangelize against the doctrine of the Apostle, he is anathema.
Aliter dicitur, et predictis non obviat, quod cum dicit Apostolus "anathema sit", sic debet intelligi: "anathema sit, hoc est, tanquam anathema sit habendus", et per consequens talis est ab ecclesia fidelium separatus. | Putting it differently (and it does not contradict the aforesaid), when the Apostle says "let him be anathema", it should be understood thus: "let him be anathema, that is, he must be held to be anathema", and consequently such a person is separated from the Church of the faithful.
Discipulus: Alias libenter audiam rationes. | Student: I would be happy to hear other arguments.
Magister: Nona ratio est hec. Homo alterius secte non debuit esse rex fidelium constitutorum sub veteri lege, ergo, multo fortius, homo alterius secte non debet esse caput constitutorum sub nova lege. Papa autem est caput omnium constitutorum sub nova lege, ergo nullus alterius secte potest esse verus papa. Sed verus papa est caput omnium christianorum, papa autem hereticus est alterius secte, ergo papa hereticus non est verus papa. Quod autem homo alterius secte non debuit esse rex fidelium constitutorum sub veteri lege lex divina apertius manifestat, cum dicat Deuteronomio 17: "Non poteris alterius gentis hominem regem facere qui non sit frater tuus." Ergo, consimiliter, homo alterius secte non est verus papa. | Master: A ninth argument is this. A man belonging to another sect should not have been king of the faithful living under the Old Law, therefore, much more, a man belonging to another sect should not be head of the faithful living under the New Law. But the pope is the head of all the faithful under the New Law, therefore no one of another sect can be the true pope. But the true pope is the head of all Christians, but a heretic pope is of another sect, therefore a heretic pope is not a true pope. That a man of another sect should not have been king of the faithful under the Old Law is made clear by the divine law, when it says in Deuteronomy 17[:15]: "You cannot make a man of another nation king, who is not your brother." Therefore, similarly, a man of another sect is not a true pope.
Decima ratio est hec. Nemo alterius secte est verus propheta et doctor christianorum. Ergo, multo magis, nemo alterius secte est verus papa catholicorum. Papa autem hereticus est alterius secte, ergo non est verus papa. Quod autem nemo alterius secte possit esse propheta aut doctor catholicorum, divinis testimoniis videtur aperte probare. Ait enim Deus Moysi Deuteronomio 18: "Prophetam suscitabo eis de medio fratrum suorum similem tui, et ponam verba mea in ore eius." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod verus propheta et doctor christianorum catholicorum est de medio fidelium tantummodo suscitandus, et ita alterius secte esse non potest, et per consequens homo alterius secte non est verus papa, cum verus papa sit verus propheta, id est doctor, fidelium, quia verbo pascere debet catholicos, Christo dicente Petro "Pasce oves meas." | A tenth argument is this. No one of another sect is a true prophet and teacher of Christians. Therefore, much more, no one of another sect is a true pope of Catholics. But a heretic pope is of another sect, therefore he is not a true pope. That no one of another sect can be a prophet or teacher of Catholics seems to be clearly proved by divine testimonies. For God says to Moses in Deuteronomy 18[:18]: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers, and I will put my words in his mouth." From these words it is gathered that a true prophet and teacher of Catholic Christians must be raised up only from among the faithful, and thus he cannot be of another sect; and consequently a man of another sect is not a true pope, since a true pope is a true prophet, that is, a teacher, of the faithful, because he must feed Catholics with the word, as Christ said to Peter, "Feed my sheep."
Undecima ratio est hec. Verus papa est verus pastor ovium Christi. Papa autem hereticus non est verus pastor ovium Christi. Ergo papa hereticus non est verus papa. Maior est manifesta, quia est successor beati Petri, qui fuit verus pastor constitutus a Christo. Minor probatur, quia verus pastor ovium Christi est sequendus, teste ipso Christo, qui, ut legitur Iohann. 10, de vero pastore loquens, ait: "Oves vocem eius audiunt et proprias oves vocat nominatim et educit eas et cum proprias oves emiserit ante eas vadit et oves illum sequuntur." Et ita patet quod verus pastor est sequendus. Papa autem hereticus non est sequendus, ergo non est verus pastor. | An eleventh argument is this. A true pope is the true shepherd of Christ's sheep. But a heretic pope is not the true shepherd of Christ's sheep. Therefore a heretic pope is not the true pope. The major is evident, because he is the successor of blessed Peter, who was the true shepherd appointed by Christ. The minor is proved, because the true shepherd of Christ's sheep must be followed, as Christ himself testifies, who, as we read in John. 10[:3-4], speaking of the true shepherd, says: "The sheep hear his voice and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out, and when he has put his own sheep out he goes ahead of them and the sheep follow him." And thus it is clear that the true shepherd must be followed. But a heretic pope is not to be followed, therefore he is not a true shepherd.
Item, fur non est verus pastor, quia Veritas Ipsa, ubi prius, furem a vero pastore distinguit. Sed papa hereticus est fur, quia papa hereticus tanquam fur non venit nisi ut furetur, et mactet, et perdat. Ergo papa hereticus non est verus pastor, et per consequens non est verus papa. | Again, a thief is not a true shepherd, because Truth Itself (in the same place), distinguishes a thief from a true shepherd. But a heretic pope is a thief, because a heretic pope, like a thief, does not come except to steal, and kill, and destroy. Therefore a heretic pope is not a true shepherd, and consequently is not a true pope.
Duodecima ratio est hec. Qui non est de corpore ecclesie militantis non est verus papa, eo quod verus papa est verum caput ecclesie. Sed papa hereticus, nulla contra eum humana lata sententia, non est de corpore ecclesie militantis. Ergo papa hereticus non est verus papa. Maior est evidens. Minor ostenditur sic. Nullus hereticus est de corpore ecclesie quantumcunque putetur esse de corpore ecclesie, ergo papa hereticus non est vere de corpore ecclesie. | A twelfth argument is this. Anyone who does not belong to the body of the Church Militant is not a true pope, because the true pope is the true head of the Church. But a heretic pope (even without any human sentence passed against him) does not belong to the body of the Church Militant. Therefore a heretic pope is not a true pope. The major is evident. The minor is shown thus. No heretic belongs to the body of the Church, however much he may be thought to belong; therefore a heretic pope does not truly belong to the body of the Church.
Antecedens probatur aperte auctoritate Augustini, asserentis quod licet mali catholici pertineant ad ecclesiam, que comprehendit bonos et malos, heretici tamen non sunt de societate ecclesie. Ait enim in omelia de parabola zizaniorum: "Cum negligentius agerent prepositi ecclesie, aut cum dormitionem mortis acciperent Apostoli, venit diabolus et superseminavit eos quos malos filios Dominus interpretatur. Sed recte queritur utrum heretici sint, an male viventes catholici. Possunt enim dici filii mali eciam heretici, quia etiam ex eodem evangelii semine et Christi nomine procreati, pravis opinionibus ad falsa dogmata convertuntur. Sed quod dicit eos in medio tritici seminatos, quasi videntur illi significari qui unius communionis sunt. Verumptamen quoniam Dominus agrum ipsum, non ecclesiam, sed hunc mundum interpretatus est, bene intelliguntur heretici, quia non societate unius ecclesie vel unius fidei, sed societate solius nomini christiani in hoc mundo permiscentur bonis: ut illi qui in eadem fide mali sunt, palea potius quam zizania deputentur, quia palea etiam fundamentum ipsum habet cum frumento, radicemque communem. In illa plane sagena, qua concluduntur et mali et boni pisces, non absurde mali catholici intelliguntur. Aliud est enim mare quod magis mundum istum significat, aliud sagena, que unius fidei vel unius ecclesie communionem videtur ostendere." | The antecedent [premise] is clearly proved by a text of Augustine, who asserts that although bad Catholics belong to the Church, which includes both good and bad, heretics nevertheless do not belong to the fellowship of the Church. For he says in his homily on the parable of the tares [Migne, PL, t. 35, col. 1367]: "When the leaders of the Church became more negligent, or when the Apostles fell asleep in death, the devil came and oversowed those whom the Lord describes as 'evil sons'. But it is rightly asked whether these are heretics, or Catholics living badly. For heretics can also be called evil sons, because though they are begotten from the same seed of the gospel and in the name of Christ, they are turned by wicked opinions to false dogmas. Because he says that they were sown in the midst of wheat, they seem to signify some who are of the one communion. However, since the Lord interpreted the field itself, not as the Church, but as this world, heretics are indeed meant, because they are not mixed with the good in the society of one Church or one faith, but in the society of only nominal Christians in this world: so that those who are bad in the same faith are considered chaff rather than tares, because chaff also has the same foundation with the wheat, and a common root. In that *very net, in which both bad and good fish are caught, bad Catholics are not absurdly understood. For the sea is one thing, which rather signifies this world, and the net is another thing, which seems to show the communion of one faith or one Church."
Ex quibus verbis aperte colligitur quod, absque omni humana sententia, omnes heretici sunt a corpore ecclesie separati, nec sunt de ecclesia, licet quidam eorum putentur esse de ecclesia, quia quod sint heretici ignoratur. Dicit enim Augustinus quod heretici : "Non societate unius ecclesie vel unius fidei, sed societate solius nominis christiani in hoc mundo permiscentur bonis." Ex quo patenter habetur quod heretici non sunt de corpore eiusdem ecclesie cum bonis. | From these words it is clearly gathered that all heretics are separated (without any human sentence) from the body of the Church, and do not belong to the Church, although some of them are thought to belong to the Church because it is not known that they are heretics. For Augustine says that heretics are "not mixed with the good in the society of one Church or one faith, but in the society of only nominal Christians in this world." From this it is clearly seen that heretics do not belong with the good to the body of the same Church.
Item, omnes qui sunt de corpore ecclesie militantis, sive sint boni sive mali, in una sagena concluduntur. Sed heretici cum catholicis, licet sint in uno mari, quia in uno mundo, non tamen sunt in una sagena secundum Augustinum. Ergo heretici non sunt de corpore ecclesie. | Likewise, all who belong to the body of the Church Militant, whether they are good or bad, are included in one net. But heretics and Catholics, although they are in the one sea, because in one world, are nevertheless not in one net, according to Augustine. Therefore heretics do not belong to the body of the Church.
Quod etiam sic probatur. Ecclesia Christi est regnum Christi. Sed heretici non spectant ad regnum Christi, quia soli catholici spectant ad regnum Christi, teste beato Augustino qui, super Iohannem, ait quod fideles Christiani sunt regnum quod non tollitur ymmo emitur sanguine Christi. Et alibi super Iohannem ait: "Quod enim regnum eius nisi credentes?" Ex quibus patet quod heretici non sunt de regno Christi, licet mali catholici sint de regno Christi. | This is proved also thus. The Church of Christ is the kingdom of Christ. But heretics do not belong to the kingdom of Christ, because only Catholics belong to the kingdom of Christ, as blessed Augustine testifies, who, on John [Migne, PL, t. 35, col. 1939], says that faithful Christians are a kingdom that is not taken away, but is indeed purchased with the blood of Christ. And *elsewhere on John he says: "For what is his kingdom except those who believe?" From this it is clear that heretics are not of the kingdom of Christ, although bad Catholics are of the kingdom of Christ.
Quod autem regnum Christi sit ecclesia asserit evidenter Gregorius, qui, in omelia de communi virginum, ait: "Sciendum nobis est quod sepe in sacro eloquio regnum celorum presentis temporis ecclesia dicitur, de quo alio in loco Dominus dicit mittet filius angelos suos, et colligent de regno eius omnia scandala." Cum ergo heretici non sint de regno Christi, quod comprehendit bonos et malos, sequitur quod non sunt de corpore ecclesie militantis, et ita papa hereticus non est de corpore ecclesie. | That the kingdom of Christ is the Church is clearly asserted by Gregory, who says, in his homily on the common of virgins [Migne, PL, t. 76, col. 1118]: "We must know that in sacred speech the the Church is often called kingdom of heaven of the present time, of which in another place the Lord says the Son will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend." Since, therefore, heretics do not belong to the kingdom of Christ, which includes both good and bad, it follows that they do not belong to the body of the Church Militant, and thus a heretic pope does not belong to the body of the Church.
Item, quod heretici non sint de corpore ecclesie sic probatur. Qui est extra ecclesiam non est de corpore ecclesie, sed omnes heretici sunt extra ecclesiam, ergo non sunt de corpore ecclesie. Maior est evidens. Minor probatur multis modist. | Likewise, that heretics do not belong to the body of the Church is proved thus. Anyone who is outside the Church does not belong to the body of the Church, but all heretics are outside the Church, therefore they do not belong to the body of the Church. The major is evident. The minor is proved in many ways.
Primo sic. Qui noviter veniunt vel redeunt ad ecclesiam catholicam, prius extra ecclesiam extiterunt. Sed heretici, suas hereses relinquentes, veniunt vel redeunt ad ecclesiam (1 q. 7 c. Si qui voluerint et c. Quotiens et c. Saluberrimum et c. Convenientibus), ergo heretici non sunt de corpore ecclesie. | First thus. Those who come back or return to the Catholic Church previously existed outside the Church. But heretics, abandoning their heresies, come back or return to the Church (1 q. 7 c. Si qui voluerint and c. Quotiens and c. Saluberrimum and c. Convenientibus), therefore heretics do not belong to the body of the Church.
Item, illi qui sunt alibi quam in ecclesia catholica non sunt de corpore ecclesie. Sed heretici sunt alibi quam in ecclesia catholica (1 q. 7 c. Qui in qualibet et c. Si qui presbyteri), ergo heretici non sunt de corpore ecclesie. | Likewise, those who are elsewhere than in the Catholic Church do not belong to the body of the Church. But heretics are elsewhere than in the Catholic Church (1 q. 7, c. Qui in qualibet and c. Si qui presbyteri), therefore heretics do not belong to the body of the Church.
Item, qui exit de ecclesia non est de corpore ecclesie. Omnes autem heretici, quando efficiuntur heretici, exeunt de ecclesia (1 q. 1 c. Si quis, inquit, de ecclesia). Ergo heretici non sunt vere de corpore ecclesie, eciam nulla lata humana sententia contra ipsos. | Likewise, anyone who leaves the Church does not belong to the body of the Church. But all heretics, when they become heretics, leave the Church (1 q. 1, c. Si quis, inquit, de ecclesia). Therefore heretics do not truly belong to the body of the Church, even if no human judgment has been passed against them.
Item, ecclesia catholica ab ecclesia hereticorum distinguitur, ergo heretici non sunt intra ecclesiam catholicam, et ita papa hereticus non est de corpore ecclesie catholice. | Likewise, the Catholic Church is distinguished from the church of heretics, therefore heretics are not within the Catholic Church, and thus a heretic pope does not belong to the body of the Catholic Church.
Item, ecclesia catholica est congregatio fidelium. Sed papa hereticus, quantumcunque reputetur papa, eciam absque omni humana sententia, non est de congregatione fidelium. Ergo, ante omnem humanam sententiam, eo ipso quod est hereticus, vere est extra ecclesiam, et non est de corpore ecclesie. | Likewise, the Catholic Church is the congregation of the faithful. But a heretic pope, however much he may be considered a pope, even without any human judgment, does not belong to the congregation of the faithful. Therefore, in advance of all human judgment, by the very fact that he is a heretic, he is truly outside the Church and does not belong to the body of the Church.
Item, aut heretici, eo ipso quod sunt heretici, absque omni humana sententia, sunt extra ecclesiam, aut solummodo sunt extra ecclesiam per humanam sententiam. Si detur primum, habetur intentum, quod papa eo ipso quod est hereticus, ante omnem humanam sententiam, est vere extra ecclesiam. Si autem heretici sunt extra ecclesiam solummodo per humanam sententiam, ergo heretici qui precesserunt talem humanam sententiam fuerunt intra ecclesiam, quod non modicum inconveniens est censendum. Ex hec enim sequitur manifeste quod aliquando fuit una ecclesia catholicorum et hereticorum, ymmo sequitur quod posset adhuc esse una ecclesia catholicorum et hereticorum, quia omnis humana sententia qua heretici extra ecclesiam missi fuerunt, posset, per illos qui eandem auctoritatem habent quam habuerunt qui talem tulerunt sententiam, revocari, et ita, revocata humana sententia, possunt heretici in sua perfidia persistentes reverti ad ecclesie unitatem, | Likewise, either [1] heretics are outside the Church by the very fact that they are heretics, without any human judgment, or [2] they are outside the Church only by human judgment. If [1] the former be granted, the intended conclusion is established, that the pope, by the very fact that he is a heretic, in advance of any human judgment, is truly outside the Church. But if [2] heretics are outside the Church only by human judgment, then the heretics who preceded such a human judgment were within the Church. This must be considered not a little unfitting, because it clearly follows from this that there was once one Church of Catholics and heretics -- and indeed it follows that there could still be one Church of Catholics and heretics, because every human judgment by which heretics were sent outside the Church could be revoked by those who have the same authority as those who gave such a judgment, and so, if the human judgment is revoked, heretics can persist in their perfidy and return to the unity of the Church.
quod impossibile est censendum. Quia, si, revocata humana sententia qua sola heretici ab ecclesia exclusi fuerunt, redirent ad ecclesie unitatem, aut redirent ad unitatem ecclesie catholice, aut redirent ad unitatem alterius ecclesie quam catholice. Si redirent ad unitatem ecclesie catholice, ergo intra ecclesiam catholicam includuntur heretici, et sic ecclesia catholica ita esset infidelium sicut fidelium, quod impossibile est censendum. | This must be considered impossible, because if (the human judgment by which alone heretics were excluded from the Church having been revoked) they returned to the unity of the Church, either they would return [a] to the unity of the Catholic Church, or [b] to the unity of a church other than the Catholic Church. If they returned [a] to the unity of the Catholic Church, then heretics would [i.e. when they returned] be included within the Catholic Church, and thus the Catholic Church would be as much of unbelievers as of believers, which must be considered impossible.
Si autem redirent ad aliam ecclesiam quam ad catholicam, et redirent ad unitatem a qua per humanam sententiam exclusi fuerunt, ergo catholici essent de alia ecclesia quam de ecclesia catholica, quod eciam est inconveniens reputandum. Omnis ergo hereticus, sive papa sive alius, eo ipso quod est hereticus, etsi nulla contra ipsum proferatur sententia, vere est extra ecclesiam catholicam. | But if they returned [b] to a church other than the Catholic Church, and returned to the [i.e. the same] unity from which they had been excluded by human judgment, then Catholics would belong to a church other than the Catholic Church, which is also to be considered unfitting. Therefore every heretic, whether pope or other, by the very fact that he is a heretic, even if no sentence is pronounced against him, is truly outside the Catholic Church.
Ex quo sequitur quod papa hereticus, eo ipso quod est hereticus, non est de corpore ecclesie, et per consequens non est caput ecclesie, et ita papa hereticus non est verus papa. | From this it follows that a heretic pope, by the very fact that he is a heretic, does not belong to the body of the Church, and consequently is not the head of the Church, and so a heretic pope is not the true pope.
Tertiadecima racio principalis est hec. Verus papa habet potestatem et ius super omnes catholicos. Sed papa hereticus nil potestatis aut iuris omnino habet. Ergo papa hereticus non est verus papa. Maior est evidens. Minor ostenditur auctoritate beati Cypriani qui, ut legitur 24 q. 1 c. Didicimus, ait: "Didicimus omnes omnino hereticos et schismaticos nil habere potestatis ac iuris." | The thirteenth (principal) argument is this. A true pope has power and right over all Catholics. But a heretic pope has no power or right at all. Therefore a heretic pope is not a true pope. The major is evident. The minor is shown by a text of blessed Cyprian, who, as we read in 24 q. 1 c. Didicimus, says: "We have learned that all heretics and schismatics have no power or right at all."
Discipulus: Bene probatur quod papa hereticus non est verus papa, et quod est papatu privatus, sed non probatur per auctoritatem predictam quod papa hereticus sit per divinam sententiam papatu privatus, quia beatus Cyprianus non dicit "Didicimus in Scriptura Divina omnes omnino hereticos" etc., sed sine determinatione ait "Didicimus" etc. Poterit autem in sacris canonibus addiscere quod omnes omnino heretici nichil habent potestatis ac iuris, quia licet per Scripturam Divinam heretici non sint omni potestate privati, sunt tamen per sacros canones omni potestate ac iure nudati. | Student: It is well proved that a heretic pope is not a true pope, and that he is deprived of the papacy, but it is not proved by the aforesaid text that a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy by divine sentence, because blessed Cyprian does not say "We have learned in Divine Scripture that all heretics" etc., but he says unspecifically "We have learned" etc. He could learn in the sacred canons that all heretics are absolutely devoid of power and right, because even if heretics are not deprived of all power by Divine Scripture, they are nevertheless stripped of all power and right by the sacred canons.
Magister: Videtur nonnullis quod, si sequentia beati Cypriani pensares subtiliter, invenires quod beatus Cyprianus asserit manifeste se in Scriptura Divina didicisse omnes omnino hereticos et schismaticos nichil habere potestatis ac iuris. Nam ad probandum verba predicta subdit: "Invenimus in tali facinore non solum duces et auctores, sed etiam participes penis destinari, nisi a communione malorum se separaverint, precipiente per Moysem Domino et dicente 'Separamini a tabernaculis hominum istorum durissimorum, et nolite tangere de omnibus, que sunt eorum, ne simul pereatis in peccatis eorum". Et quod comminatus per Moysem fuerat Dominus, implevit, ut quisquis se a Chore et Dathan et Abiron non separasset, penas statim pro impia communione persolveret.' | Master: It seems to some that, if you think through blessed Cyprian's text subtly, you will find that blessed Cyprian clearly asserts that he has learned that all heretics and schismatics are absolutely devoid of power and right in Divine Scripture. For to prove the aforementioned words he adds: "We find that in such a crime not only the leaders and authors, but also the participants are destined to punishment, unless they separate themselves from the communion of evildoers, because the Lord commanded through Moses and said, 'Separate yourselves from the tents of these most hardened men, and do not touch anything that belongs to them, lest you perish together in their sins." And what the Lord had threatened through Moses, he fulfilled, so that whoever had not separated himself from Korah and Dathan and Abiram immediately paid the penalties for their impious communion.'
"Quo exemplo ostenditur et probatur obnoxios omnes pene et culpe futuros, qui se schismaticis contra prepositos et sacerdotes irreligiosa temeritate miscuerint, sicut eciam per Osee prophetam Spiritus Sanctus contestatur et dicit 'Sacrificia eorum tanquam panis luctus, omnes qui manducant ea, contaminabuntur', docens scilicet et ostendens, omnes omnino cum auctoribus suis supplicio coniungi, qui fuerint eorum peccato contaminati." Et infra: "Si autem foris cuncti heretici et schismatici non habent Spiritum Sanctum, et ideo apud nos eis manus imponitur, ut hic accipiatur quod illic non est, nec dari potest: manifestum est, nec remissionem peccatorum per eos dari posse." | "By this example it is shown and proved that all will be liable to penalties and blame who with irreligious rashness mingle themselves with schismatics against the leaders and priests, just as the Holy Spirit also testifies through the prophet Hosea and says, 'Their sacrifices are like the bread of grief, all who eat them will be defiled', teaching and showing that all are completely united with their authors in punishment who are defiled by their sin." And below: "But if all heretics and schismatics outside [the Church] do not have the Holy Spirit, and therefore hands are laid upon them among us, so that here is received what there does not exist and cannot be given, it is manifest that neither can the remission of sins be given through them."
Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod beatus Cyprianus ad declarationem assertionis, scilicet, quod omnes omnino heretici et schismatici nichil habere potestatis ac iuris auctoritates Scripture Divine adducit. Ex quo sequitur evidenter quod in Scriptura Sacra didicit quod omnes heretici nichil habent potestatis ac iuris, et non solum per canones, quia canones asserentes quod omnes heretici nil habent potestatis ac iuris hec a Scriptura accipere Divina. | From these words it is gathered that blessed Cyprian brings forward texts of Divine Scripture to explain his assertion that all heretics and schismatics have absolutely no power and right. From this it follows evidently that he learned in Sacred Scripture that all heretics have no authority and right, and not only through the canons, because the canons asserting that all heretics have no authority and right take this from Divine Scripture.
Item, quod beatus Cyprianus intelligat se in Scriptura Divina didicisse quod heretici nichil habent potestatis ac iuris ex aliis verbis eius colligitur. Nam, ut habetur 1 q. 1 c. c. Si quis, inquit, idem Cyprianus ait: "Si quis, inquit, de ecclesia heretica presumptione exierit, a semetipso dampnatus est. Cum huiusmodi, secundum Apostolum, nec cibum quidem sumere debemus. Declaratur hoc in libro Regnorum, ubi, cum homo Dei ad Ieroboam missus esset, qui peccata sua exprobraret atque ultionem futuram prediceret, panem apud illum edere et aquam bibere prohibitus est." Et infra: "An debet quisquam dicere, sacramentum salutare, et gratiam celestem communem cum hereticis esse posse, cum quibus nec terrestris cibus, nec secularis potus debet esse communis?" | Likewise, we gather from other words that blessed Cyprian means that he learned that heretics have no power or right from Divine Scripture. For, as we read in 1 q. 1 c. Si quis, inquit, Cyprian says: "If anyone, he says, has left the Church through heretical presumption, he is self-condemned. We should not even eat with such a person, according to the Apostle. This is made clear in the Book of Kings [1 Kings 13: 7-9], where, when the man of God was sent to Jeroboam to rebuke his sins and predict future vengeance, he was forbidden to eat bread and drink water with him." And below: 'Should anyone say that the saving sacrament and heavenly grace can be shared with heretics, with whom neither earthly food nor secular drink should be shared?"
Ex quibus verbis aperte colligitur quod beatus Cyprianus in Scriptura Divina se fundavit, asserens quod hereticorum communio est vitanda, et per consequens quod nichil habent potestatis ac iuris. Ex quo sequitur evidenter quod, sicut papa hereticus per Scripturam Divinam communione fidelium est privatus, ita per Scripturam Divinam est omni potestate et ecclesiastica dignitate nudatus. Cum vero enim papa communicandum est. Nullus eciam fugere a communione veri pape tenetur. Ergo ille qui est communione fidelium auctoritate Scripture Divine privatus non est verus papa. | From these words we gather clearly that blessed Cyprian based himself on Divine Scripture, asserting that the communion of heretics must be avoided, and consequently that they have no power or right. From this it follows evidently that, just as a heretic pope is deprived by Divine Scripture of the communion of the faithful, so by Divine Scripture he is stripped of all power and ecclesiastical dignity. For one must be in communion with a true pope. No one is also bound to flee from communion with a true pope. Therefore someone who is deprived of communion with the faithful by the authority of Divine Scripture is not a true pope.
Quarta decima ratio est hec. Ad verum papam sunt cause fidei deferende (24 q. 1 c. Quotiens). Sed ad papam hereticum non sunt cause fidei deferende, quia ad adversarium fidei sunt cause fidei minime deferende. Papa autem hereticus est adversarius fidei christiane, ergo ad papam hereticum non sunt cause fidei deferende, et ita papa hereticus non est verus papa. | A fourteenth argument is this. Causes of [i.e. disputes concerning] faith are to be referred to the true pope (24 q. 1 c. Quotiens). But causes of faith are not to be referred to a heretic pope, because causes of faith are not to be brought to an adversary of the faith. But a heretic pope is an adversary of the Christian faith, therefore causes of faith are not to be brought to a heretic pope, and so a heretic pope is not a true pope.
Discipulus: Ista ratio videtur fortis si ex iure divino haberet papa verus quod ad ipsum essent cause fidei deferende, quia non video quod minor, scilicet quod ad papam hereticum non sint cause fidei deferende, probatione indigeat. Et ideo proba quod ex iure divino verus papa illam prerogativam obtineat quod ad ipsum sint cause fidei deferende. | Student: This argument seems strong, if it is by divine law that causes of faith should be referred to a true pope, because I do not see that the minor, namely that causes of faith must not be brought to a heretic pope, needs proof. And therefore prove that by divine law the true pope has the prerogative that causes of faith must be referred to him.
Magister: Hoc videtur posse probari per hoc quod ex eodem iure habet verus papa quod ad ipsum sint questiones fidei deferende ex quo iure super omnes fideles dignoscitur habere principatum. Sed verus papa ex iure divino super omnes fideles obtinet principatum (dist. 21 c. Quamvis et dist. 22 c. Omnes et c. Sacrosancta), igitur ex iure divino habet quod ad ipsum sunt cause fidei deferende. | Master: This seems provable by the fact that the Law by which a true pope has [the prerogative] that questions of faith must be referred to him is the same as the Law by which he is recognized as having primacy over all the faithful. But a true pope has primacy over all the faithful by divine law (dist. 21 c. Quamvis and dist. 22 c. Omnes and c. Sacrosancta). Therefore by divine law he has [the prerogative] that causes of faith are to be referred to him.
Decima quinta ratio est hec. Illi cui secundum legem divinam catholici debent se opponere, maxime in hiis que ad religionem pertinent christianam, non est verus papa, cum verus papa sit caput omnium christianorum, precipue in hiis que spectant ad religionem specialiter christianam. Sed pape heretico, secundum legem divinam, catholici se opponere astringuuntur. Unde et Dominus per Ezechielem prophetam, tertio decimo capitulo, illos qui non resistunt hereticis acriter reprehendit, dicens: "Non ascendistis ex adverso neque opposuistis murum pro domo Israel ut staretis in prelio in die Domini." Ex adverso enim ascendere et pro domo Israel murum se opponere, est pro defensione catholice veritatis cuicunque heretico domum Israel (que est ecclesia) cupienti destruere totis viribus obviare. | A fifteenth argument is this. Anyone whom Catholics must oppose according to divine law, especially in those things that pertain to the Christian religion, is not a true pope, since a true pope is the head of all Christians, especially in those things that pertain to the Christian religion specifically. But Catholics are bound to oppose a heretic pope according to divine law. Hence the Lord, through the prophet Ezechiel 13[:5], sharply rebukes those who do not resist heretics, saying: "You have not gone up to face the enemy, nor have you set up a wall for the house of Israel, to stand in battle in the day of the Lord." For to go up against them and to build up a wall for the house of Israel is to oppose with all your might, in defense of Catholic truth, any heretic who desires to destroy the house of Israel (which is the Church).
Quod evidenter Urbanus papa videtur innuere qui, ut legitur 1 q. 3 c. Salvator, ait: "Salvator predixit in evangelio, circa finem seculi pseudochristos et pseudoprophetas surgere et multos seducere, et fideles suos in mundo multas habituros pressuras, sed tamen portas inferni non prevalituras. Proinde, ut ait Apostolus, oportet esse hereses, ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant, oportet nos cum propheta ex adverso consurgere, et murum pro domo Israel opponere." | Pope Urban seems to clearly indicate this. As we read in 1 q. 3 c. Salvator, he says: "The Savior foretold in the Gospel that near the end of the age false Christs and false prophets would arise and deceive many, and that his faithful in the world would have many tribulations, but yet the gates of hell would not prevail. Therefore, as the Apostle says, there must be heresies, so that those who are approved may be made manifest; we must rise up with the prophet against them, and set up a wall for the house of Israel."
Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod contra quascunque hereses insurgentes oportet catholicos ex adverso consurgere, et se murum opponere pro defensione fidei orthodoxe. Ergo, si papa fiat hereticus et fidem molitus fuerit destruere orthodoxam, oportet catholicos ei animosius obviare, et per consequens papa hereticus non est verus papa censendus secundum Sacrarum testimonium Scripturarum. | By these words we are given to understand that Catholics must rise up against any heretics who rise up, and set up a wall for the defense of the orthodox faith. Therefore, if a pope becomes a heretic and attempts to destroy the orthodox faith, Catholics must oppose him more courageously, and consequently a heretic pope is not to be considered a true pope according to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures.
Capitulum 69 | Chapter 69
Discipulus: Pro ista assertione fortiter allegasti, et puto quod apparentiores rationes pro ipsa non est facile invenire. Ideo, ut michi detur occasio cogitandi, pro assertione contraria aliquas rationes excogitare conare. | Student: You have argued strongly for this assertion, and I think that it is not easy to find more persuasive arguments for it. Therefore, to give me occasion for thought, try to think of some arguments for the contrary assertion.
Magister: Quod papa hereticus non sit iure divino papatu privatus videtur multis modis posse probari. Primo quidem sic. Sicut papa est caput fidelium qui sunt sub nova lege, ita summus sacerdos, quantum ad illa que spectant ad legem divinam, caput erat fidelium qui erant sub lege veteri constituti. Sed summus sacerdos in veteri lege, quamvis errasset a fide, non fuisset summo sacerdocio iure divino privatus, quia, ut videtur, plures summi sacerdotes in antiqua lege deviaverunt a fide, et tamen postea summo sacerdocio fungebantur. Ergo, licet papa erraret a fide et efficeretur hereticus, non esset divino iure papatu privatus. | Master: That a heretic pope is not deprived of the papacy by divine law seems possible to prove in many ways. First, in this way. Just as the pope is the head of the faithful who are under the New Law, so the high priest, as far as concerns divine law, was the head of the faithful who were living under the Old Law. But the high priest in the Old Law, though he had erred from the faith, would not have been deprived of the high priesthood by divine law, because, as it seems, many high priests in the old law did deviate from the faith yet later exercised the high priesthood. Therefore, though a pope erred from the faith and became a heretic, he would not have been deprived of the papacy by divine law.
Confirmatur hec ratio. Quia non magis per Scripturam Divinam probari potest quod papa hereticus est papatu privatus, quam quod summus sacerdos veteris legis, effectus hereticus, fuerit sacerdotio summo privatus, quia rationes sumpte ex Scriptura Sacra, maxime ex veteri testamento, non magis concludunt de summo sacerdote nove legis quam veteris. Sed summus sacerdos in antiqua lege, effectus hereticus, non fuit iure divino sacerdotio summo privatus. Ergo nec papa, effectus hereticus, iure divino est papatu privatus. | This argument is confirmed. Because it can no more be proved by Divine Scripture that a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy than that the high priest of the Old Law, having become a heretic, was deprived of the high priesthood, because arguments taken from Sacred Scripture, especially from the Old Testament, are no more conclusive about the high priest of the New Law than of the Old. But the high priest in the Old Law, having become a heretic, was not deprived of the high priesthood by divine law. Therefore neither is a pope, having become a heretic, deprived of the papacy by divine law.
Secunda ratio est hec. Papa non est deterioris conditionis quam alii prelati et episcopi. Sed alii prelati et episcopi, si efficiantur heretici, non sunt iure divino omni dignitate privati. Ergo nec papa hereticus est iure divino omni dignitate privatus. Maior videtur certa. Minor probatur. Quia, si episcopi et alii prelati, effecti heretici, essent iure divino omni dignitate privati, non possent absque nova electione ad suas recipi dignitates, vel saltem suas dignitates minime retinerent. Sed nonnulli prelati, effecti heretici, absque nova electione ad suas dignitates recepti fuerunt, vel retinuerunt easdem (1 q. 7 c. Maximum et q. 1 c. Omnis cuiuslibet et c. Quod quidam). Ergo et papa, quamvis efficiatur hereticus, papalem retinet dignitatem, et ita nequaquam est iure divino papatu privatus. | A second argument is this. A pope is not in a worse condition than other prelates and bishops. But other prelates and bishops, if they become heretics, are not deprived of all dignity by divine law. Therefore neither is a heretic pope deprived of all dignity by divine law. The major seems certain. The minor is proved. Because if bishops and other prelates, having become heretics, were deprived of all dignity by divine law, they could not be received back to their dignities without a new election, or at least they would not retain their dignities at all. But some prelates, having become heretics, were received back to their dignities without a new election, or retained the same (1 q. 7, c. Maximum and q. 1 c. Omnis cuiuslibet and c. Quod quidam). Therefore also a pope, though he becomes a heretic, retains the papal dignity, and thus he is by no means deprived of the papacy by divine law.
Tertio sic. Non deterioris conditionis est papa quam imperator, vel principes seculares. Sed imperator, effectus hereticus, iure divino non est imperiali dignitate privatus, nec reges, nec alii principes seculares, si efficiantur heretici, iure divino suis dignitatibus sunt privati, ergo nec papa hereticus est iure divino dignitate papali privatus. Maior videtur certa. Minor ostenditur manifeste. Nam in veteri lege multi reges idolatre et heretici effecti fuerunt, et tamen veri reges remanserunt. Iulianus etiam Apostata hereticus de christiano fuit effectus, et tamen fuit verus imperator (11 q. 3 c. Iulianus). Ergo principes seculares heretici nequaquam dignitatibus suis iure divino privantur. Ergo nec papa, quamvis efficiatur hereticus, iure divino papatu est privatus. | Thirdly, thus. The pope is not of a worse condition than the emperor or secular rulers. But the emperor, having become a heretic, is not deprived of the imperial dignity by divine law, nor are kings or other secular rulers, if they become heretics, deprived of their dignities by divine law; therefore neither is a heretic pope deprived of the papal dignity by divine law. The major seems certain. The minor is clearly shown. For in the Old Law many kings became idolatrous and heretical, and yet they remained true kings. Julian the Apostate also became a heretic from being a Christian, and yet he was a true emperor (11 q. 3 c. Julianus). Therefore heretic secular rulers are by no means deprived of their dignities by divine law. Therefore neither is the pope, though he becomes a heretic, deprived of the papacy by divine law.
Quarto sic. Si papa hereticus esset iure divino papatu privatus, hoc non esset propter aliam causam nisi quia hereticus catholicis preesse non potest. Sed hereticos et infideles prefuisse catholicis, et catholicos infidelibus obedisse, in Sacris Literis et aliis scripturis auctenticis legitur manifeste. Joseph enim servivit et obedivit Pharaoni, et Daniel Nabuchodonosor, et christiani plures infidelibus imperatoribus servierunt. Ergo non est contra legem divinam quod hereticus vel infidelis fidelibus presit. Ergo non est contra Scripturam Sacram quod papa hereticus remaneat verus papa. | Fourthly, thus. If a heretic pope were deprived of the papacy by divine law, this would be only because a heretic cannot rule over Catholics. But that heretics and unbelievers ruled over Catholics, and that Catholics obeyed unbelievers, is clearly read in the Holy Scriptures and other authentic writings. For Joseph served and obeyed Pharaoh, and Daniel [served and obeyed] Nebuchadnezzar, and many Christians served unbelieving emperors. Therefore it is not against the divine law that a heretic or unbeliever should rule over the faithful. Therefore it is not against Holy Scripture that a heretic pope should remain the true pope.
Quinto sic. Ad quem pertinet institutio alicuius, ad eundem destitutio spectat eiusdem (Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum ex iniuncto). Sed papa non instituitur iure divino, sed eligentium electioni canonica et concordi. Ergo nec papa destituitur iure divino, sed, si est destituendus, oportet quod ipsum destituant electores. | Fifthly, thus. If a person's appointment belongs to someone, so does their deposition (Extra, De heretics, c. Cum ex iniuncto). But a pope is not appointed by divine law, but by the canonical and concordant election of the electors. Therefore neither is the pope deposed by divine law, but, if he must be deposed, it is necessary that the electors depose him.
Sexto sic. Illa assertio nullatenus est tenenda ad quam sequi potest totius ecclesiastice hierarchie confusio, cui tota ecclesia subvenire non posset. Sed, si papa hereticus iure divino esset papatu privatus, potest sequi totius ecclesiastice hierarchie confusio. Posset enim papa esse occultus hereticus, cuius ordinationes, promotiones, consecrationes, et cetera facta eius, nullius essent momenti, si iure divino esset papatu privatus. Et ita, si papa occulte efficeretur hereticus, nullus prelatus factus per ipsum esset verus prelatus, et per consequens totus ordo ecclesiasticus esset confusus, quia nullus esset verus prelatus, nec tota ecclesia Dei, que de occultis iudicare non potest, valeret tali confusioni ecclesiastice ordinis obviare. Ergo non est tenendum quod papa, effectus hereticus, statim iure divino sit papatu privatus. | Sixthly, thus. An assertion is by no means to be held if it can lead to a confusion of the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy that the whole Church could not repair. But, if a heretic pope were deprived of the papacy by divine law, the confusion of the entire ecclesiastical hierarchy can follow. For the pope could be a secret heretic, whose ordinations, promotions, consecrations, and other deeds would have no effect if he were deprived of the papacy by divine law. And so, if a pope secretly became a heretic, no prelate made by him would be a true prelate, and consequently the whole ecclesiastical order would be confused, because there would be no true prelate, nor would the whole Church of God, which cannot judge about hidden things, be able to prevent such a confusion of the ecclesiastical order. Therefore, it is not to be held that the pope, having become a heretic, is deprived of the papacy immediately by divine law.
Septimo sic. Illa pena pape heretico per Scripturam Divinam minime est inflicta, de qua in tota Scriptura nulla mentio reperitur. Sed de pena privationis officii et beneficii nulla penitus in Sacra Scriptura mentio reperitur. Ergo per Scripturam Sacram papa hereticus papatu nullatenus est privatus. | Seventhly, thus. A penalty is not at all inflicted on a heretic pope by Divine Scripture if no mention of it is found in the whole of Scripture. But there is no mention at all in Holy Scripture of the penalty of deprivation of office and benefice. Therefore a heretic pope is in no way deprived of the papacy by Holy Scripture.
Capitulum 70 | Chapter 70
Discipulus: Ista assertio est pure negativa, et ideo, cum asserit in Sacris Litteris minime reperiri papam hereticum ipso facto esse papatu privatum, videtur quod contra omnem proterviam probari non posset, nisi per singula loca Scripture Sacre (presertim que tractant de hereticis vel infidelibus) discurrendo. Hoc autem nolo quod facias. Ideo, cum pro ista parte rationes, ut michi videtur, allegaveris fortiores, queso ut indices qualiter ad ipsas respondere contingat. De rationibus enim pro alia parte tecum post completionem istius Dialogi collocutionem habebo. | Student: This assertion is purely negative, and therefore, since it asserts that it is not found in Holy Scriptures that a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy ipso facto, it seems it could not be proved against every last-ditch objector *[protervus] except by going through each and every place in Holy Scripture (especially those that treat of heretics or unbelievers). But I do not want you to do this. Therefore, since you have, as it seems to me, adduced stronger arguments for this part, I ask that you indicate how you can respond to them. For I will have a conversation with you about the arguments for the other part after the completion of this Dialogue.
Magister: Ad primam istarum rationum multipliciter respondetur. Dicitur enim, uno modo, quod summus sacerdos veteris legis, eo ipso quod efficiebatur hereticus, fuit sacerdotio summo privatus, nec tunc erat verus summus sacerdos secundum veritatem, licet extiterit secundum opinionem hominum summus sacerdos. Verumptamen, inter summum sacerdotem veteris legis et summum pontificem nove legis talis fuit differentia, quod summus sacerdos veteris legis, effectus hereticus, si postea convertebatur ad fidem, verum sacerdotium recuperavit amissum, quemadmodum excommunicatus et executione privatus officii, quando absolvitur, officii recuperat executionem. Sed si summus pontifex nove legis efficitur hereticus, quantumcunque occultus, sic papatum amittit, quod, quantumcunque postea convertatur ad fidem, papatum nequaquam recuperat. | Master: In many ways it is answered to the first of these arguments. For it is said, in one way, that the high priest of the Old Law, by the very fact that he became a heretic, was deprived of the high priesthood, and was not then a true high priest according to the truth, although he was high priest according to the opinion of men. However, between the high priest of the Old Law and the high pontiff of the New Law there was a difference: If the high priest of the Old Law, having become a heretic, was afterwards converted to the faith, he recovered the true priesthood, which he had lost, just as one who is excommunicated and deprived of the execution of his office, when he is absolved, recovers the execution of his office. But if the high pontiff of the New Law becomes a heretic, however hidden, he loses the papacy, and, however much he is afterwards converted to the faith, he never recovers the papacy.
Discipulus: Istud videtur ratione carere, cum nequeat neque auctoritate Scripture Divine neque ratione muniri. Quod non ratione de se patet, quia talia que sunt positiva per rationem probari non possunt. Neque auctoritate Scripture Divine, quia talis differentia inter summum sacerdotem veteris legis et papam in tota Scriptura non poterit inveniri. | Student: This seems to lack reason, since it cannot be supported either by the authority of Divine Scripture or by argument. Clearly not by argument, because such things that are positive *[i.e. a matter of positive law] cannot be proved by reason. And not by the authority of Divine Scripture, because such a difference between the high priest of the old law and the pope cannot be found in the whole of Scripture.
Magister: Respondetur quod predicta differentia ex Scripturis Sacris accipit fulcimentum. Constat enim, secundum Scripturam Divinam, quod summum sacerdotium veteris legis certe cognationi aut generi debebatur: nullus enim preter filios Aaron debuit esse summus sacerdos. Papatus autem certe cognationi aut generi non debetur. Petrus enim nequaquam pro se et filiis papatum recepit a Christo. Ex quo, ergo, iure successionis qui erat summus sacerdos in veteri lege sacerdotium summum obtinuit, et non erat statutum in lege veteri quod summus sacerdos, effectus hereticus, ipso ab heresi desistente, non recuperaret illud quod sibi debebatur iure successionis hereditarie, conveniens fuit, ut videtur, quod, ipso ad fidem reverso, recuperaret sacerdotium quod per hereticam pravitatem amiserat. Papa autem iure successionis hereditarie papatum minime habet, et ideo, si propter perfidiam heresis papatu privatur, nequaquam papatum recuperat, nisi eligeretur de novo. | Master: It is answered that the aforesaid difference does receive support from the Sacred Scriptures. For it is clear, according to Divine Scripture, that the high priesthood of the Old Law was due to certain kinship or lineage: for no one except the sons of Aaron should have been high priest. But the papacy is not due to certain kinship or lineage. For Peter did not receive the papacy from Christ for himself and his sons. Because, therefore, it was by right of succession that he who was the high priest in the Old Law obtained the high priesthood, and it was not established in the Old Law that if the high priest became a heretic and then desisted from heresy he should not recover what was by right of hereditary succession due to him, it was fitting, as it seems, that, having returned to the faith, he should recover the priesthood he had lost through heretical wickedness. But the pope does not have the papacy by right of hereditary succession, and therefore, if because of the perfidy of heresy he is deprived of the papacy, he does not recover the papacy unless he is elected anew.
Aliter dicitur quod, quia summus sacerdos antique legis sacerdotium habuit iure successionis, ideo executionem officii amittere potuit per hereticam pravitatem. Officium autem, quamdiu vixit, non amisit. Sed papa non habet officium papatus iure successionis, ideo amittendo executionem papalis officii ipsum officium papale amittit. Et ita differentia est inter papam hereticum et summum sacerdotem hereticum in veteri lege. | Otherwise it is said that because the high priest of the ancient Law had the priesthood by right of succession, he could therefore lose the execution of his office through heretical wickedness but did not lose the office as long as he lived. But the pope does not have the office of the papacy by right of succession, therefore by losing the execution of the papal office he loses the papal office itself. And thus there is a difference between a heretic pope and a heretical high priest in the Old Law.
Discipulus: Intelligo responsionem istorum ad primam rationem, ideo indica qualiter respondetur ad secundam. | Student: I understand their answer to the first argument, therefore indicate how answer is made to the second.
Magister: Ad secundam rationem, dicitur quod omnes episcopi et prelati ecclesiastici incurrentes hereticam pravitatem, sive publice sive occulte, iure divino suis dignitatibus sunt privati, quia in hiis que sunt propria religioni christiane, nulla potest esse communicatio heretici ad fidelem, et ideo, quantum ad illa que spiritualia sunt, hereticus fidelibus preesse non potest. Distinctio enim fidelis et infidelis non est ex iure humano canonico et civili, sed est ex iure divino. Et ideo quod infidelis, qualis est omnis hereticus, fidelibus in spiritualibus preesse non debeat, est ex iure divino. Quare iure divino omnis hereticus omni prelatione ecclesiastica est privatus, | Master: To the second argument it is said that all bishops and ecclesiastical prelates who incur heretical depravity, whether publicly or secretly, are deprived of their dignities by divine law, because in things proper to the Christian religion there can be no communication between a heretic and a faithful person, and therefore, as regards spiritual matters, a heretic cannot rule over the faithful. For the distinction between faithful and unbeliever is not from human, canonical and civil law, but from divine law. And therefore it is from divine law that an unbeliever, such as every heretic is, should not rule over the faithful in spiritual matters. Wherefore by divine law every heretic is deprived of all ecclesiastical prelature,
quod Apostolus 2 Cor. insinuare videtur, cum dicit: "Nolite iugum ducere cum infidelibus, que enim participatio iustitie cum iniquitate, aut que societas lucis ad tenebras, que autem conventio Christi ad Belial, aut que pars fidelis cum infidele, quis autem consensus templo Dei cum idolis." In quibus verbis Apostolus videtur precipere fidelibus universis ne subsint infidelibus, et ne communicent eis. | which the Apostle 2 Cor. 6[:14-6] seems to suggest when he says: "Do not be yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with iniquity? or what fellowship has light with darkness? or what agreement has Christ with Belial? or what part has a faithful person with an unbeliever? or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" In these words the Apostle seems to command all the faithful not to submit to unbelievers and not to communicate with them.
Quod potissime veritatem habet quantum ad spiritualia, et ea que propria sunt religioni christiane. Quamvis enim in temporalibus possint fideles subesse infidelibus et communicare ipsis, in spiritualibus tamen eis subesse non debent. Et ita omnis hereticus, cum sit infidelis, iure divino omni prelatione ecclesiastica est privatus. Et ita, minor illius rationis est falsa secundum assertionem istam. | This is especially true with regard to spiritual things, and those that are proper to the Christian religion. For although in temporal things the faithful may submit to unbelievers and communicate with them, yet in spiritual things they should not be subject to them. And thus every heretic, since he is an unbeliever, is deprived by divine law of all ecclesiastical prelature. And thus the minor of that argument is false according to this assertion.
Ad probationem eius respondetur quod, licet episcopi inferiores summo pontifici, et alii prelati, si hereticam incurrerint pravitatem, sint iure divino omni ecclesiastica prelatione privati, tamen ex causa rationabili, per ordinationem concilii generalis vel summi pontificis, possunt, si conversi fuerint, ad suas restitui dignitates. Quamvis enim iure divino heretici sint omni ecclesiastica prelatione privati, restitutio tamen eorum ad pristinam dignitatem, si conversi fuerint, est iure divino nullatenus interdicta, et ideo per ecclesiam restitui possunt, et talis restitutio vel est nova electio vel equipollet electione nove. | To its proof it is answered that, although bishops inferior to the supreme pontiff, and other prelates, if they have incurred heretical depravity, are deprived by divine law of all ecclesiastical prelature, nevertheless for a reasonable cause, by the ordinance of a general council or of the supreme pontiff, they can, if they have been converted, be restored to their dignities. For although by divine law heretics are deprived of all ecclesiastical prelature, yet their restoration to their former dignity, if they have been converted, is by divine law in no way forbidden, and therefore they can be restored by the Church, and such restoration either is a new election or is equivalent to a new election.
Discipulus: Ista responsio sacris canonibus obviare videtur. Nam non videtur quod episcopus, factus hereticus, iure divino sit episcopatu privatus. Quia, qui iure divino est episcopatu privatus, statim absque licentia cuiuscunque episcopatui renunciare tenetur. Qui enim auctoritate superioris est dignitate privatus, non debet petere ab inferiori cedendi licentiam. Sed episcopus, factus hereticus, non potest renunciare sine licentia pape, qui est inferior lege divina (Extra, De renunciatione, c. Nisi et c. Post translationem), ergo episcopus, factus hereticus, non est per legem divinam episcopatu privatus. | Student: This answer seems to contradict the sacred canons. For it does not seem that a bishop, having become a heretic, is deprived of his episcopate by divine law. Because someone deprived of his episcopate by divine law is bound to resign from the episcopate immediately without anyone's permission. For someone deprived of the authority of a superior should not ask an inferior for permission to resign. But a bishop, having become a heretic, cannot resign without permission from the pope, who is inferior to the divine law (Extra, De renunciatione, c. Nisi and c. Post translationem), therefore a bishop, having become a heretic, is not deprived of his episcopate by divine law.
Item, si episcopus hereticus esset iure divino episcopatu privatus, quilibet qui fuit subditus eius, sciens ipsum esse hereticum, ipsum vitare deberet, nec deberet sibi quomodolibet obedire. Sed hoc canoni Symachi pape, qui ponitur q. 4 c. Nonne, aperte repugnat, qui iubet nullum clericum ante tempus sententie ab episcopo suo discedere, dicens: "Nonne directa sunt verba canonum quicunque clericorum ab episcopo suo ante tempus sententie pro dubia suspicione discesserit, manifestam in eum manere censuram. Lex enim ecclesiastica pontificem ab aliis accusatum priusquam sub luce obiecta constiterint exigit non relinqui." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod ante tempus sententie non est ab obedientia episcopi heretici recedendum, et per consequens non est iure divino episcopatu privatus. | Likewise, if a heretic bishop were deprived of his episcopate by divine law, anyone who was his subject, knowing that he was a heretic, should avoid him, nor should he obey him in any way. But this is inconsistent with the canon of pope Symmachus, 8 q.4 c. Nonne, who orders that no cleric should depart from his bishop before the time of the sentence, saying: "Are not the words of the canon direct, If any cleric on doubtful suspicion departs from his bishop before the time of the sentence, a manifest censure shall remain against him ? For ecclesiastical law requires that a pontiff accused by others should not be abandoned before the objects *[i.e. facts] have been established in the light." From these words it is given to understand that before the time of the sentence noone should depart from obedience to a heretical bishop, and consequently it is not by Divine Law that he is deprived of the episcopate.
Magister: Ad evidentiam prime obiectionis tue, que fundatur in hoc quod pro nullo crimine potest episcopus renunciare episcopatui sine licentia pape, dicitur esse sciendum quod, sicut recitat glossa in capitulo preallegato (Extra, De renunciatione, c. Nisi), "De hoc sunt opiniones contrarii, quibusdam dicentibus quod nullus criminosus, nullus irregularis potest renunciare sine licentia pape... etiam si... titulum non habeat ut simoniacus, et intrusus," et secundum istos videtur quod episcopus factus hereticus non potest renunciare sine licentia pape. | Master: To clarify your first objection, which is based on the fact that for no crime can a bishop resign from the episcopate without the pope's permission, it is said that it should be known that, as the gloss in the previously mentioned chapter states (Extra, De renunciatione, c. Nisi [s.v. sed duntaxat, col. 233]), "There are contrary opinions on this matter, with some saying that no one who is criminal, no one who is irregular, can resign without the pope's permission... even if... he does not have the title as a simoniac and intruder," and according to these it seems that a bishop who has become a heretic cannot resign without the pope's permission.
Alii dicunt quod quidam renunciare possunt sine licentia pape. Unde "dicunt quod simoniacus et intrusus non habent titulum sed fures et invasores sunt, 1 q. 1 c. Ordinationes, et ideo quando plus rem tenent, tanto plus peccant, et fur semper est in mora." Unde dicunt isti quod renunciare "tenentur canonis auctoritate, 1. q. 1 c. Si quis neque, etiam absque licentia pape, sed in aliis qui titulum habent secus est: ibi enim necessaria est licentia pape." Patet ergo quod de petenda cedendi licentia sunt opiniones diverse. | Others say that some can resign without the pope's permission. Hence "they say that a simoniac and intruder do not have the title but are thieves and invaders, 1 q. 1 c. Ordinationes, and therefore because the more they hold property, they more they sin, and a thief is always in delay." Whence they say," i.e. * these, that "they are bound to resign by the authority of the canon, 1. q. 1 c. Si quis neque, even without the pope's permission, but in others who have the title it is otherwise: for there the pope's permission is necessary." It is clear, therefore, that there are different opinions about asking for permission to cede.
Hoc viso, dicitur distinguendo, ut videtur, concordando cum glossa que opiniones recitat supradictas. Quia episcopus criminosus aut habet titulum secundum veritatem, vel hominum opinionem (sicut simoniacus, saltem non notorius sed occultus, vel non notorius hereticus), aut non habet titulum neque secundum veritatem neque secundum opinionem hominum (sicut publice intrusus). In secundo casu, videtur quod, cum habet conscientiam et propositum renunciandi, statim renunciare debet, nec videtur quod unquam teneatur petere cedendi licentiam. Si autem criminosus habet titulum secundum veritatem, nullo modo potest cedere absque licentia petita et optenta. | This being seen, it is said by distinguishing, as it seems, in agreement with the gloss which recites the opinions above. Because a criminal bishop either [1] has a title, [a] according to the truth or [b] according to the opinion of men (like a simoniac, at least not notorious but hidden, or a not notorious heretic), or [2] he has no title, either according to the truth or according to the opinion of men (like a public intruder). In [2] the second case, it seems that, when he has a conscience and a purpose to resign, he must resign immediately, and it does not seem he is ever obliged to ask for permission to resign. But if [1a] a criminal has a title according to the truth, he can in no way resign without permission sought and obtained.
Si autem habet titulum non secundum veritatem sed secundum opinionem hominum, ab omni administratione et executione officii statim cessare tenetur, et nichilominus in manu superioris, scilicet pape, renunciare debet, et ita debet quodammodo petere cedendi licentiam, vel verius quare non potest retinere officium explicare. Et hoc debet non quin sit dignitate privatus, sed quia debet satisfacere illis qui ipsum reputant verum titulum habuisse, presertim cum possit esse occultum quod non habuit titulum verum, et nullus debet diffamare seipsum. Quare, ne diffamet seipsum, debet petere cedendi licentiam, et auctoritate superioris renunciare sollempniter. | But if he has a title not according to the truth but [1b] according to the opinion of men, he is obliged to cease immediately from all administration and execution of the office, and nevertheless he ought to resign *into the hands of his superior, namely the pope, and so he should in some way ask for permission to resign -- or rather he should explain why he cannot keep the office. And he ought do this not lest he be deprived of the dignity, but because he must satisfy those who believed he had a true title, especially since it may be hidden that he did not have a true title, and no one should defame himself. Therefore, lest he defame himself, he must ask for permission to cede, and solemnly renounce it by the authority of his superior.
Hiis glossa concordare videtur, que ait: "Licet titulum non habeat simoniacus, tamen videtur habere titulum, cum per electionem habuerit ecclesiam, quoad communem opinionem habet titulum, cum occulta fuerit simonia. Unde saltem propter hoc tenetur licentiam petere, et causa potest subesse, quia, si bene administraverit, papa de facile dispensabit cum eo." Et post: "Satis posset hic dici quod intrusus omnino debet cedere, quia nec quantum ad opinionem nec quantum ad veritatem titulum habet." Ex hiis patet quod quandoque occupans dignitatem debet statim cedere, quandoque non debet statim cedere, publice scilicet renunciando, licet nonnunquam ante talem renunciationem publicam cessare debeat ab omni administratione et officii executione. | The gloss seems to agree with all of this. It says: "Although a simoniac does not have a title, yet he seems to have a title, since he has had a church by election, he has a title as far as common opinion is concerned, since the simony was hidden. Hence at least for this reason he is bound to ask for permission, and a *subsidiary reason may be that, if he has administered well, the pope will easily dispense with him" *[i.e. give him a dispensation]. And after: "It could be enough to say here that an intruder must cede altogether, because he has a title neither as to opinion nor as to truth." From these words it is clear that sometimes the holder of a position must immediately cede office, sometimes he must not cede office immediately, namely by publicly resigning, although sometimes before such a public resignation he must cease from all administration and execution of office.
Per hoc ad tuam obiectionem taliter respondetur, quod interdum episcopus iure divino episcopatu privatus, licet statim debeat cessare ab administratione officii, potest tamen et debet publice ex causa petere cedendi licentiam ab inferiori iure divino, non quia non est privatus iure divino, sed ex alia rationabili causa. Sic est de episcopo pravitatem hereticam incurrente, quia debet petere licentiam cedendi, non quia non sit de iure divino privatus, sed quia ante perfidiam heresis habuit verum titulum, et post habuit secundum opinionem hominum. Et ideo debet statim cessare ab omni administratione et executione episcopalis officii, sed non debet statim publice et sollempniter renunciare, presertim si est occultus hereticus, ne prodat et diffamet seipsum, sed debet a papa petere licentiam renunciandi, ut sic auctoritate pape publice et sollempniter renunciet, ne credatur quod renunciat propter hereticam pravitatem. | By this the answer to your objection is given as follows, that sometimes a bishop deprived of the episcopate by divine law, though he must immediately cease from the administration of his office, nevertheless can and must publicly ask permission to resign from [an authoity] inferior to divine law, not because he is not deprived by divine law, but for some other reasonable cause. So it is with a bishop who incurrs heretical wickedness, because he must ask permission to resign, not because he is not deprived by divine law, but because before the perfidy of heresy he had the true title, and afterwards he had it according to the opinion of men. And therefore he ought immediately cease from all administration and execution of the episcopal office, but he ought not immediately publicly and solemnly resign, especially if he is a secret heretic, lest he betray and defame himself, but he should ask the pope for permission to resign, so that thus he may publicly and solemnly resign by the authority of the pope, lest it be believed that he resigns because of heretical wickedness. [*This is strange: a heretic must not defame himself? Assumes he is repentant?]
Discipulus: Per hanc rationem non deberet cessare ab executione episcopali officii, quia sic proderet et diffamaret seipsum. | Student: By this argument he should not cease from the execution of the episcopal office, because he would thus betray and defame himself.
Magister: Dicitur quod absque diffamatione suiipsius de heretica pravitate potest cessare ab executione episcopalis officii, et ideo debet cessare, quia sibi non licet, quantumcunque sit penitens, exequi officium episcopale, ex quo fuit hereticus et per superiorem vel potestatem habentem est minime restitutus. Sed petere licentiam renunciandi vel renunciare in manu pape licet sibi quantumcunque fuerit heretica pravitate fedatus, et ideo hoc debet facere, tum propter statutum ecclesie, tum propter scandala evitanda. | Master: It is said that he can cease from the execution of the episcopal office without defamating himself for heretical wickedness, and therefore he should cease, because it is not permissible for him, however penitent he may be, to execute the episcopal office, since he was a heretic and has not been restored by a superior or one having power. But it is permissible for him to ask for permission to resign or to resign *into the hand of the pope, however much he may have been besmirched by heretical wickedness, and therefore he must do this, both for the sake of the state of the Church and to avoid scandals.
Ad secundam obiectionem, dicitur quod quicunque scit episcopum suum esse hereticum, ipsum debet non episcopum reputare, et sibi minime obedire, sicut notat glossa 2 q. 7 c. Sacerdotes, et glossa 24 q. 1 1, que ait: "Si scirem prelatum meum esse hereticum, quia novam fingit, nec tamen predicaret, si me excommunicaret, celebrarem in occulto." Ex quibus verbis clare patet quod episcopo heretico non debet sciens ipsum esse hereticum obedire, sed licet ab ipso discedere, quia iam sententia legis divine et etiam constitutionis ecclesie est dampnatus. | To the second objection, it is said that whoever knows that his bishop is a heretic should not consider him a bishop, and should not obey him at all, as the gloss notes on 2 q. 7 c. Sacerdotes, and the gloss on 24 q. 1 1, which says: "If I knew that my prelate was a heretic, because he invented something new, and yet he did not preach [it], if he excommunicated me, I would celebrate in secret." From these words it is clear that one should not obey a heretical bishop knowing that he is a heretic, but it is permissible to depart from him, because he is already condemned by the sentence of divine law and also by the constitution of the Church.
Nec huic obviat canon Symachi pape, si quis subtiliter eius verba inspexerit. Nam, sicut expresse patet, ipse loquitur de illis qui pro dubia suspicione ab episcopo accusato antequam obiecta constituerint presumunt recedere, quod est minime faciendum. Quia quantumcunque episcopus aliquis fuerit effectus hereticus, nullus subditus eius pro dubia suspicione debet ab eo recedere ante tempus sententie. Secus est de illo qui non dubitat, sed scit, episcopum suum pravitatem hereticam incidisse. | Nor does the canon of pope Symmachus contradict this, if one examines his words carefully. For, as is expressly clear, he himself speaks of those who on doubtful suspicion presume to withdraw from the accused bishop before they have established their objections, which must not be done. Because no matter how much a bishop has become a heretic, no one subject of his should withdraw from him on the basis of doubtful suspicion before the time of the sentence. It is otherwise him who does not doubt, but knows, that his bishop has fallen into heretical depravity.
Discipulus: Dic quomodo ad tertiam rationem respondetur. | Student: Tell me how the third argument is answered.
Magister: Ad tertiam respondetur quod secus est de prelatione ecclesiastica et seculari. Nam prelatio ecclesiastica introducta est a iure divino, quia ex ordinatione divina est quod unus fidelis aliis fidelibus in spiritualibus preest. Prelatio vero secularis introducta est a iure humano, quia ex ordinatione humana est quod unus in temporalibus aliis preest. Et ideo, quia distinctio debet esse inter fideles et infideles quoad spiritualia, nec in spiritualibus communicant vel concordant, sed dissentiunt. Possunt autem in temporalibus concordare. Ideo, licet principes seculares, quamvis efficiantur heretici, non sint iure divino principatu seculari privati, prelati autem ecclesiastici, si efficiantur heretici, iure divino ipso facto principato ecclesiastico sunt privati. | Master: To the third, it is answered that it is different with ecclesiastical and secular prelature. Because ecclesiastical prelature was introduced by divine law, because it is by divine ordinance that one believer rules other believers in spiritual matters. But secular prelature was introduced by human law, because it is by human ordinance that one rules over others in temporal matters. And therefore, because there must be a distinction between believers and unbelievers as to spiritual matters, and they do not communicate or agree in spiritual matters, but disagree, however they can agree in temporal matters. Therefore, although secular rulers, though they become heretics by divine law, are not deprived of secular principality by divine law, but ecclesiastical prelates, if they become heretics, are by divine law deprived of ecclesiastical principality.
Discipulus: Ista responsio tripliciter videtur deficere. Primo, quia aliquorum regum principatus secularis fuit a iure divino, et tamen, quamvis fuissent effecti heretici, non fuissent principatu seculari iure divino privati. Ergo non est hec causa quare principes ecclesiastici, si efficiantur heretici, iure divino sunt privati, quia eorum scilicet principatus est a iure divino. | Student: This answer seems to be defective in three ways. First, because the secular principality of some kings was by divine law, and yet, although they had become heretics, they were not deprived of secular principality by divine law. Therefore the reason why ecclesiastical rulers, if they become heretics, are deprived by divine law, is not this, namely because their principality is by divine law.
Secundo, videtur quod etiam principes seculares, si efficiuntur heretici, iure divino suis principatibus sunt privati. Quia illi sunt iure divino privati dominio et principatu super fideles quibus ex precepto iuris divini fideles communicare non debent. Sed ex precepto iuris divini fideles infidelibus communicare non debent, teste Apostolo qui, sicut allegatum est prius, ait: "Nolite iugum ducere cum infidelibus." Ergo principes seculares, si efficiantur heretici, iure divino suis principatibus sunt privati. | Secondly, it seems that even secular rulers, if they become heretics, are deprived by divine law of their principalities. Because they are deprived by divine law of dominion and principality over the faithful, if, by the precept of divine law, the faithful should not communicate with them. But, by the precept of divine law, the faithful should not communicate with unbelievers, as the Apostle testifies, who, as was quoted before, says: Do not be yoked with unbelievers. Therefore secular rulers, if they become heretics, are deprived of their principalities by divine law.
Tertio, videtur quod propter hoc quod fideles et infideles quoad spiritualia dissentiunt et discordant, non est dicendum quod infideles quoad spiritualia fidelibus preesse non possint. Nam boni et mali quoad spiritualia dissentiunt et discordant, et tamen malus bonis quoad spiritualia preesse potest. Ergo, consimiliter, licet fideles et infideles quoad spiritualia dissentiant et discordent, tamen infidelis eciam quoad spiritualia fidelibus preesse valebit. | Thirdly, it seems that it must not be said that because the faithful and the unbelievers disagree and are out of harmony in spiritual matters, unbelievers cannot rule the faithful in spiritual matters. For the good and the bad disagree and disagree in spiritual matters, and yet the bad can rule the good in spiritual matters. Therefore, similarly, although the faithful and the unbelievers disagree and are out of harmony in spiritual matters, yet the unbeliever will also be able to rule the faithful in spiritual matters.
Magister: Ad primam istorum respondetur, quod non ideo prelati ecclesiastici, si efficiantur heretici, omni prelatione ecclesiastica sunt iure divino privati quia sint prelati a iure divino, sed quia prelatio ecclesiastica a iure divino solummodo sumpsit originem, nec humanitus est inventa, quamvis quod aliqui sint prelati ecclesiastici habeant ex iure humano (quod enim unus sit episcopus et non alius est ex voluntate humana eligentium et consentientium). | Master: To the first of these, it is answered that if ecclesiastical prelates become heretics, they are deprived of all ecclesiastical prelature by divine law not for the reason that they are prelates by divine law, but for the reason that ecclesiastical prelature took its origin from divine law alone and was not invented by man (though that some persons are ecclesiastical prelates they have by human law, for that one person and not another is a bishop is by the human will of those who elect and consent).
Prelatio autem secularis est inventa humanitus, vel potuit humanitus ordinari, licet quidam fuerint principes seculares ex speciali ordinatione divina. Et ideo idem dicendum est de illis principibus secularibus qui ex ordinatione prefuerunt divina et de aliis regibus sive principibus qui ex ordinatione prefuerunt humana, quia non aliud ius vel aliam prelationem habuerunt isti quam alii, licet consimile ius vel prelationem habuerint ab alio isti quam alii. | But secular prelature was invented by man, or could be humanly ordained, although some people were secular rulers by special divine ordination. And therefore the same must be said of those secular rulers who obtained rule by divine ordination and of other kings or rulers who obtained rule by human ordination, because the former had no other right or prelature than the latter, the former had the similar right from a source different from the one the latter had it from.
Prelati autem ecclesiastici aliud ius et aliam prelationem habent quam principes seculares, quia prelationem habent inventam divinitus, quam infideles super fideles habere non debent. Et causa apparentior assignatur, quia fideles et infideles in spiritualibus, que respicit prelatio ecclesiastica, non communicant sed discordant. Et ideo, sicut infideles nolunt in ritibus suis doceri et regi ab aliquo ritus contrarii, ita non debent fideles quoad spiritualia et ritus religionis sue aliquo modo infideli subesse. | But ecclesiastical prelates have another right and a different prelature than secular rulers, because they have a prelature divinely invented, which unbelievers should not have over the faithful. And a more obvious reason is assigned, because the faithful and the unbelievers do not communicate in spiritual matters, which ecclesiastical prelature regards, but disagree. And therefore, just as the unbelivers do not want to be taught and ruled in their rites by anyone belonging to a contrary rite, so the faithful should not be in any way subject to an unbeliever in spiritual matters and the rites of their religion.
Ad secundam tuam instantiam respondetur quod principes seculares infideles, sive nunquam fidem susceperint, sive fidem susceptam reliquerint, vel pertinaciter contra fidem erraverint, non sunt suis principatibus iure divino privati, nec regulariter ex precepto iuris divini fideles eos vitare tenentur, quia in temporalibus eos vitare non necessario astringuuntur regulariter ex iure divino (licet ex iure divino aliqui infideles fuerint specialiter devitandi), sed in spiritualibus et in hiis que contra religionem faciunt christianam eos vitare tenentur. | To your second point, it is answered that secular unbelievers, whether they have never accepted the faith, or have abandoned the faith they have accepted, or have pertinaciously erred against the faith, are not deprived of their principalities by divine law, nor (regularly) are the faithful bound by divine law to avoid them, because in temporal matters they are not necessarily bound regularly by divine law to avoid them (although by divine law some unbelievers are specifically to be avoided), but in spiritual matters and in things they do contrary to the Christian religion they are bound to avoid them.
Quod enim infideles ex iure divino non sunt in omnibus evitandi, aperte insinuat Paulus Apostolus cum dicit prima Corinth. 7: "Si quis frater uxorem habet infidelem et hec consentit habitare cum illo, non dimittat illam, et si qua mulier habet virum infidelem et hic consentit habitare cum illa non dimittat virum." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod licet fidelibus communicare infidelibus, quod etiam in plerisque locis epistolarum suarum innuit manifeste, precipiens fidelibus dominis etiam infidelibus obedire. | For that unbelievers are not to be avoided in all things the apostle Paul clearly suggests when he says, 1 Corinthians 7[:12-3]: "If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her, and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever and he consents to live with her, let her not divorce her husband." By these words it is given to be understood that it is permissible for believers to communicate with unbelievers; he also clearly hints at this in many places in his epistles, commanding the faithful to obey even unbelieving masters.
Verumptamen, in hiis que erant contra legem divinam, nec eis communicare nec eis obedire debebant, teste beato Augustino qui, ut habetur 11 q. 3 c. Imperatores, ait: "Iulianus extitit imperator infidelis. Nonne extitit apostata, iniquus, idolatra. Milites christiani servierunt imperatori infideli. Ubi veniebatur ad causam Christi, non agnoscebant nisi illum, qui in celo erat. Quando volebat ut idola colerent, ut thurificarent, preponebant illi Deum. Quando autem dicebat, producite aciem, ite contra illam gentem, statim obtemperabant et distinguebant Deum eternum a domino temporali." | However, in things against the divine law, they were not to communicate with them or obey them, as blessed Augustine testifies, who, as is found in [*Brev p.82] 11 q. 3 c. Imperatores, says: "Julian was an unbelieving emperor. Was he not an apostate, an unjust, an idolater? Christian soldiers served the unbelieving emperor. When it came to Christ's cause, they acknowledged only Him who was in heaven. When he [Julian] wanted them to worship idols, to burn incense, they preferred God to him. But when he said, Advance the battle line, go against that nation, they immediately obeyed, and they distinguished the eternal God from the temporal lord."
Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod infidelibus et hereticis in nova lege licebat fidelibus in temporalibus obedire, sed non in spiritualibus. Et ideo, quantum est ex iure divino, non sunt infideles et heretici regulariter devitandi. | From these words it is gathered that in the New Law it was permitted to believers to obey unbelievers and heretics in temporal matters, but not in spiritual matters. And therefore, as far as divine law goes, unbelievers and heretics are not to be (regularly) avoided.
Discipulus: Hoc videtur contradicere supradictis, et etiam beato Cypriano qui, ut allegasti in ratione tertiadecima, pro assertione ista ex iure divino accipit fundamentum quod infidelibus etiam in temporalibus non debent communicare fideles, cum probat quod cum infidelibus non terrestris cibus nec secularis potus debet esse communis, per hoc quod, ut legitur in libro Regum, propheta qui ivit ad exprobandum Ieroboam prohibitus fuit a Deo comedere panem et bibere vinum in loco illo. | Student: This seems to contradict the above, and also blessed Cyprian who, as you argued in the thirteenth argument, takes from divine law a basis for the assertion that believers should not communicate with unbelievers even in temporal matters, when he proves that neither earthly food nor secular drink should be shared with unbelievers, by the fact that, as we read in the Book of Kings, the prophet who went to reprove Jeroboam was forbidden by God to eat bread and drink wine in that place.
Magister: Respondetur ad hoc quod hoc fuit speciale in exprobationem et aggravationem ac detestationem peccati Ieroboam, qui apostatavit a fide et alios apostatare fecit. Ex hoc tamen exemplo accepit Cyprianus argumentum quod hereticis cupientibus alios ad suam trahere pravitatem, cum commode vitari possunt, eis nullatenus communicare debemus. Ita quod hoc regulare est quod infidelibus quibuscunque, absque causa rationabili et quasi urgente, ex precepto iuris divini communionem negare non debemus et tenemur. Hoc autem generale est, quod eis in spiritualibus et in hiis que religione christiane sunt propria, neque obedire neque subesse valemus, nisi preceptis legis divine contraire velimus. | Master: The answer made to this is that this was specifically to reprove and aggravate and detest the sin of Jeroboam, who apostatized from the faith and made others apostatize. However, from this example Cyprian received the argument that we should not communicate with heretics who desire to draw others to their depravity, since they can be conveniently avoided. So that this is regular, that we are not obliged and bound by divine precept to deny communion to every unbeliever, without reasonble and (so to speak *quasi) urgent cause. But this is general, that in spiritual matters and in those things that are proper to the Christian religion, we can neither obey nor submit to them, unless we wish to go against the precepts of divine law.
Discipulus: Explana quomodo ad alias rationes respondetur. | Student: Explain how the other arguments are answered.
Magister: Ad quartam rationem patet responsio per predicta, quia non est extra legem divinam hereticos et alios infideles fidelibus in temporalibus presidere, et ideo Joseph et Daniel et alii catholici et fideles, tam in novo testamento quam sub veteri constituti, absque transgressione legis divine infidelibus in temporalibus deservierunt. | Master: The answer made to the fourth argument is clear from the foregoing, because it is not outside the divine law for heretics and other unbelievers to rule the faithful in temporal matters, and therefore Joseph and Daniel and other Catholics and faithful, both under the New Testament and under the Old, served unbelievers in temporal matters without transgressing the divine law.
Ad quintam dicitur quod hac non est generaliter vera: ad quem spectat institutio alicuius ad eundem spectat destitutio eiusdem. Nam metropolitanus potest confirmare, consecrare, et constituere electum in episcopum, et tamen eundem destituere minime valet. Et esto quod hec esset vera generaliter, hec tamen est omnino falsa: ad illum solum pertinet destitutio alicuius ad quem institutio spectat eiusdem. Quia institutio sacerdotis spectat ad episcopum, et tamen superior episcopo potest destituere ipsum. Ita, esto quod eligentes papam possent destituere ipsum, ex hoc non sequitur quod non potest destitui a iure divino, quod est super omne ius humanun et omnium eligentium potestatem. | To the fifth, it is said that this is not generally true: If a person's appointment belongs to someone, so does their deposition. For a metropolitan can confirm, consecrate, and appoint an elect bishop, and yet he has no power to remove that bishop. And even if that were true generally, this nevertheless is completely false: only the person who made the appointment can remove the person appointed. Because the appointment of a priest pertains to a bishop, and yet a bishop's superior can remove the priest. Thus, supposing that those electing the pope could depose him, it does not follow from this that he cannot be deposed by divine law, which is above all human law and the power of all electors.
Ad sextam dicitur quod ecclesia universalis regitur a Spirito Sancto, et ideo ecclesia universalis nunquam deficiet in hiis que sunt necessaria ad salutem, licet in aliis deficere possit pariter et errare. Et ideo, si papa esset occultus hereticus, et per consequens papatu privatus (et ideo illa que iurisdictionis sunt exercere non posset, quamvis posset facere ea que ordinis sunt), Deus ecclesie provideret, vel revelando ecclesie perfidiam pape, et quod non valuerunt quantum ad ea que iurisdictionis sunt illa que fecit, vel preservando aliquos episcopos, vel per alium modum sibi possibilem, licet nobis ignotum. Et ideo nullus ordo ecclesiasticus necessarius ad salutem ecclesie universalis confunderetur, licet multa sine quibus potest esse salus possent esse confusa. Preservaret enim Deus ne confunderentur illa que universali ecclesie sunt necessaria ad salutem. | To the sixth, it is said that the universal Church is governed by the Holy Spirit, and therefore the universal Church will never fail in those things that are necessary for salvation, though in others it may fail and err. And therefore, if the pope were a hidden heretic and consequently deprived of the papacy (and therefore could not exercise those things that are of jurisdiction, although it could do those things that are of order), God would provide for the Church, either by revealing the pope's perfidy to the Church, and [revealing] that the things he did that are of jurisdiction were of no effect, or by preserving some bishops, or by some other method possible to God though unknown to us. And therefore no ecclesiastical order necessary for the salvation of the universal Church would be confounded, although many things could be confounded without which there can be salvation. For, lest it be confounded, God would preserve things necessary to the universal Church for salvation.
Unde ista ratio concludit equaliter quod mulier non potest putari papa et haberi pro papa et quod paganus et infidelis (reputatus tamen christianus fidelis) non potest haberi pro papa, sicut quod papa hereticus et iure divino papatu privatus non potest haberi pro papa. Quia, si mulier vel paganus infidelis haberetur pro papa, et de facto consecraret episcopos, et ordinaret, et christianos ad dignitates ecclesiasticas promoveret, non minus confunderetur ecclesiastica hierarchia quam si papa hereticus, iure divino papatu privatus, putaretur papa, et papale officium in omnibus exerceret. Imo magis confunderetur ecclesiastica hierarchia quam si hereticus, iure divino papatu privatus, putaretur a catholicis esse papa. Licet, ordinando de facto et consecrando nulli tribueret executionem officii, verumptamen ordinem conferret dummodo servaret formam ecclesie. Mulier autem, aut paganus vel iudeus qui nunquam fuit christianus, nec executionem nec aliquem ordinem verum conferret, licet servaret formam ecclesie. | Hence this argument equally concludes that a woman cannot be thought to be pope and be held for pope and that a pagan and unbeliever (though considered a faithful Christian) cannot be held for pope, just as a pope who is a heretic and deprived of the papacy by divine law cannot be held for pope. For if a woman or an unbelieving pagan were held to be pope, and de facto consecrated bishops, ordained, and promoted Christians to ecclesiastical dignities, the ecclesiastical hierarchy would be no less confounded than if a heretic pope, deprived of the papacy by divine law, were thought to be pope and exercised the papal office in all matters. Indeed, the ecclesiastical hierarchy would be more confounded [by a woman or unbelieving pope] than if a heretic, deprived of the papacy by divine law, were thought by Catholics to be pope: although, by ordaining and consecrating de facto, he would not confer the execution of an office on anyone, he would confer true order, provided he preserved the form of the Church; but a woman, or a pagan or a Jew who was never a Christian, would confer neither execution nor any true order, even if they preserved the form of the Church.
Cum ergo constet quod aliquando mulier a cunctis catholicis putabatur papa (et eadem ratione aliquis paganus vel iudeus retinens in corde infidelitatis perfidium posset putari christianus et in papam assumi), non est incredibile quod aliquando hereticus habeatur pro papa, licet verus papa non sit, eo quod iure divino est papatu privatus. Sic vero constat quod maior difficultas est si mulier habeatur pro papa quam si papa fiat hereticus, licet iure divino ipso facto sit papatu privatus. | Since, therefore, it is a fact that a woman [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan] was at one time considered pope by all Catholics (and likewise some pagan or Jew, retaining in his heart the perfidy of infidelity, could be thought to be a Christian and be made pope), it is not incredible that at one time a heretic would be held to be pope despite not being true pope because he is deprived of the papacy by divine law. Thus it is clear that there is a greater difficulty if a woman is held to be pope than if the pope becomes a heretic, even if by divine law he is ipso facto deprived of the papacy.
Ad ultimam rationem respondetur quod, licet in Sacra Scriptura de privatione officii et beneficii sub hiis verbis nullatenus mentio habeatur, sub aliis tamen verbis de hac pena mentio in Divinis Scripturis habetur. Quia ex hoc ipso quod papa hereticus non est sequendus, sed vitandus, et ex hoc quod non est ei in spiritualibus communicandum, habetur quod papa hereticus officio et beneficio est privatus, quia papa verus qui non est privatus officio et beneficio est sequendus, et est ei non solum in temporalibus sed etiam in spiritualibus communicandum, et est obediendum eidem. Constat autem per Scripturam Sacram quod papa hereticus, quam cito scitur esse hereticus, non est sequendus, nec est ei in spiritualibus communicandum. Ergo per Scripturam Sacram officio et beneficio est privatus. | To the last argument it is answered that, though in Holy Scripture deprivation of office and benefice are not mentioned under those words, yet this penalty is mentioned in the Divine Scriptures under other words. For from the very fact that a heretic pope must not be followed but avoided, and from the fact that he must not be communicated with in spiritual matters, it is established that a heretic pope is deprived of office and benefice, because a true pope who is not deprived of office and benefice must be followed and must be communicated with not only in temporal matters but also in spiritual matters, and must be obeyed. Now it is clear from Holy Scripture that a heretic pope, as soon as he is known to be a heretic, must not be followed and must not be communicated with in spiritual matters. Therefore according to Holy Scripture he is deprived of office and benefice.
Capitulum 71 | Chapter 71
Discipulus: Allegasti multa ad probandam et defendendam assercionem que dicit quod papa, hereticus factus, est iure divino papatu privatus. Nunc autem peto ut referas quam potestatem, secundum literatos, habet ecclesia super papam labem hereticam incurrentem. | Student: You have adduced many arguments to prove and defend the assertion that a pope who has become a heretic is deprived of the papacy by divine law. Now I ask you to state what power, according to scholars, the Church has over a pope who has incurred a heretical stain.
Magister: Circa interrogationem illam opiniones reperiuntur contrarie. Quarum una est dicentium papam hereticum esse iure divino papatu privatum, qui tenent quod papa hereticus non maiori privilegio gaudet quam alius episcopus, si pravitate heretica fuerit maculatus, et ideo ecclesia universalis (et concilium generale, et quelibet persona catholica) eandem habet potestatem super papam hereticum quam super alium episcopum hereticum habere dinoscitur, et pro ista assertione arguitur sic. | Master: There are contrary opinions about that question. One opinion is of those who say that a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy by Divine Law. They hold that a heretic pope enjoys no greater privilege than another bishop stained by heretical wickedness, and therefore the universal Church (and a general council, and any Catholic person) has the same power over a heretic pope as it has over another heretic bishop. For that assertion the following argument is made:
Si papa, effectus hereticus, haberet privilegium speciale quod alii episcopi heretici minime habent, aut habet illud privilegium a iure divino, aut a iure humano. Non a iure divino, quia in tota Scriptura Divina non poterit reperiri quod inter papam hereticum et alium episcopum hereticum fiat distinctio. Nec habet aliquod privilegium speciale a iure humano, quia etiam ius humanum inter papam hereticum et alium episcopum hereticum non distinguit. Nullo ergo privilegio gaudet papa hereticus speciali. | If a pope who has become a heretic had a special privilege that other heretical bishops do not have, he has it either by divine law or by human law. Not by divine law, because in all Divine Scripture it is not possible to find that a distinction is made between a heretic pope and another heretical bishop. Nor does he have any special privilege from human law, because human law also does not distinguish between a heretic pope and another heretical bishop. Therefore, a heretic pope enjoys no special privilege.
Discipulus: Dicetur forte quod ex recto dictamine rationis papa hereticus gaudet privilegio speciali, quia, sicut secundum rectam rationem nobiles minus puniuntur quam ignobiles (24 q. 1 c. Qui contra), ita videtur quod secundum rectam rationem minus sunt puniendi maiores in ecclesia quam minores. Cum ergo papa in ecclesia sit maximus, videtur quod secundum rectam rationem minus puniendus est, si efficiatur hereticus, quam alius episcopus hereticus inferior. Et ita gaudet aliquo privilegio speciali. | Student: Perhaps it will be said that from a right dictate of reason a heretic pope enjoys a special privilege, because, just as according to right reason nobles are punished less than ignobles (24 q. 1 c. Qui contra), so it seems that according to right reason greater persons in the Church should be punished less than lesser. Therefore, since a pope is the greatest in the Church, it seems that according to right reason he should be punished less, if he becomes a heretic, than another inferior heretical bishop. And thus he enjoys some special privilege.
Magister: Nonnullis apparet quod ratio tua non concludit propositum, sed magis oppositum. Nam crimini graviori maior debetur vindicta, Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus, ubi sic scribitur: "In quo maior est culpa, gravior exerceatur vindicta." Sed labes heretica gravior est in papa quam in alio inferiori episcopo. Ergo secundum rectam rationem gravius puniri debet. Quia, ut notat glossa 2 q. 5 c. Presul, "Papa, si peccat, quantum ad aliquid deterioris conditionis est, quia ipse sine comparatione aliorum creatus est maior et ideo sine spe venie condempnandus est, ut diabolus." | Master: It seems to some that your argument does not conclude the point you intend, but rather the opposite. For a graver crime deserves greater punishment, Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus, where it is written: "When someone is more seriously at fault, the graver is the punishment employed." But heretical blemish is graver in the pope than in another inferior bishop. Therefore, according to right reason, he should be punished more severely. Because, as the gloss notes on 2 q. 5 c. Presul, "If a pope sins, he is in some respect of a worse condition, because he was created incomparably greater than others and therefore must be condemned without hope of pardon, like the devil."*
Ad rationem ergo tuam respondetur quod quantum ad aliquid est simile de nobili et ignobili et de papa heretico et alio episcopo heretico, et quantum ad aliquid est dissimile. Est enim simile quantum ad hoc, quod, sicut nonnulla peccata graviora sunt in nobili quam in ignobili, ita perfidia heresis gravior est in illo qui fuit papa quam in alio episcopo, et ideo, sicut nobilis quantum ad aliquam penam gravius punitur quam ignobilis (ut notat glossa super preallegatum capitulum Qui contra pacem), sic papa hereticus gravius est puniendus quam alius episcopus hereticus. | The answer made to your argument is, therefore, that in some respects there is some similarity between noble and ignoble and heretic pope and another heretical bishop, and in some respects there is something dissimilar. For it is similar in this respect, that, just as some sins are more serious in a noble than in an ignoble person, so the perfidy of heresy is more serious in one who was pope than in another bishop, and therefore, just as a noble person is punished in respect of some penalty more severely than an ignoble person (as the gloss on the previously cited c. Qui contra pacem notes), so a heretic pope must be punished more severely than another heretical bishop.
Est autem ad hoc dissimile, quod nobilis per peccatum suum nobilitatem nequaquam amittit, sed retinet, et ideo aliqua pena minus punitur quam ignobilis. Nec mirum, quia, si pena aliqua speciali, puta verberibus vel consimili, puniretur sicut ignobilis, alii innocentes de genere suo vituperandi forent. Sed papa, si fiat hereticus, dignitatem papalem non retinet sed amittit, et ideo propter dignitatem quam non retinet non debet minui pena, et ideo similiter gravius puniendus est papa hereticus quam alius episcopus hereticus, nec aliquo gaudet privilegio speciali. | But there is a dissimilarity in this respect, that a noble person by no means loses his nobility through his sin, but retains it, and therefore he is punished in respect of some penalty less severely than an ignoble person. And it is not surprising, because if a noble were to be punished, like an ignoble person, by a special penalty, for example, whipping or the like, other innocent people of his status would be disparaged. But a pope, if he becomes a heretic, does not retain but loses his papal dignity, and therefore the penalty should not be diminished because of a dignity he does not retain, and therefore a heretic pope should be punished more severely than another heretical bishop, and he does not enjoy any special privilege.
Capitulum 72 | Chapter 72
Discipulus: Dixisti circa interrogacionem meam esse opiniones contrarias. Recitasti autem unam, dic ergo aliam. | Student: You said that there are contrary opinions concerning my question. You have recited one, so tell me another.
Magister: Alia est opinio dicentium quod papa hereticus non est iure divino papatu privatus, qui tenent quod nullus super papam optinet potestatem, nisi ecclesia universalis vel concilium generale. Ecclesia autem universalis, si conveniret in unum, et etiam concilium generale, habet potestatem deponendi papam et sibi penas alias infligendi. Alie autem congregationes et persone, antequam papa hereticus per universalem ecclesiam aut concilium generale fuerit papatu privatus, super papam hereticum nullam optinent potestatem. Sed postquam fuerit depositus, iurisdictioni inferioris summo pontifice, sicut ceteri heretici, est subiectus, nisi ecclesia universalis vel concilium generale post depositionem ulteriorem punitionem pape heretici sibi specialiter reservaret. | Master: Another opinion is of those who say that a heretic pope is not deprived of the papacy by divine law. They hold that no one has power over the pope except the universal Church or a general council. But the universal Church, if it were to meet as a whole, and also a general council, has power to depose the pope and to inflict other punishments on him. But other congregations and persons, before a heretic pope has been deprived of the papacy by the universal Church or a general council, have no power over him. But after he has been deposed, he is, like other heretics, subject to the jurisdiction of person inferior to a supreme pontiff, unless the universal Church or general council, after his deposition, specifically reserves further punishment of the heretic pope to itself.
Discipulus: Michi videtur quod tenentes istam opinionem tria probare deberent. Quorum primum est quod papa hereticus non est iure divino papatu privatus. Secundum est quod ecclesia universalis, et etiam concilium generale, habet potestatem papam hereticum deponendi. Tertium est quod nulla congregatio vel persona inferior ecclesia universali et concilio generali potestatem habet papam hereticum deponendi. Si enim ista essent vera, cetera essent plana. | Student: It seems to me that those who hold this opinion should prove three things. The first is that a heretic pope is not deprived of the papacy by divine law; second that the universal Church, and also the general council, has power to depose a heretic pope; third that no congregation or person inferior to the universal Church and the general council has power to depose a heretic pope. For if these were true, the rest would be plain.
De primo autem tractatum est supra, ubi adducte sunt rationes ad probandum quod papa hereticus non est iure divino papatu privatus. Ideo pro secundo, ad probandum scilicet quod ecclesia universalis, et etiam concilium generale, habet potestatem papam hereticum deponendi, aliquas rationes excogita. | But the first was treated of above, where arguments were adduced to prove that a heretic pope is not deprived of the papacy by divine law. So think up some arguments for the second, namely to prove that the universal Church, and also the general council, has the power to depose a heretic pope.
Magister: Ad satisfaciendum petitioni tue oportet dua probare, quorum primum est quod ecclesia universalis habet potestatem deponendi papam hereticum. Secundum est quod concilium generale talem optinet potestatem. Primum autem probatur primo sic. Illa congregatio que potestatem habet super papam de heresi mendaciter diffamatum, multo magis potestatem habet super papam de heresi irretitum. Sed ecclesia universalis habet potestatem, scilicet, inquirendi de papa super crimine heresis diffamato, licet mendaciter, ut probatum est supra in hoc sexto, capitulo undecimo. Ergo, multo magis, universalis ecclesia habet potestatem deponendi papam de heretica pravitate convictum. | Master: To satisfy your request, two things must be proved, first that the universal Church has power to depose a heretic pope, and second that a general council possesses such power. The first is first proved thus. The congregation that has power over a pope falsely defamed for heresy, much more has power over a pope [truly] ensnared in heresy. But the universal Church has the power to investigate a pope defamed, albeit falsely, for the crime of heresy, as was proved above in 1 Dialogus 6.11. Therefore, much more, the universal Church has the power to depose a pope convicted of heretical wickedness.
Discipulus: Cerno quod rationes ille c. undecimo huius sexti adducte magis concludunt de papa heretico quam papa super crimine heresis mendaciter diffamato. Ideo ad presens nolo pro hac assertione alias rationes audire. Quare transi ad secundum. | Student: I see that the arguments adduced in 1 Dialogus 6.11 conclude more about a pope who is a heretic than about a pope falsely defamed for the crime of heresy. Therefore, at present I do not wish to hear other arguments in favour of this assertion, so pass on to the second.
Magister: Secundum, scilicet quod concilium generale habet potestatem deponendi papam hereticum, sic probatur. Concilium generale est supra papam de heresi diffamatum, sicut ostensum est supra capitulo decimotertio. Ergo, multo fortius, habet potestatem papam vere hereticum deponendi. | Master: The second, namely, that a general council has the power to depose a heretic pope, is proved thus. The general council is superior to a pope defamed for heresy, as was shown above in the thirteenth chapter. Therefore, much more strongly, it has power to depose a truly heretic pope.
Discipulus: Iste etiam allegationes in illo capitulo adducte, sunt, ut arbitror, fortiores, que poterunt cogitari ad probandum quod concilium generale habet potestatem super papam hereticum, ideo accede ad tertium probandum, scilicet, quod nulla congregatio vel persona, ecclesia universali et concilio generali inferior, habet potestatem papam hereticum deponendi. | Student: The arguments adduced in that chapter are, I think, stronger than those that can be thought of to prove that a general council has power over a heretic pope, so let us proceed to the third point needing proof, namely, that no congregation or person inferior to the universal Church and the general council has the power to depose a heretic pope.
Magister: Hoc probatur primo sic. Inferior superiorem iudicare non potest (dist. 21 c. Inferior et c. Denique et c. Submittitur et c. In tantum). Sed papa, etiam hereticus, si non est iure divino papatu privatus, est superior omni congregatione inferiori, et universali ecclesia et concilio generali. Est etiam superior omni persona alia ecclesiastica. Ergo a nulla illarum poterit iudicari. | Master: This is proved first thus. An inferior cannot judge a superior (D. 21, c. Inferior, and c. Denique, and c. Submittitur, and c. In tantum). But the pope, even a heretic, if he is not deprived of the papacy by divine law, is superior to every inferior congregation and to the universal Church and the general council. He is also superior to every other ecclesiastical person. Therefore he cannot be judged by any of them.
Secundo sic. Non minor auctoritas requiritur in iudicante papam hereticum quam in iudicante alium episcopum hereticum. Sed episcopus hereticus iudicari non potest ab aliqua persona vel congregatione inferiori se si non esset hereticus, quia episcopus hereticus non potest deponi ab aliquo sacerdote vel congregatione sue diocesis. Ergo nec papa potest deponi ab aliqua persona vel congregatione inferiori concilio generali. | Second thus. No less authority is required in judging a heretic pope than in judging another heretical bishop. But a heretical bishop cannot be judged by any person or congregation inferior to him if he were not a heretic, because a heretical bishop cannot be deposed by any priest or congregation in his diocese. Therefore, neither can the pope be deposed by any person or congregation inferior to a general council.
Tertio sic. Sicut quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet, ita causa que omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet. Sed causa pape heretici omnes tangit christianos, ergo per omnes christianos vel per congregationem que gerit vicem omnium christianorum, cuiusmodi est concilium generale, tractari debet, et per consequens nulla persona vel congregatio inferior concilio generali potest deponere papam hereticum. | Thirdly, thus. Just as what affects all must be approved by all [Liber Sextus, V, 12, 5, reg. 29, col. 1122], so a cause [*i.e. issue] that affects all must be treated by all. But the cause of a heretic pope affects all Christians, therefore it must be treated by all Christians, or by a congregation that acts on behalf of all Christians, such as a general council, and consequently no person or congregation inferior to a general council can depose a heretic pope.
Capitulum 73 | Chapter 73
Discipulus: Suntne plures opiniones circa interrogationem meam quam tibi proposui. | Student: Are there more opinions about my question that I put to you?
Magister: Tertia est opinio quod non solum universalis ecclesia et concilium generale, sed diocesis Romana, et collegium cardinalium, et imperator, et etiam episcopus in cuius diocesi moraretur papa hereticus, posset eundem deponere. Hec opinio, quantum ad Romanos, probatur per exemplum de Iohanne decimo secundo, quem privaverunt Romani papatu et alium elegerunt. | Master: The third opinion is that not only the universal Church and the general council, but the Roman diocese, and the college of cardinals, and the emperor, and also a bishop in whose diocese a heretic pope is sojourning, could depose him. This opinion, as far as the Romans are concerned, is proved by the example of John XII, whom the Romans deprived of the papacy and elected another.
Quantum autem ad episcopum in cuius diocesi moraretur papa hereticus, probatur primo sic. Ex iure divino, ad quemlibet spectat episcopum suam diocesim de pravitate heretica expurgare. Ergo, quilibet hereticus trahens moram in episcopatu cuiuscunque episcopi iudicio illius episcopi est subiectus. Aliter enim non haberet episcopus potestatem suam diocesim de omni heretica pravitate purgandi. Ergo papa hereticus est subiectus iudicio episcopi in cuius diocesi commoratur. Ergo episcopus ille potest deponere papam hereticum. | As for the bishop in whose diocese a heretic pope is sojourning, it is proved first as follows. By divine law it pertains to any bishop to purge his diocese of heretical wickedness. Therefore, any heretic sojourning in the episcopate of any bishop is subject to the judgment of that bishop. Otherwise the bishop would not have the power to purge his diocese of all heretical wickedness. Therefore a heretic pope is subject to the judgment of the bishop in whose diocese he sojourns. Therefore that bishop can depose the heretic pope.
Secundo sic. Episcopi vicini diocesi in qua papa hereticus moraretur haberent potestatem papam hereticum deponendi. Ergo, multo magis, episcopus in cuius diocesi moraretur papa hereticus, saltem cum vicinorum episcoporum consilio, haberet potestatem deponendi papam hereticum. Antecedens probatur per exemplum de episcopis tempore beati Marcellini qui, ut legitur dist. 21 c. Nunc autem, et allegatum est supra, convenerunt ad inquirendum de beato Marcellino, qui idolatraverat, quem deposuissent si eum in perfidia heresis invenissent. | Secondly as follows. The bishops neighbouring the diocese in which the heretic pope sojourned would have the power to depose the heretic pope. Therefore, much more so, the bishop in whose diocese the heretic pope sojourned would have power to depose the heretic pope, at least with the advice of the neighboring bishops. The premise is proved by the example of the bishops in the time of blessed Marcellinus who, as we read in dist.21 c. Nunc autem (quoted *above) met to inquire about blessed Marcellinus, who had worshipped idolatrously, whom they would have deposed if they had found him in the perfidy of heresy.
Capitulum 74 | Chapter 74
Discipulus: Si sunt plures opiniones circa interrogationem meam propositam, enarra. | Student: If there are more opinions about the question I have proposed, please recount them.
Magister: Est una opinio quod papa hereticus, nisi sponte renunciare voluerit, a quacunque congregatione vel persona deponi non potest. Fundamentum autem istius opinionis est hoc, quod inferior superiorem suum deponere non potest. Papa autem hereticus, cum non sit iure divino papatu privatus (secundum istam opinionem), est superior omni congregatione et persona christiana. Tota enim ecclesia Dei distincta a papa est inferior papa. Ergo tota ecclesia distincta a papa non potest deponere papam qui non est iure divino depositus. | Master: There is an opinion that a heretic pope, unless he is willing to resign of his own accord, cannot be deposed by any congregation or person. The foundation of this opinion is this, that an inferior cannot depose his superior. But a heretic pope, since has not been deprived of the papacy by divine law (according to this opinion), is superior to every Christian congregation and person. For the whole Church of God as distinct from the pope is inferior to the pope. Therefore the whole Church as distinct from the pope cannot depose a pope who has not been deposed by divine law.
Secundum fundamentum dicte opinionis est tale. Omnes subditi simul alicuius patriarche vel metropolitani non possunt deponere talem patriarcham vel metropolitanum hereticum, si non est a iure divino depositus. Ergo omnes subditi pape non possunt papam deponere hereticum si non est de iure divino depositus. | A second foundation of this opinion is as follows. All the subjects at once of a patriarch or metropolitan cannot depose such a heretical patriarch or metropolitan, if he has not been deposed by divine law. Therefore all the subjects of the pope cannot depose a heretic pope if he has not been deposed by divine law.
Capitulum 75 | Chapter 75
Discipulus: Prima istarum opinionum, scilicet, quod papa hereticus est iure divino papatu et omni ecclesiastica dignitate privatus, ut videtur, fortiter est fundata. Secunda etiam opinio, et tertia, colorate videntur. Quarta autem in preiudicium fidei orthodoxe et favorem pape heretici videtur inducta, quia, si papa hereticus non esset iure divino papatu privatus, nec ab aliqua congregatione vel persona deponi valeret, posset papa hereticus libere, absque timore pene temporalis vel cohibitionis humane, fidem abnegare catholicam, et cogere christianos ad sectam sarracenorum, vel iudeorum, vel aliorum infidelium acceptandam, quod horrent audire catholici et fideles. Ideo, illa opinione quarta pro nunc dimissa, volo opiniones alias quantum ad aliquid pertractari. | Student: The first of these opinions, namely, that a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy and all ecclesiastical dignity by divine law, seems to be strongly founded. The second and third opinions also seem plausible. The fourth, however, seems to be introduced to the detriment of the orthodox faith and in favour of a heretic pope, because if a heretic pope were not deprived of the papacy by divine law, nor could he be deposed by any congregation or person, a heretic pope could freely, without fear of temporal punishment or human restraint, deny the Catholic faith and force Christians to accept the sect of Saracens, Jews, or other unbelievers, which Catholics and the faithful shudder to hear. Therefore, having dismissed that fourth opinion for now, I wish to discuss the other opinions in some detail.
Videtur enim quod omnes ille in hoc conveniunt, quod, si hiis diebus aliquis papa efficeretur hereticus, ipso facto esset de iure papatu privatus. Unde et de hoc quid sentiant literati non differas indicare. | It seems they all agree in this, that if in these days any pope were to become a heretic, he would be ipso facto deprived of the papacy by law. Wherefore do not delay to indicate what the learned think about this.
Magister: Verum dicis quod tres opiniones predicte tenent pro firmo quod, si papa nunc hereticam incurreret pravitatem, esset de iure papatu et omni ecclesiastica dignitate privatus. Prima enim tenet quod esset iure divino papatu privatus. Secunda et tertia tenent quod esset iure humano privatus. Pro primo istorum argutum est multipliciter supra c. 68. Secundum probatur sic. | Master: You say correctly that the three opinions aforesaid hold as certain that, if the pope were now to incur heretical depravity, he would be de iure deprived of the papacy and of all ecclesiastical dignity. For the first holds that he would be deprived of the papacy by divine law. The second and third hold that he would be deprived by human law. The first of these has been argued in many ways above in chapter 68. The second is proved as follows.
Concilium generale habet potestatem deponendi et dampnandi papam hereticum, sicut probatum est supra. Ergo, si sententia vel dampnatio concilii generalis indistincte lata fuerit contra hereticos, est ad papam hereticum extendenda, quia ubi canon generalis concilii non distinguit, nec nos debemus distinguere. Sed omnes heretici, nullo excepto, sunt per generale concilium condempnati, teste generali concilio sub Innocentio Tertio celebrato, quod, ut habetur Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus, ait: "Excommunicamus itaque et anathematizamus omnem heresim, extollentem se adversus hanc sanctam, orthodoxam et catholicam fidem condempnantes hereticos universos, quibuscunque nominibus censeantur." | A general council has power to depose and condemn a heretic pope, as has been proved above. Therefore, if a sentence or condemnation of a general council has been passed unspecifically against heretics, it must be applied to a heretic pope, because [*Brev p.20 ] where a general canon of the council does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish. But all heretics, without exception, are condemned by a general council, as witnessed by the general council held under Innocent III, which, as is stated in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus, says: "We therefore excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises itself against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith condemning all heretics, by whatever names they may be called."
Sententiam etiam huiusmodi condempnationis contra omnes hereticos indistincte tulit concilium Carthaginense quartum, quod, ut legitur 24 q. 3 c. Clericus, ait: "Clericus hereticorum aut schismaticorum tam convivia quam sodalitates evitet, equaliter. Eorum conventicula non ecclesia, sed conciliabulia sunt appellanda. Cum eis neque orandum est, neque psallendum." | The fourth council of Carthage also passed a sentence of condemnation of this kind against all heretics unspecifically, which, as is read in 24 q. 3 c. Clericus, says: "A cleric should avoid both the banquets and the fraternities of heretics or schismatics, equally. Their conventicles are not to be called Churches but conciliabulia. With them one must neither pray nor sing psalms."
Hiis etiam concordat concilium Martini pape, quod, ut habetur 1 q. 1 c. Non liceat, ait: "Non liceat clericis vel laicis ab hereticis eulogias accipere, quia maledictiones sunt magis quam benedictiones, neque liceat aut cum hereticis, aut schismaticis orare." | Pope Martin's council also agrees with these, which, as stated 1 q. 1 c. Non liceat, says: "It is not permissible for clerics or laymen to receive blessings from heretics, because they are maledictions rather than benedictions, nor is it permissible to pray with heretics or schismatics."
Item, concilium Africanum, ut habetur Extra, De hereticis, c. Si quis, ait: "Si quis episcopus heredes instituerit extraneos a consanguinitate sua, vel hereticos, eciam consanguineos, aut paganos pertulerit, saltem post mortem ei anathema dicatur." | Likewise, the African Council, as found in Extra, De hereticis, c. Si quis, says: "If any bishop appoints heirs who are strangers to his blood, or who are heretics (even blood relatives), or who have tolerated pagans, let him be anathema at least after death."
Item, in eodem concilio, ut habetur eodem titulo c. In eos, sic legitur: "In eos, qui catholici non sunt, etiam si consanguinei fuerint episcopi vel presbyteri nichil conferant." | Likewise, in the same council, as found in the same title c. In eos, it reads thus: "On those who are not Catholics, even if they are blood relatives, let bishops or priests confer nothing."
Item, in concilio Laudicensi, ut habetur 1 q. 1 c. Non oportet, sic scribitur: "Non oportet hereticorum benedictiones accipere, quoniam maledictiones magis sunt quam benedictiones." | Likewise, in the Council of Laodicea, as found in 1 q. 1 c. Non oporteat, it is written thus: "It is not right to receive the blessings of heretics, because they are maledictions rather than benedictions."
Ex quibus, aliisque quampluribus, colligitur quod in omnes hereticos indistincte per generalia concilia sententie plures sunt prolate. Ergo omnia illa concilia generalia et alia sunt ad papam hereticum extendenda. Quod glossa super preallegatum capitulum Si quis episcopus videtur asserere manifeste, dicens: "Idem iuris est in paganis quod de hereticis, et idem est de omnibus qui catholici non sunt." Cum ergo paganus non sit verus papa, nec hereticus est verus papa, et ita papa hereticus est papatu privatus, et per consequens sententia divina vel humana lata est contra ipsum. | From these [texts], and many others, it is gathered that general councils have issued many sentences against all heretics without distinctions. Therefore all those general councils and others must be applied to the heretic pope. The gloss on the previously cited chapter Si quis episcopus seems to assert this clearly, *[Letter p.240] saying: "The same right exists in pagans as in heretics, and the same is in all who are not Catholics." Since therefore a pagan is not a true pope, neither is a heretic a true pope, and so a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy, and consequently a divine or human sentence is passed against him.
Secundo probatur eadem conclusio sic. Quicunque in heresim dampnatam labitur, eius dampnatione seipsum involvit (24 q. 1 c. Achatius). Sed papa hereticus incidit in aliquam heresim per generale concilium condempnatam explicite vel implicite, quia omnis heresis est implicite vel explicite per generalia concilia condempnata. Ergo papa hereticus incidit in heresim iam dampnatam, ergo eius dampnatione involvitur, ergo per generalia concilia papa hereticus est dampnatus. | Secondly, the same conclusion is proved thus. Whoever falls into a condemned heresy involves himself in its condemnation (24 q. 1 c. Achatius). *ii? But a heretic pope falls into some heresy condemned explicitly or implicitly by a general council, because all heresy is implicitly or explicitly condemned by general councils. Therefore a heretic pope falls into a heresy already condemned, therefore he is involved in its condemnation, therefore a heretic pope is condemned by general councils.
Discipulus: Secundum ista ad dampnandum papam hereticum non oporteret generale concilium convocari, quia ad dampnandum iam dampnatum non est necesse generale concilium convocari, ymmo nulla est congregatio convocanda, ex quo iam dampnatus est papa hereticus, cuius tamen oppositum videtur veritatem habere. Nam ad inquirendum de papa super crimine heresis diffamato, oportet aliquid concilium generale vel aliud convocari, exemplo illorum episcoporum qui ad inquirendum de beato Marcellino quondam idolatra convenerunt. Ergo etiam ad deponendum papam hereticum oportet concilium convocari. | Student: According to this [argument], a general council would not need to be convened to condemn a heretic pope, because to condemn one who has already been condemned it is not necessary to convene a general council, indeed no congregation should be convened, since a heretic pope has already been condemned. But the opposite of this seems to be true. For to investigate a pope defamed on a charge of heresy, some general council or other must be convened, following the example of those bishops who met to investigate blessed Marcellinus, who was once an idolater. Therefore, a council must also be convened to depose a heretic pope.
Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod papa hereticus, vel iure divino secundum primam opinionem, vel iure humano (concilii videlicet generalis) secundum alias opiniones, est dampnatus et papatu privatus, quia omni ecclesiastica dignitate est nudatus. Et ideo ad deponendum papam hereticum de iure non est necesse generale concilium vel aliud congregari. | Master: The answer made to this is that a heretic pope is condemned and deprived of the papacy, because he is stripped of all ecclesiastical dignity either by divine law (according to the first opinion) or by human law, namely, by a general council (according to the other opinions). And therefore, to depose a heretic pope by law there is no need to convene a general council or anything else.
Oportet tamen in casu concilium convocari ad potenter pellendum papam hereticum de apostolica sede, et ad ecclesiam Dei salubriter disponandam, vel ad audiendam causam et accusationem pape heretici, et ad pronuntiandum ipsum esse hereticum. Sicut eciam episcopi convenerunt ad inquirendum de beato Marcellino, non quia fuisset dampnatus si fuisset hereticus, sed quia volebant inquirere veritatem, quem, si invenissent esse hereticum, pronuntiassent eum fuisse dampnatum. | However, on occasion, a council must be convened to forcefully expel the heretic pope from the Apostolic See and order the Church of God in a healthy manner, or to hear the case and accusation of the heretic pope and to pronounce him a heretic. Just as also the bishops met to inquire into blessed Marcellinus, not because he would have been condemned if he had been a heretic, but because they wished to inquire into the truth -- if they had found him to be a heretic, they would have pronounced him to have been condemned [by the law already].
Discipulus: Est aliquod exemplum de aliquo papa heretico qui, absque convocatione novi concilii generalis pro condempnatione eius, fuit ab ecclesia habitus pro dampnato. | Student: Is there any example of a heretic pope who, without the convocation of a new general council for his condemnation, was held by the Church to be condemned?
Magister: Exemplum ponitur de Anastasio Secundo, quem quidam clerici Romani, absque congregatione novi concilii generalis, reputavere dampnatum, et se ab eius communione laudabiliter abegerunt, ut habetur dist. 19 c. Anastasius, ubi notat glossa quod "clerici illi non recesserunt ante sententiam quia inciderat", scilicet Anastasius, "in heresim iam dampnatam." Ex quibus verbis patenter habetur quod ad dampnandum papam hereticum non est necesse concilium generale noviter congregari. Quia, quemadmodum verberans clericum, ipso facto, nulla denuntiatione nova vel sententia expectata, ymmo licet ipse solus esset conscius facti sui, excommunicationis sentencia est ligatus, quia incidit in canonem late sententie, ita papa hereticus, ipso facto, nulla alia expectata sententia vel convocatione, est iure divino vel humano dampnatus. | Master: An example is given of Anastasius the Second, whom certain Roman clerics, without the convocation of a new general council, considered to be condemned, and commendably withdrew themselves from his communion, as is stated in D. 19 c. Anastasius, where the gloss notes that "those clerics did not retreat before a sentence [was passed], because he", namely Anastasius, "had fallen into a heresy already condemned." From these words it is clearly seen that in order to condemn a heretic pope it is not necessary for a general council to be convened anew. For, just anyone who beats a cleric, without any new denunciation or waited-for sentence, indeed even though he alone is aware of his deed, is bound by the sentence of excommunication ipso facto because he fell within the canon of sentence passed, so a heretic pope is condemned ipso facto by divine or human law, without any other waited-for sentence or convocation.
Discipulus: Exemplum istud non videtur esse ad propositum, quia Anastasius inciderat in heresim iam dampnatam. Posset autem papa effici hereticus licet non incideret in heresim iam dampnatam. | Student: That example does not seem to be to the point, because Anastasius had fallen into a heresy that had already been condemned. Could a pope have become a heretic even if he had not fallen into a heresy already condemned?
Magister: Respondetur quod instantia ista dictum exemplum non impedit, quia omnis heresis est dampnata, ut supra secundo huius est ostensum. Et ideo, quicunque papa efficeretur hereticus, incideret in heresim iam dampnatam, licet possit incidere in heresim dampnatam implicite. Inter heresim autem dampnatam explicite et dampnatam implicite non est differentia ad hoc quod incidens in heresim dampnatam explicite sit dampnatus, et incidens in heresim solummodo dampnatam implicite non sit dampnatus. Sed quantum ad hoc potest esse differentia, quod incidens in heresim dampnatam explicite non solum est dampnatus, sed etiam pro dampnato est habendus. Incidens autem pertinaciter in heresim dampnatam solummodo implicite, quamvis esset dampnatus, non tamen esset pro dampnato habendus, sed ad habendum ipsum pro dampnato oporteret generale concilium congregari. | Master: The answer made is that this objection does not invalidate the example, because all heresy has been condemned, as was shown above in 1 Dialogus 2. And therefore, any pope who became a heretic would fall into a heresy condemned already, though he could fall into a heresy that was condemned [only] implicitly. But between a heresy condemned explicitly and one condemned implicitly there is not the difference that someone who falls into a heresy condemned explicitly is condemned, and someone who falls into a heresy condemned only implicitly is not condemned. But there may be this difference, that someone who falls into a heresy condemned explicitly is not only condemned but is also to be held as condemned, whereas someone. who pertinaciously falls into a heresy condemned only implicitly, though he would be condemned, should nevertheless not be held as condemned, but to hold him as condemned a general council would have to be convened.
Anastasius autem Secundus incidit in heresim iam dampnatam explicite, et ideo non solum fuit dampnatus, sed etiam fuit pro dampnato habendus. Est ergo exemplum ad propositum quantum ad hoc quod papa, quandocunque efficeretur hereticus, esset dampnatus. Non est tamen ad propositum quantum ad hoc quod sit pro dampnato habendus, nisi incidat in heresim dampnatam explicite (cuiusmodi est omnis heresis que in eisdem terminis alicui veritati Scripture Divine contradicit), vel etiam contradicit cuicunque veritati que patenter omnibus iudicio rationis utentibus sequitur ex contento vel contentis in Scriptura Divina, vel contradicit veritati que est apud omnes catholicos tanquam catholica divulgata. | But Anastasius the Second fell into a heresy that was already condemned explicitly, and therefore he was not only condemned but also was to be held to have been condemned. The example is therefore to the point in this respect, that a pope, whenever he becomes a heretic, would be condemned. However, it is not to the point in that he should be held as condemned, unless he falls into an explicitly condemned heresy (of which kind is every heresy that contradicts in the same terms any truth of Divine Scripture), or also contradicts any truth that follows clearly to all who use the judgment of reason from the content or contents of Divine Scripture, or contradicts a truth disseminated among all Catholics as Catholic.
Capitulum 76 | Chapter 76
Discipulus: Postquam disseruimus de papa heretico, an sit papatu privatus, peto ut secundum predictas opiniones exponas qua pena papa hereticus est plectendus. | Student: After we have discussed the heretic pope, whether he is deprived of the papacy, I ask you to explain according to the aforementioned opinions with what penalty a heretic pope should be punished.
Magister: Respondetur quod papa hereticus omnibus penis est subditus et subdendus quibus alii heretici, saltem episcopi, involvuntur vel sunt etiam involvendi, quia, sicut dictum est, papa hereticus non gaudet privilegio speciali, nec in taxatione penarum hereticorum papa pravitate heretica irretitus excipitur. Quare, cum sit dampnatus sive iure divino sive iure humano, omnibus penis hereticis, indistincte per ius divinum, ius naturale, per generalia concilia et canones summorum pontificum inflictis, noscitur subiacere. | Master: The answer made is that a heretic pope is subject and must be subjected to all the penalties in which other heretics, at least bishops, are involved or (also) should be involved, because, as has been said, a heretic pope does not enjoy a special privilege, nor is the pope caught up in heretical depravity excluded in the assessment of the penalties of heretics. Therefore, since he is condemned either by divine law or by human law, it is known that he is subject to all penalties inflicted in general on heretics by divine law, natural law, general councils and canons of the supreme pontiffs.
Discipulus: Aperte video, si papa hereticus est dampnatus sive a iure divino sive a statutis generalium conciliorum, quod penis inflictis hereticis a iure divino et a statutis generalium conciliorum involvitur. Sed dic quomodo ostenditur quod subiacet penis illatis hereticis per summos pontifices. | Student: I clearly see that if a heretic pope is punished either by divine law or by the statutes of general councils, that the penalties inflicted on heretics by divine law and by the statutes of general councils are involved. But tell me how it is shown that he is subject to the penalties imposed on heretics by the supreme pontiffs.
Magister: Hoc sic probatur. Si papa hereticus est dampnatus sive per ius divinum sive per canones generalium conciliorum, factus est inferior summo pontifice si alius papa catholicus eligatur. Ex quo sequitur quod omnibus penis quas idem summus pontifex de novo electus duceret indistincte hereticis imponendas, papa hereticus est plectendus. Sed predecessores novi summi pontificis fuerunt eiusdem auctoritatis cuius est iste. Ergo, sicut papa hereticus subiaceret penis per suum successorem impositis, ita subiacet omnibus penis predecessorum suorum hereticis indistincte inflictis. | Master: This is proved thus. If a heretic pope is condemned either by divine law or by the canons of general councils, he is made inferior to a supreme pontiff, if another (Catholic) pope is elected. It follows from this that the heretic pope is subject to all the penalties that the same supreme pontiff, newly elected, would consider should be imposed on heretics generally. But the predecessors of the new supreme pontiff were of the same authority as he is. Therefore, just as a heretic pope would be subject to the penalty imposed by his successor, so he is subject to all the penalties inflicted generally on heretics by his predecessors.
Capitulum 77 | Chapter 77
Discipulus: Ex quo modum ponendi predictum intelligo, discurramus per penas quibus papa hereticus est plectendus. | Student: Since I understand the above way of putting it, let us run through the penalties with which a heretic pope should be punished.
Magister: Ut ordinatius procedatur, due distinctiones secundum primam opinionem dicuntur esse notande. Quarum prima est quod penarum hereticis debitarum quedam taxantur in iure divino vel iure naturali, quedam taxantur et determinantur in iure humano. Secunda distinctio est quod heretici aliquas penas incurrunt ipso facto, aliquas non incurrunt ipso facto, sed sunt eis per catholicos vel catholicum infligende. | Master: To proceed in a more orderly way, it is said that two distinctions must be noted according to the first opinion. The first is that some penalties due to heretics are assessed in divine law or natural law, some are assessed and determined in human law. The second distinction is that heretics incur some penalties ipso facto, some they do not incur ipso facto, but they should be inflicted on them by Catholics or a Catholic.
Discipulus: Incipias ergo a penis hereticorum que taxantur in iure divino vel in iure naturali, secundum primam opinionem. | Student: Begin, then, with the penalties of heretics that are assessed in divine law or in natural law, according to the first opinion.
Magister: Prima pena quam incurrit omnis hereticus, sive papa sive alius, est privatio omnis ecclesiastice prelationis, quia omnis hereticus, licet non sit privatus caractere qui confertur in ordinibus, est tamen omni ecclesiastica prelatione privatus. | Master: The first penalty that every heretic incurs, whether pope or another, is the deprivation of all ecclesiastical prelature, because every heretic, although not deprived of the character conferred in orders, is nevertheless deprived of all ecclesiastical prelature.
Si enim secundum iura humana, in iure divino et naturali fundata, qui preest et illi quibus preest debent esse eiusdem professionis specialis, propter quod abbas monachorum debet esse monachus et canonicorum canonicus, ut ex sacris canonibus colligitur (Extra, De electione et electi potestate, c. Cum causam, et c. Officii tui, et c. Cum in magistrum, et 16 q. 7 c. Nona actione, et Extra, De institutionibus, c. In ecclesia), multo magis, secundum ius divinum, qui preest in spiritualibus et illi quibus preest debent esse eiusdem professionis, saltem generalis. Hereticus autem et catholicus non sunt eiusdem professionis, etiam generalis. Heretici enim et catholici in nulla una professione conveniunt, sed discrepant et discordant. Ergo hereticus catholicis preesse non potest. Quod est aperte in lege veteri figuratum, cum Deuteronomio 22 dicitur: Non arabis in bove simul et asino. Non indueris vestimento, quod ex lana linoque contextum est. In quibus verbis innuitur quod in una eademque congregatione non debet esse dispar professio. Quare hereticus catholicis preesse non potest. | For if according to human laws, founded on divine and natural law, a ruler and those he rules must be of the same special profession, -- for this reason the abbot of monks must be a monk and a canon of canons, as is gathered from the sacred canons (Extra, De electione et electi potestate, c. Cum causam, and c. Officii tui, et c. Cum in magistrum, and 16 q. 7 c. Nona actione, and Extra, De institutionibus, c. In ecclesia) -- much more so, according to divine law, a ruler in spiritual matters and those he rules must be of the same profession, at least a general one. But a heretic and a Catholic are not of the same profession, even a general one. For heretics and Catholics agree in no one profession, but differ and disagree. Therefore a heretic cannot rule Catholics. This is clearly foretold in the Old Law, when it is said in Deuteronomy 22: Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thous shalt not wear a garment that is woven of woolen and linen together. These words imply that in one and the same congregation there should not be a dissimilar profession. Therefore a heretic cannot rule Catholics.
Discipulus: Per istam rationem probaretur quod catholicus hereticis preesse non posset, cuius tamen videtur oppositum, cum iudei sint servi christianorum (Extra, De Iudeis et Sarracenis et eorum servis). Et similiter, per eandem rationem, infideles fidelibus in temporalibus preesse non possent, nec unquam potuerunt, cum fideles et infideles diverse professionis existant. | Student: This argument would prove that a Catholic could not rule over heretics, the opposite of which seems to be true, since Jews are servants of Christians (Extra, De Iudeis et Sarracenis et eorum servis). And similarly, by the same argument, unbelievers could not rule the faithful in temporal matters, nor could ever have done, since believers and unbelievers are of different professions.
Magister: Ad primam instantiam respondetur quod catholicus preesse non debet hereticis ad informandum et regendum in sua superstitione eosdem, licet possit eisdem preesse ad puniendum eosdem si contra Deum vel bonos mores deliquerint. Ergo, consimiliter, hereticus preesse non debet catholicis ipsos instruendo et regendo in religionis observantia christiane. Cum ergo prelatus fidelium in religionis observantia christiane et fide catholica docere et regere debeat christianos, nullo modo, secundum legem divinam et rationem in divina lege et propositionibus naturaliter notis simul fundatam, hereticus preesse poterit catholicis orthodoxis. Quare omnis hereticus etiam secundum legem divinam omni prelatione est privatus. | Master: To the first objection it is answered that a Catholic should not rule heretics to inform and govern them in their superstition, although he can rule them to punish them if they have transgressed against God or good morals. Therefore, similarly, a heretic should not rule Catholics by instructing and governing them in the observance of Christian religion. Since, therefore, the prelate of the faithful should teach and govern Christians in the observance of Christian religion and the Catholic faith, in no way, according to divine law and reason founded on both divine law and naturally known propositions, can a heretic rule orthodox Catholics. Therefore every heretic is deprived of all precedence also according to divine law.
Ad secundam instantiam respondetur quod, licet fideles et infideles diverse professionis existerent, et ideo nec fidelis infidelium nec infidelis fidelium debet esse doctor et rector quoad illa que ad suam professionem spectare noscuntur, tamen in temporalibus, que communia sunt christianis fidelibus et infidelibus et que nullam sibi professionem certam determinant, et infidelis fidelibus et fidelis infidelibus, quantum est ex lege divina, preesse valebit. | To the second objection it is answered that, although the faithful and the unbelievers are of different professions, and therefore neither should the faithful be teacher and ruler of the unbelievers in respect of those things that are known to pertain to their profession nor the unbeliver of the faithful, nevertheless in temporal matters, which are common to faithful and unbelievers and which determine no definite profession for them, both the unbeliever and the faithful will, as far as divine law is concerned, be able to rule.
Et ita per utramque instantiam tuam, ut videtur, potest patenter inferri quod, quemadmodum legi divine repugnat quod fidelis sit doctor et rector infidelium quantum ad illa que ad professionem infidelium spectant (tunc enim in talibus communicaret eisdem), ita legi divine repugnat quod infidelis sit doctor et rector fidelium quantum ad illa que ad religionem pertinent christianam. Quare per legem divinam omnis hereticus omni prelatione ecclesiastica est privatus. Et est hec pena ad papam hereticum extendenda, tum quia maius periculum immineret fidei orthodoxe si hereticus esset verus papa quam si esset verus episcopus, tum quia si hereticus non potest esse in minori officio propter repugnantiam quam habet ad religionem christianam, multo magis non poterit fungi maiori officio, et ita non poterit esse verus papa. | And so from both of your objections, as it seems, it can be clearly inferred that, just as it is repugnant to divine law for a faithful person to be the teacher and ruler of unbelievers in respect of things that pertain to the profession of the unbelievers (for then he would communicate with them in such matters), so it is repugnant to divine law for an unbeliever to be teacher and ruler of the faithful in respect of things that pertain to the Christian religion. Therefore by divine law every heretic is deprived of all ecclesiastical prelature. And this penalty should be extended to a heretic pope, both because a greater danger would threaten the orthodox faith if a heretic were a true pope than if he were a true bishop, and also because if a heretic cannot hold a lesser office because of the repugnance he has to the Christian religion, much more so will he not be able to exercise a greater office, and thus he cannot be the true pope.
Capitulum 78 | Chapter 78
Discipulus: De ista pena satis dixisti. Ideo dic aliam penam quam ex iure divino vel iure naturali papa hereticus et generaliter omnes heretici incurrunt. | Student: You have said enough about that penalty. Therefore, tell me another penalty that the heretic pope and all heretics in general incur by divine law or natural law.
Magister: Una assertio est quod omnes incurrunt penam infamie. Dicitur enim esse sciendum quod, sicut notat glossa 3 q. 7 Porro: "Infamia alia iuris, alia facti. Infamia facti est quando quis aggravatur vel infametur apud bonos et graves... Infamia iuris est diminutio status alicuius." Primam infamiam heretici, presertim occulti, non semper incurrunt, quia nonnulli heretici sepe apud bonos et graves minime diffamantur, apud quos tamen interdum catholici gravissime infamantur. Secundam autem infamiam papa hereticus et universaliter omnes heretici incurrunt. Ad cuius evidentiam dicitur esse sciendum quod infamia iuris quandoque irrogatur ipso facto, quandoque per sententiam, et utroque modo incurrunt infamiam heretici universi, quia ex hoc ipso quod efficiuntur heretici committunt peccatum dignum infamia. Per sententiam etiam eis infamia irrogatur, dum per legem divinam de crimine maximo condempnantur, et illese dignitatis statu privantur. | Master: One assertion is that all incur the penalty of infamy. For it is said to be known that, as the gloss notes on 3 q. 7 Porro: "There is an infamy of law, another of deed. Infamy of deed is when someone is burdened or infamous among good and serious people... Infamy of law is the diminution of someone's status." Heretics, especially hidden ones, do not always incur the first infamy, because some heretics are often not defamed at all among good and serious people, among whom, however, Catholics [i.e. falsely defamed] sometimes very seriously suffer infamy. But the second infamy is incurred by a heretic pope and by all heretics universally. It is said that to make this clear, it must be known that the infamy of law is sometimes imposed ipso facto [by the act itself], sometimes by sentence, and in both ways heretics universally incur infamy, because by the very fact that they become heretics they commit a sin worthy of infamy. Infamy is also imposed on them by sentence, while they are condemned by divine law for the greatest crime, and are deprived of the state of *unblemished honour.
Discipulus: Videtur secundum istos quod infamia iuris est duplex. Igitur ut intentionem eorum melius advertam, expone istos duos modos infamie iuris. | Student: It seems that according to these people infamy of law is twofold. Therefore, so that I may better understand their meaning, explain these two modes of infamy of law.
Magister: Ut clarius eorum habeas intellectum, scire debes quod de infamia per sententiam irrogata distinguunt, quia quedam est irrogata per sententiam latam a iure, quedam per sententiam latam ab homine. Primam infamiam incurrunt semper heretici. Secundam non incurrunt semper. Quam tamen nonnunquam veri catholici et ab omni crimine innocentes incurrunt, quia sepe catholici condempnantur ab homine, et heretici exaltantur et honorantur. Ex hiis dicunt quod cum fama sit illese dignitatis status moribus ac legibus comprobatus, infamia iuris est duplex, secundum quod status hominis dupliciter ledi potest. | Master: That you may have a clearer understanding of them, you should know that they make a distinction about between infamy imposed by sentence: for some is imposed by a sentence passed by the law, and some by a sentence passed by man. Heretics always incur the first infamy. They do not always incur the second. But true Catholics and those innocent of all crime sometimes incur the second, because Catholics are often condemned by man and heretics exalted and honored. From these [considerations] they say that since fame is an unblemished state of honour confirmed by morals and laws, infamy of law is twofold, according to which a person's status can be harmed in two ways.
Quia aut leditur per actum ipsius infamis, committendo videlicet actum infamie, quemadmodum de iniquis dicit Salomon Prov. 2o: quorum vie perverse sunt et infames gressus eorum , et 14o c. dicit: Ambulans recto itinere, et timens Deum, despicitur ab eo qui infami graditur via , patenter insinuans quod omnes gressus et vie pravorum sunt infames, quare omnes pravi et iniqui sunt infames. Et hec est infamia iuris, quamvis non semper habeat annexam infamiam facti, quia omnes actus malorum in quantum mali sunt iure divino aut naturali vel humano dampnantur. Et hec infamia iuris potest vocari infamia irrogata per sententiam latam a iure. | Because either it is harmed by the act of the infamous person himself, namely by committing an act of infamy, as Solomon says of the wicked in Proverbs 2:15: Whose ways are perverse and their steps infamous, and in 14.2: He who walketh in the right way, and feareth God, is despised by him that goeth by an infamous way, clearly suggesting that all the steps and ways of the wicked are infamous, and therefore all the depraved and wicked are infamous. And this is infamy of law (though it does not always have factual infamy attached to it), because all evil acts are condemned by divine, natural, or human law insofar as they are evil. And this infamy of law can be called infamy imposed by a sentence passed by the law.
Aliter leditur status hominis per superiorem suum ipsum de crimine condempnantem et de dignitate fame illese privantem, licet interdum nichil commiserit propter quod infamia ledi deberet. Et hec infamia potest vocari infamia iuris irrogata per sententiam latam ab homine. | In another way, a man's status is harmed by his superior condemning him for a crime and depriving him of his unblemished honour, although sometimes he has committed nothing for which infamy should be inflicted. And this infamy can be called infamy of law imposed by a sentence passed by man.
Discipulus: Intelligo distinctionem eorum de duplici infamia iuris, per quam patenter adverto quod papa hereticus et omnes heretici infamia iuris primo modo dicta sunt infames, quia eorum pertinacie et protervie sunt infames, sicut et alii actus pravi malorum sunt infames secundum sententiam Salomoni. Sed ex hoc non sequitur quod sint infames infamia iuris secundo modo dicta. Et ideo, quomodo hoc probare nituntur, ostende. | Student: I understand their distinction about the double infamy of the law, by which I clearly notice that a heretic pope and all heretics are infamous in the first sense of the infamy of law, because their pertinacity and stubbornness imply infamy, just as other wicked acts of evil are infamous according to the opinion of Solomon *[i.e. Proverbs]. But from this it does not follow that they are infamous in the second sense of the infamy of law. And therefore, show how they try to prove this.
Magister: Videris velle transire ad penas que irrogantur iure humano. | Master: You seem to want to pass on to penalties imposed by human law.
Discipulus: Quia aliquotiens eadem pena iure divino et naturali et humano infertur, ideo, undecunque infamia hereticis irrogetur, dic qualiter probatur quod omnes heretici sunt infames. | Student: Since the same penalty is sometimes imposed by divine, natural and human law, therefore, from whichever of these infamy is imposed on heretics, tell me how it is proved that all heretics are infamous.
Magister: Hoc multis auctoritatibus et rationibus videtur posse probari. Dionysius enim papa, ut legitur 2 q. 7 c. Alieni, hoc videtur asserere manifeste. Ait enim: "Infames omnes esse censemus, qui suam fidem aut christianam legem prevaricantur." Omnes autem heretici legem christianam prevaricantur, ergo omnes sunt infames. | Master: This seems to be proved by many authorities and arguments. For pope Dionysius, as we read in 2 q. 7 c. Alieni, seems to assert this clearly. He says: "We consider all to be infamous who transgress their faith or Christian law." Now all heretics transgress Christian law, therefore all are infamous.
Hiis etiam concordat Stephanus papa qui, ut habetur 6 q. 1 c. Infames, ait: "Infames esse eas personas dicimus, que pro aliqua culpa notantur infamia, id est omnes, qui christiane legis normam abiiciunt." Omnes ergo heretici sunt infames. | Pope Stephen also agrees. As we find in 6 q. 1 c. Infames, says: "We say that those persons are infamous who are marked by infamy for some fault, that is, all who reject the norm of Christian law." Therefore all heretics are infamous.
Quod etiam rationibus videtur posse probari, quarum prima est hec. Omnes iniqui, qui regnum Dei minime possidebunt, sunt infames, teste Fabiano papa qui, ut habetur 6 q. 1 c. Illi, ait: "Illi qui illa peccata perpetrant de quibus Apostolus ait quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non consequentur , valde cavendi sunt, et ad emendationem, si voluntarie venire noluerint, compellendi, quia infamie maculis sunt aspersi, et in baratrum dilabuntur." Sed heretici sunt iniqui, qui regnum Dei non consequentur. Ergo heretici sunt infames. | This also seems to be proved by arguments, the first of which is this. All the wicked, who will not inherit the kingdom of God, are infamous, according to pope Fabian, who, as is found in 6 q. 1 c. Illi, says: "Those who commit those sins of which the Apostle says for those who do such things will not obtain the kingdom of God , are to be greatly guarded against, and they are to be compelled to amend if they refuse to do it voluntarily, because they are sprinkled with the stains of infamy and are falling into hell." But heretics are wicked, who will not obtain the kingdom of God. Therefore heretics are infamous.
Secunda ratio est hec. Minoris culpe est peccatum luxurie quam peccatum heresis. Sed incontinenter viventes sunt infames, quia non sunt bone fame, dicente Heli sacerdote ad filios suos, qui dormiebant cum mulieribus que observabant ad hostium tabernaculi, ut legitur 1 Reg. 2: "Quare facitis res huiuscemodi, quas ego audio, res pessimas, ab omni populo? Nolite filii mei: non enim est bona fama, quam ego audio." Ergo multo magis heretici sunt infames. | The second argument is this. The sin of lust is a lesser sin than the sin of heresy. But those who live incontinently are infamous, because they are not of good fame, as Eli the priest said to his sons, who lay with the women who waited at the door of the tabernacle, as we read in 1 Kings 2: "Why do you do such things, which I hear, very bad things, from all the people? Do not so, my sons: for it is not a good report that I hear." Therefore heretics are much more infamous.

Continue to Chapter 79
Return to Analysis of 1 Dial. 6