|
|
Capitulum 42
|
Chapter
42
|
|
Discipulus: Nunc
videamus de doctoribus et magistris, an docentes et
tenentes doctrinam hereticalem pape heretici sint
fautores heretice pravitatis.
|
Student: Let us
now see about doctors and masters, whether those who
teach and hold the heretical doctrine of a heretic
pope would be collaborators in heretical depravity.
|
|
Magister: Quos
comprehendis sub nomine doctorum et magistrorum.
|
Master: Whom do
you include in the expression 'doctors and masters'.
|
|
Discipulus: Per
doctores et magistros intelligo omnes habentes
officium predicandi vel legendi doctrinam catholicam.
|
Student: By
'doctors and masters' I understand all those who are
charged with the duty of preaching or reading catholic
doctrine.
|
|
Magister: Ergo
inter doctores et magistros reputas numerandos non
solum magistros theologie sed etiam omnes lectores et
bachalarios theologie, et etiam decretistas qui legunt
libros decretorum et decretalium, in quibus multa que
ad doctrinam spectant catholicam continentur, ac etiam
prelatos plebanos et eos qui auctoritate pape vel
alterius prelati habent officium predicandi.
|
Master: Therefore
you reckon that among doctors and masters should be
included not only masters of theology but also all
readers and bachelors of theology, and likewise
canonists who read the books of decrees and decretals
in which are contained many matters pertinent to
catholic doctrine, and also parish priests and those
who possess the office of preaching by authority of
the pope or of another prelate.
|
|
Discipulus: Ita
est. Omnes enim predicti docere habent catholicam
veritatem. Quamobrem disseras an omnes predicti si
docuerint publice vel tenuerint doctrinam hereticalem
pape heretici sint fautores heretice pravitatis vel
etiam inter hereticos computandi.
|
Student: Just
so. For all the aforementioned have the task of
teaching catholic truth. Wherefore proceed to discuss
whether they would be collaborators in heretical
wickedness or should even be numbered among the
heretics if they were to publicly preach or hold the
heretical doctrine of a heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Dicitur
distinguendo, quia aut doctrina pape erronea est talis
quod predicti doctores et magistri tenentur explicite
credere veritatem contrariam, aut est talis quod eam
explicite credere non tenentur. Item, aut prius
sciverunt doctrinam pape esse erroneam aut
nesciverunt. Item, aut doctrina pape erronea est per
ipsum solempniter diffinita seu determinata aut non
est solempniter diffinita sed est solummodo
pertinaciter predicata vel asserta.
|
Master: The
discussion requires distinctions. For either the
erroneous doctrine of the pope is such that the
aforementioned doctors and masters are bound to
believe explicitly the contrary truth, or it is such
that they are not bound to explicitly believe the
contrary truth. Again, either they previously knew
that the pope's doctrine was wrong, or they did not
know this. Further, either the pope's erroneous
doctrine is solemnly defined or determined by him, or
it is not solemnly defined but merely pertinaciously
preached or asserted.
|
|
Si itaque doctrina pape heretica
est talis quod doctores et magistri tenentur explicite
credere veritatem contrariam, quia videlicet est apud
omnes catholicos divulgata, vel si prius eam tanquam
catholicam didicerunt nec sunt obliti doctores et
magistri docentes publice qualitercunque vel occulte
doctrinam talem erroneam pape heretici, sunt fautores
heretice pravitatis et heretici reputandi, quia omnis
docens vel tenens assertionem hereticam cuius
contrariam veritatem tenetur explicite credere est
hereticus iudicandus.
|
If accordingly the heretical
doctrine of the pope is such that doctors and masters
are obligated to explicitly believe the opposite
truth, because it is common knowledge among all
Catholics, or if they previously learned the opposite
truth to be catholic truth, and the doctors and
masters who teach this erroneous doctrine of a heretic
pope publicly (in whatever fashion) or privately have
not forgotten this prior learning, they are to be
reckoned collaborators in heretical wickedness and
heretics, because every one who teaches or maintains a
heretical statement whose contrary truth he is bound
to believe explicitly is to be considered a heretic.
|
|
Si autem doctrina pape erronea est
talis quod doctores et magistri non tenentur explicite
credere contrariam veritatem, nec est per papam
solempniter diffinita seu determinata, docens eam
aperte sive occulte non est ex hoc solo fautor
heretice pravitatis nec hereticus iudicandus, sed est
diligenter et sollicite examinandus an paratus sit
corrigi, et siquidem paratus est corrigi ita quod
nullo modo de pertinacia possit convinci, non est reus
censendus; si vero non sit paratus corrigi sed
pertinaciter in doctrina erronea pape heretici
persistit, est fautor heretice pravitatis et hereticus
reputandus.
|
But if the pope's erroneous
doctrine is such that doctors and masters are not
bound to explicitly believe the opposite truth, nor
has the erroneous doctrine been solemnly defined or
determined by the pope, one who teaches it publicly or
privately is not by this single fact to be considered
a collaborator in heretical wickedness or a heretic.
He is rather to be diligently and scrupulously
examined as to his readiness to be corrected. If on
the one hand he is ready to be corrected, so that he
can in no way be convicted of pertinacity, then he is
not to be considered guilty. If on the other hand he
is not ready to be corrected, but continues to
pertinaciously hold the erroneous doctrine of a
heretic pope, then he is to be reckoned a collaborator
in heretical wickedness and a heretic.
|
|
Si autem doctores et magistri
docent publice doctrinam pape erroneam quam sciunt per
ipsum solempniter diffinitam, et docent quod huiusmodi
diffinitio pape est tenenda, sunt fautores heretice
pravitatis et etiam heretici reputandi, sive teneantur
explicite credere veritatem contrariam sive non
teneantur ipsam explicite credere. Huius ratio
assignatur, quia quicunque pertinaciter adheret
doctrine contra fidem est hereticus reputandus. Sed
doctores et magistri docentes diffinitionem pape
erroneam esse tenendam pertinaciter adherent doctrine
erronee diffinite, quia qui asserit quod
irrevocabiliter et in omnem eventum est adherendum
doctrine erronee, ipse pertinaciter adherere eidem
doctrine censetur, quare est pertinax reputandus et
per consequens hereticus est censendus. Item, non
minus peccat doctor vel magister qui publice docet
diffinitionem pape hereticam esse tenendam quam si
consensisset quod papa doctrinam huiusmodi solempniter
diffiniret. Sed si doctor vel magister consensisset
quod papa doctrinam huiusmodi diffiniret fuisset
fautor heretice pravitatis. Ergo docendo quod
diffinitio eius erronea est tenenda, est fautor
heretice pravitatis reputandus.
|
If, finally, doctors and masters
publicly teach a false doctrine of the pope which they
know to have been solemnly defined by him, and if they
teach that such a definition of the pope is
obligatory, they are to be reckoned collaborators in
heretical wickedness and also heretics, whether they
are bound to explicitly believe the contrary truth or
whether they are not bound to believe it explicitly.
Here is the proof of this statement. Whoever
pertinaciously supports a doctrine which is against
the faith is to be reckoned a heretic. But doctors and
masters who teach that a false definition of the pope
is obligatory pertinaciously support a falsely defined
doctrine, because he who asserts that one must support
a false doctrine irrevocably and no matter what is to
be considered as pertinaciously supporting this
doctrine, and therefore is to be thought pertinacious,
and consequently is to be reckoned a heretic. Again, a
doctor or master who publicly teaches that a heretical
definition of the pope is obligatory sins no less than
if he had consented that the pope should solemnly
define such a doctrine. But if a doctor or master had
consented that the pope should define such a doctrine,
he would have been a collaborator in heretical
wickedness. Therefore by teaching that the pope's
false definition is obligatory he is to be reckoned a
collaborator in heretical wickedness.
|
|
Capitulum 43
|
Chapter
43
|
|
Discipulus: Quia
dubito quod, si unquam aliquis papa potens cui faveant
reges et principes erit hereticus, spiritus mendax
erit in ore omnium vel plurium prophetarum, id est
doctorum, qui, secundum beatum Gregorium, ut legitur
dis. 43 c. Sit rector, per
prophetas in sacro eloquio designantur, idcirco de
doctoribus qui forte erunt tempore pape heretici plura
interrogare propono, ad que tu breviter studeas
respondere. Disseras autem in primis an doctores et
magistri, si papa fuerit hereticus, teneantur contra
doctrinam eius erroneam predicare et eam efficaciter
reprobare.
|
Student: I am
uncertain, should some powerful pope favoured by kings
and princes ever become a heretic, that "a lying
spirit" will be "in the mouth of all prophets" [2
Chronicles 18:21], or of many prophets, i.e. of
doctors who, according to blessed Gregory (one reads
this in dis. 43 c. Sit rector)[col. 153] are
termed 'prophets' in Holy Writ. For that reason I
intend to ask many questions (to which you will
endeavour to respond briefly) about the doctors who
will perhaps exist at the time of a heretic pope.
First of all, however, discuss whether, should the
pope be a heretic, doctors and masters would be
obligated to preach against his false doctrine and
effectively reject it.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod pro loco et tempore, debitis circumstantiis
observatis, omnes doctores sive fuerint magistri sive
in alio gradu docendi officium habentes exercere in
theologica facultate, sive fuerint habentes tantummodo
officium predicandi ad populum, de necessitate salutis
tenentur doctrinam pape erroneam (presertim si apud
illos inter quos predicta exercent officia divulgatur,
docetur, et tenetur) efficaciter reprobare, et
contrariam veritatem firmiter asserere. Hoc videtur
pluribus modis posse probari. Primo quidem sic. In
omni certamine corporali et spirituali laus precipua
bellatorum in hoc videtur consistere quod, suo duci
indissolubiliter adherendo, hostes eius quanto fuerint
fortiores et periculosiores et perniciosores tanto
magis expugnare conantur. Sed in catholicorum exercitu
contra agmina hereticorum primum locum vel saltem non
infimum bellatorum doctores obtinere videntur, cum
secundum Innocentium tertium , ut habetur Extra, De
hereticis, Cum ex iniuncto: "doctorum ordo sit
quasi precipuus in ecclesia", et Honorius tertius, ut
habetur Extra, Ne clerici vel monachi secularibus
negotiis se immisceant, Super specula, predicatores
bellatores appellat dicens: "quia vero theologie
studium cupimus ampliari, ut dilatato sui tentorii
loco et funiculos suos faciat longiores, ut sit fides
catholica circumcincta muro inexpugnabili bellatorum,
quibus resistere valeat adscendentibus ex adverso
etc.", ubi dicit glossa super verbo "bellatorum": "id
est predicatorum, qui possunt hereticis resistere
auctoritate divine scripture, qui contra nos surgunt,
et ex adverso impugnant nos". Ergo predicatores et
doctores, quanto heretici fuerint fortiores et
periculosiores ac perniciosores, tanto magis debent
satagere ut eis resistant ac eos expugnent, eorum
doctrinam auctoritatibus sacris et rationibus
efficacibus reprobando. Nullus autem hereticus potest
esse periculosior vel perniciosior exercitui
catholicorum quam papa hereticus. Nullus enim alius
tantam poterit habere audaciam et sequelam tantam
quantam papa hereticus, ergo contra ipsum debent
predicatores et doctores et magistri precipue et toto
posse insurgere, eum aperte et per insidias ac omnibus
modis congruentibus impugnando.
|
Master: The
answer is that, depending on time and place, and
taking into account appropriate circumstances, all
doctors, whether they are masters or hold a different
teaching appointment in the faculty of theology, or
whether they are simply charged with the function of
preaching to the people, are bound by necessity of
salvation to effectively reject the pope's erroneous
doctrine (especially if this doctrine is popularized,
taught and maintained in the presence of those among
whom the doctors exercise the aforementioned
functions), and to assert solidly the contrary truth.
It appears that one can prove this in many ways. First
indeed in this manner. In every physical and spiritual
conflict paramount praise seems afforded to fighters
who, indissolubly supporting their leader, endeavour
to destroy his stronger, more dangerous, and deadlier
enemies with proportionally commensurate energy. But
in the army of Catholics opposing the heretic
multitudes, doctors seem to be granted the leading
role or at least not the most humble. According to
Innocent III (we have it in Extra, De hereticis,
Cum ex iniuncto)[col. 786] "the order of
doctors is paramount, as it were, in the church". And
Honorius III (we have it in Extra, Ne clerici vel
monachi secularibus negotiis se immisceant, Super
specula)[col. 660] describes preachers as
'fighters', saying: "but since we wish to magnify the
study of theology, so that by expanding the location
of its tents it might make its cords correspondingly
longer, so that the catholic faith is protected by an
unbreachable wall of fighters using them to
successfully resist those who adversely confront it
etc.", where the gloss comments on the word
'fighters': "i.e. preachers, who by the authority of
Holy Writ can resist heretics arising against us and
attacking us adversely".[cols. 1416-1417] Therefore
the stronger, more dangerous, and deadlier should
heretics prove to be, the more intensely should
preachers and doctors endeavour to resist them and
destroy them, attacking their doctrine by sacred
authorities and effective arguments. But no heretic
can be more dangerous or deadlier to the army of
Catholics than a heretic pope. Indeed no other heretic
could emulate the boldness or possess the following
comparable to that of a heretic pope. Therefore
doctors and masters must rise against the latter with
particular zeal and with all their strength, attacking
him openly and by ambushes, as well as by all
appropriate methods.
|
|
Discipulus: Ista
ratio non videtur probare intentum, quia nunquam
bellatorum est bellum indicere, quia secundum beatum
Augustinum, ut legitur 23 q. 1 c. Quid culpatur:
"suscipiendi belli auctoritas atque consilium penes
principes est", ubi dicit glossa: "nullus ergo bellare
potest sine auctoritate principis". Ex quibus verbis
colligitur quod licet omnes bellatores parati debeant
esse ad prelium quando princeps iubet, sine tamen
auctoritate principis nulli bellare licet. Licet ergo,
si papa fiat hereticus, doctores et magistri teneantur
esse parati quando auctoritate principis bellum contra
papam hereticum indicetur, auctoritate tamen propria
ipsum impugnare non debent. Quamdiu enim ab ecclesia
toleratur doctores et magistri tacere debent.
|
Student: This
argument does not appear to prove the point, for it is
never the task of fighters to open hostilities, since
according to blessed Augustine (we read this in 23 q.
1 c. Quid culpatur)[col. 893]: "the
authority and competence to wage war resides in the
rulers", where the gloss comments: "therefore no one
may go to war without the authority of the ruler".
[col. 1288] One gathers from these words that although
all fighters must be ready for combat when the ruler
orders it, no one, for all that, is allowed to go to
war without the ruler's authority. Therefore even if
(should the pope become a heretic) doctors and masters
are bound to be ready for combat when war is
proclaimed against the heretic pope by authority of
the ruler, they must not, for all that, attack him on
their own authority. Indeed, so long as the church
tolerates him, doctors and masters must remain silent.
|
|
Magister: Ista
responsio a nonnullis frivola reputatur quantum ad
tria que videtur innuere. Primum est quod contra papam
hereticum non eo ipso quod sit hereticus sed ex edicto
principis bellum geritur spirituale. Secundum est quod
papa hereticus quamdiu ab ecclesia toleratur est
nullatenus expugnandus. Tertium est quod in nullo casu
absque auctoritate principis licet alicui bellum sive
generale sive particulare contra hostem suscipere.
Ista enim tria quidam reputant omnino falsa.
|
Master: Some
deem this response to be worthless with respect to
three points, which it seems to imply. The first is
that spiritual war is not waged against a heretic pope
by the very fact that he is a heretic but only as a
consequence of the ruler's command. The second is that
a heretic pope is in no way to be eliminated so long
as the church tolerates him. The third is that under
no circumstance is someone permitted to wage public or
private war against an enemy without the ruler's
authority. Some people naturally consider these three
points to be utterly false.
|
|
Quod enim primum sit falsum
ostenditur, quia contra papam hereticum tam a principe
principum, scilicet a Domino nostro Iesu Christo, quam
ab apostolis vicariis eius iam est bellum indictum.
Quod enim Christus bellare spiritualiter contra papam
si fiat hereticus aperte mandaverit, apparet per illud
Mat. 10 cum dicit: "non veni pacem mittere sed
gladium". Per 'gladium' potestas bellandi datur
intelligi. Christus igitur omnes catholicos in bello
spirituali constituit. Precipuum autem bellum
catholicorum contra hereticos esse videtur. Nullus
autem hereticus perniciosior vel periculosior est papa
heretico. Ergo contra papam hereticum precipue est
bellandum spiritualiter, nec expectandum est edictum
principis, quia iam edictum a Christo principe est
egressum. Hoc etiam edictum auctoritate Christi beatus
Paulus scribens ad Ephesios promulgavit. Ait enim cap.
6: "accipite armaturam Dei ut possitis resistere in
die malo", et post: "calciati pedes in preparatione
evangelii pacis, in omnibus sumentes scutum fidei in
quo possitis omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere,
et galeam salutis assumite, et gladium spiritus quod
est verbum Dei". Quod edictum licet omnibus quantum ad
aliqua dirigatur, tamen quantum ad quedam specialiter
predicatores et doctores videtur respicere. Dies enim
mala, imo pessima erit, si unquam papa potens regum et
principum favore munitus in hereticam incidet
pravitatem. Putant enim nonnulli probabile quod tunc
erit tribulatio catholicorum qualis non fuit ab initio
christianitatis usque modo, et tamen forte strages
corporalis christianorum pro fide nulla vel parvissima
erit. Multitudo enim christianorum, licet pro
temporalibus forsitan tempore pape heretici sit prelia
innumera perpessura, pro fide tamen persecutionem
nullam penitus sustinebit, quia absque coactione et
violentia, voluntate spontanea, pape heretico
adherebit, et forte paucissimi eidem resistere
conabuntur, et tamen omnes monet Apostolus armaturam
Dei accipere ut in die mala pape heretico possint
resistere. Predicatores autem et doctores specialiter
exhortatur ut ad resistendum se preparent cum dicit:
"calciati pedes in preparationem evangelii pacis," ubi
dicit glossa: "id est ut sitis parati ad predicandum
evangelium," et quomodo se debeant preparare declarat
cum asserit: "assumendum gladium spiritus quod est
verbum Dei". Hoc enim ad predicatores et magistros
specialiter spectare dinoscitur, quorum est per verbum
Dei tanquam per gladium acutissimum omnes hereticos et
specialiter papam hereticum iugulare, et ita edictum
de bello gerendo contra papam hereticum quod a Christo
exierat cum dixit "non veni pacem mittere sed gladium"
hic Paulus publice promulgavit cum gladium spiritus
quod est verbum Dei ad expugnandum hereticos asseruit
assumendum. Unde et glossa ibi dicit: "de hoc gladio
Dominus ait 'non veni pacem mittere sed gladium'". De
eodem ergo gladio loquuntur discipulus et magister,
quare sequitur quod edictum de bello gerendo contra
hereticos et specialiter contra papam hereticum a
Christo principe iam exivit.
|
That indeed the first one is false
is shown in this manner. Against a heretic pope war
has already been declared, both by the ruler of
rulers, namely by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his
vicars the apostles. Indeed that Christ has clearly
commanded spiritual war against a pope if the latter
becomes a heretic appears from the following text of
Matthew 10[: 34] where Christ states: "I came not to
send peace but a sword". By 'sword' is meant the power
to wage war. Therefore Christ granted the right to
wage spiritual war to all Catholics. But the paramount
war of Catholics seems to be against heretics, and no
heretic is deadlier or more dangerous than a heretic
pope, therefore spiritual war is to be waged above all
against a heretic pope, nor must one await the ruler's
command, since the command has already been issued by
the ruler, Christ. And blessed Paul promulgated this
command by Christ's authority, writing to the
Ephesians, for he states in chapter 6: "take unto you
the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
withstand in the evil day"[Ephesians 6:13], and
afterwards: "your feet shod with the preparation of
the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of
faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the
fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of
salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the
word of God". [Ephesians 6:15-17] Although this
command is addressed to all persons with respect to
some matters, it appears nevertheless to specifically
reference preachers and doctors as to particular
activities. For it will be an evil day, indeed the
worst of days, should a powerful pope favoured by
kings and princes ever lapse into heretical
wickedness. And many think it probable that at that
time there would be such a threshing of Catholics as
was not ever experienced since the beginning of
Christianity, and yet the physical destruction of
Christians for their faith would perhaps be
nonexistent or insignificant. For although the
multitude of Christians would perhaps undergo
countless conflicts for the sake of worldly goods at
the time of a heretic pope, it would nevertheless
suffer no persecution whatsoever for the faith,
because the multitude would support the heretic pope
willfully, spontaneously, and without being pressured
or coerced, with perhaps very few people attempting to
resist him, despite the fact that the Apostle warns
everyone to take the armour of God so that in the evil
day they might be able to resist a heretic pope. On
the other hand, Paul specifically admonishes preachers
and doctors to prepare themselves for resistance when
he states: "your feet shod with the preparation of the
gospel of peace" [Ephesians 6:15] (here the gloss
says: "i.e. that you may be ready to preach the
gospel"[Glossa ordinaria to the Bible], and
Paul declares how they ought to prepare when he
states: "take the sword of the Spirit which is the
word of God"[Ephesians 6:17]. This is known as
particularly relevant to preachers and masters. It is
their task to destroy all heretics, and especially a
heretic pope, by the word of God wielded as the
sharpest of swords. And thus the command to wage war
against a heretic pope which had issued from Christ
when he said " I came not to send peace but a sword",
Paul publicly promulgated here when he asserted that
"the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God" was
to be taken up for the utter defeat of heretics.
Whence the gloss also states in this context:
"concerning this sword the Lord said 'I came not to
send peace but a sword'"[Glossa ordinaria to
the Bible]. Therefore both the master (Christ) and the
disciple (Paul) speak of the identical sword, and
hence it follows that the command to wage war against
heretics and especially against a heretic pope has
already been issued by the ruler, Christ.
|
|
Discipulus: Absque
magna persecutione alias auctoritates allega ex quibus
ostenditur quod edictum de bello spirituali gerendo
contra papam hereticum a principe iam exivit.
|
Student: Provide
other authorities, but without extensive discussion,
whereby one proves that the command to wage spiritual
war against a heretic pope has already been issued by
the ruler.
|
|
Magister: Hoc
ex verbis Christi colligitur cum dicit Mat. 16:
"intuemini et cavete a fermento phariseorum et
saduceorum". Quod apostoli primo intelligentes de
panibus postea per informationem Christi
"intellexerunt quia non dixerit cavendum a fermento
panum sed a doctrina phariseorum et saduceorum". Sed
non est cavendum a doctrina phariseorum et saduceorum
nisi quia est contraria catholice veritati. Ergo si
doctrina pape heretici fuerit contraria catholice
veritati ab ea penitus est cavendum. Hoc autem non
facient predicatores sine certamine spirituali, ergo
edictum de bello gerendo contra papam hereticum in
simili a Christo iam exivit. Hoc etiam Christus
insinuavit cum dixit Mat. 10: "ecce ego mitto vos
sicut oves in medio luporum. Estote ergo prudentes
sicut serpentes" ne scilicet doctrina pape heretici
vos seducat. Item, Mat. 24 ait: "videte ne quis vos
seducat". Quibus verbis Christus omnes catholicos
reddit cautos ne doctrina erronea cuiuscunque sive
pape sive alterius seducantur, et ut se contra eam
expugnandam animosius attingant. Item, beatus Petrus
prima canonica sua c. 5 ait: "vigilate quia
adversarius vester diabolus tanquam etc." (usque ad
"fortes in fide"). Si autem diabolo est per fidem
resistendum, etiam pape heretico qui est de ducibus
principalibus diaboli oportet resistere orthodoxos.
|
Master: This
may be gathered from the words of Christ when he
states in Matthew 16: "take heed and beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees"[Matthew
16:6]. At first the apostles thought this referred to
breads, but afterwards through Christ's explanation
"they understood how that he bade them not beware of
the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees"[Matthew 16:12]. But
one must beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and
of the Sadducees only because it is contrary to
catholic truth. Therefore if the doctrine of a heretic
pope were contrary to catholic truth one would need to
beware of it heartily. But preachers could not perform
this warning task without spiritual combat, therefore
a relevant command to wage war against a heretic pope
has already been issued by Christ. Christ also
conveyed this command when he stated in Matthew 10:
"behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of
wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents"[Matthew
10:16] so that, to be sure, the doctrine of a heretic
pope does not deceive you. Again, in Matthew 24[:4] he
states: "take heed that no man deceive you". By these
words Christ cautions all Catholics not to be deceived
by anyone's false doctrine, whether he is a pope or
someone else, and to unite boldly for the purpose of
destroying it. Again, blessed Peter in chapter 5 of
his First epistle states: "be vigilant, because your
adversary the devil etc." (up to "steadfast in the
faith")[1 Peter 5:8-9]. But if one must resist the
devil by faith, then it is also proper for true
believers to resist a heretic pope, who is one of the
devil's main generals.
|
|
Discipulus: Quamvis
iste et alie auctoritates quamplurime innuere
videantur quod oportet orthodoxos contra papam
hereticum bellum assumere, tamen non probant
specialiter quod predicatores et doctores ac magistri
debeant contra papam hereticum predicare et docere ac
doctrinam eius publice reprobare.
|
Student: Although
these and other most numerous authorities seem to
imply that it is proper for true believers to wage war
against a heretic pope, they do not for all that
specifically prove that preachers, doctors, and
masters must preach and teach against a heretic pope
and publicly reject his doctrine.
|
|
Magister: Conceditur
quod auctoritates superius allegate et quamplures alie
generales sunt, omnibus catholicis bellum spirituale
contra papam hereticum indicentes. Quia enim papa
hereticus fidem impugnat, et secundum Apostolum "una
est fides", ideo omnes catholici contra papam
hereticum bellum debent assumere tanquam pro causa
communi que una est omnium. Verumptamen sicut in
exercitu se ad bellum corporale preparante, non omnes
idem habent officium, nec omnes corporaliter
preliantur (clerici enim quamvis preliari non debeant
possunt tamen iusto prelio interesse ut hortentur et
consulant quod expedit ad salutem; multi etiam
servitores bellatorum ad preliandum minime sunt apti),
nec etiam omnes bellatores eodem modo hostes impugnant
(equites enim et pedites diversimode hostes invadunt),
sic in exercitu catholicorum contra papam hereticum
non omnes idem habent officium. Quidam namque ignorant
doctrinam pape erroneam per sacras scripturas
efficaciter impugnare, et ideo ad eos non pertinet
ipsam predicando vel docendo per scripturarum
testimonia reprobare. Alii vero officium predicandi et
docendi veritatem catholicam et expugnandi pravitatem
hereticam susceperunt, et ideo ad illos tanquam ad
precipuos bellatores spectat doctrinam pape erroneam
fortius expugnare. Quare ex hoc ipso quod omnibus
orthodoxis indicitur bellum contra papam hereticum,
predicatoribus et doctoribus specialiter iniungi
dinoscitur ut, suum officium exercentes, predicando et
docendo contra papam hereticum et doctrinam eius
insurgant. Alii vero qui scripturas ignorant,
bellatores spirituales corporaliter defensare, nutrire
et sustinere ac etiam eis favere in omnibus que ad
eorum spectant officium contra papam hereticum
astringuuntur.
|
Master: It is
conceded that the authorities advanced earlier and
very many others are general ones, imposing on all
Catholics the duty of waging spiritual war against a
heretic pope. For since a heretic pope attacks the
faith, and according to the Apostle "the faith is
one"[Ephesians 4:5], that is the reason why all
Catholics must wage war against a heretic pope as a
common cause which unites them all. However, just as
in an army which is preparing itself for physical
combat not all perform the identical task, nor are all
involved in physical combat (for clerks, although they
must not actually slash and cut, may nevertheless
participate in a just war to encourage others and to
advise what is expedient for security; and many
attendants of the active fighters are hardly fit for
physical combat themselves), nor even do all active
fighters attack enemies in the same way (for horsemen
and footmen attack enemies differently), so by analogy
not all have the same task to perform in the army of
Catholics opposing a heretic pope. Some indeed are
incapable of effectively attacking the pope's false
doctrine by relying on Holy Writ, and therefore to
such does not belong the task of rejecting this
doctrine by preaching or teaching on the basis of
Biblical evidence. Others however have formally taken
up the office of preaching and teaching catholic
truth, and of destroying heretical wickedness, and
therefore to such as to the paramount fighters they
are pertains the task of destroying the pope's false
doctrine with greater impact. Hence by the very fact
that war against a heretic pope is urged upon all true
believers, preachers and doctors are known to receive
a special injunction that they must aggressively
exercise their office by preaching and teaching
against a heretic pope and his doctrine. While others,
who are ignorant of scripture, are obligated to
physically defend, nourish, and sustain the spiritual
fighters, as well as to favour them in all matters
relevant to their official activity against a heretic
pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Aliter
confirmatur predicta obiectio, quia in omnibus
auctoritatibus preallegatis de papa heretico nulla fit
mentio. Si ergo per auctoritates ostenditur quod
predicatores et doctores debent doctrinam pape
erroneam reprobare, eadem ratione debent doctrinam
erroneam cuiuscunque heretici impugnare, ad quod tamen
minime sunt astricti, quia nullus predicator aut
doctor posset omnes doctrinas erroneas hereticorum
extirpare.
|
Student: My
stated objection can be confirmed otherwise, since in
all the authorities previously advanced no mention is
made of a heretic pope. Therefore if these authorities
show that preachers and doctors must reject the pope's
false doctrine, by the same token they must attack the
false doctrine of any heretic. But they are hardly
bound to do this, because no preacher or doctor can
possibly root out all the false doctrines of heretics.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod quamvis in auctoritatibus allegatis mentio
verbalis non fiat de papa heretico, et ideo de omnibus
hereticis, imo de omnibus malis, debent intelligi,
principaliter tamen debent intelligi de papa heretico
pro eo quod ipse esset magis nocivus quam alii
heretici minoris potentie et minorem sequelam
habentes. Si enim contra malos et seductores oportet
bellum spirituale assumere, contra magis malos et qui
levius ac citius possunt decipere orthodoxos est
fortius resistendum. Quare cum papa hereticus valeat
plures facilius et citius seducere quam alii heretici
minores, contra ipsum virilissime spiritualiter est
pugnandum.
|
Master: The
answer is that even though there is no verbal mention
of a heretic pope in the argued authorities, and
therefore they must be understood of all heretics, and
indeed of all wicked individuals, they must
nevertheless be primarily applied to a heretic pope,
because he would be more harmful than other heretics
of lesser power who possessed a smaller contingent of
followers. For if it is proper to wage spiritual war
against such as are wicked and deceitful, then one
must resist more strongly against those who are wicked
to a higher degree, and who can more easily and
expeditiously deceive the true believers. Therefore
since a heretic pope has the power to deceive many
people with greater ease and alacrity than other less
significant heretics, he must be spiritually attacked
with the utmost vigour.
|
|
Capitulum 44
|
Chapter
44
|
|
Discipulus: In
responsione mea ad rationem principalem dixisti innui
tria que quibusdam falsa videntur. Tractasti autem de
primo illorum, nunc dissere de secundo.
|
Student: You
have said that in my response to the principal
argument I proposed three points, which appeared false
to some, and in fact you have dealt with the first of
these. Now discuss the second.
|
|
Magister: Secundum
quod tua responsio videbatur innuere est quod papa
hereticus quamdiu ab ecclesia toleratur est nullatenus
expugnandus. Quod videbatur quibusdam falsum propter
falsam implicationem. Quia si papa hereticus ab
ecclesia toleratur, aut toleratur ab ecclesia
catholica aut ab ecclesia heretica et schismatica. Si
ab ecclesia heretica et schismatica, constat quod
propter eius tolerantiam non est ab expugnatione pape
heretici desistendum. Si autem toleratur ab ecclesia
catholica hoc non potest contingere nisi quia ecclesia
catholica ignorat papam esse hereticum. Si enim sciret
ipsum esse hereticum, eum nullatenus toleraret. Sed
propter ignorantiam ecclesie catholice non est ab
expugnatione pape heretici cessandum quando probari
potest esse hereticus. Illi enim qui sciunt papam esse
hereticum si possunt probare eum esse hereticum debent
hoc ecclesie catholice nuntiare, que postquam
quesierit sollicite et reperierit veritatem, papam
hereticum nullatenus tolerabit. Qui autem debent
perfidiam pape heretici ecclesie catholice nuntiare
debent ipsum, si habent officium docendi, efficaciter
reprobare. Ergo quamvis ab ecclesia catholica
ignorante papa hereticus toleretur, non debent
predicatores et doctores scientes eum esse hereticum
ab eius impugnatione cessare, et ita quamvis papa
hereticus ab ecclesia catholica hoc est a multitudine
christiani populi toleretur, est tamen a scientibus
eum esse hereticum viriliter expugnandus.
|
Master: The
second point which your response seemed to suggest is
that a heretic pope should in no way be destroyed so
long as he is tolerated by the church. This appeared
to some to be false because of an erroneous
implication. For if a heretic pope is tolerated by the
church, either he is tolerated by the catholic church
or by a church which is heretic and schismatic. If by
a church heretic and schismatic, it is manifest that
on account of its toleration one must not forego the
elimination of a heretic pope. If, on the other hand,
the catholic church tolerates him, this can only
happen because the catholic church is unaware that the
pope is a heretic. For if it knew that he was a
heretic it would in no way tolerate him. But because
of the ignorance of the catholic church one must not
desist from the destruction of a heretic pope when it
can be demonstrated that he is a heretic. For those
who know that the pope is a heretic must reveal this
to the catholic church if they can prove him to be a
heretic. After the church has diligently inquired and
discovered the truth, it will in no way tolerate a
heretic pope. And those who have the duty of
announcing to the catholic church the treachery of a
heretic pope must also condemn him with effect if they
possess a teaching responsibility. Therefore even if
an uninformed catholic church tolerates a heretic
pope, the preachers and doctors who know that he is a
heretic must not stop attacking him. And thus even if
a heretic pope is tolerated by the catholic church,
that is to say by the multitude of the Christian
people, he must nevertheless be vigorously assaulted
by those who know that he is a heretic.
|
|
Discipulus: Hic
essent duo probanda, quorum primum est quod ecclesia
catholica papam hereticum scienter nullatenus
toleraret. Secundum est quod illi qui scirent papam
esse hereticum deberent hoc ecclesie catholice
nuntiare quando possent hoc probare. Unde ista duo
coneris probare.
|
Student: Here
two things would need to be proved. The first of which
is that the catholic church would never knowingly
tolerate a heretic pope. The second is that they who
knew that the pope was a heretic would be obligated to
reveal this to the catholic church when
they could advance corroborative evidence. Attempt if
you will to demonstrate both points.
|
|
Magister: Primum
probatur sic. Licet ecclesia catholica quantum ad ea
que facti sunt possit errare (unde et ecclesia
universalis erravit quantum ad aliquid quod facti erat
quando mulierem venerabatur pro papa, et sic etiam
posset errare si aliquis non baptizatus qui crederetur
esse baptizatus vel aliquis occultus hereticus
eligeretur in papam et ab ecclesia universali pro papa
haberetur), tamen quantum ad ea que iuris sunt divini
et naturalis ecclesia universalis errare non potest.
Sed si ecclesia universalis papam hereticum toleraret,
erraret quantum ad ea que sunt iuris divini quia
scienter haberet pro papa eum qui iure divino esset
papatu privatus quod non esset sine errore iuris
divini, quia reputare hereticum verum papam est contra
sacram scripturam quia ex scriptura divina colligitur
evidenter quod papa hereticus non est verus papa, ut
ostensum est libro sexto capitulo 68. Ergo ecclesia
catholica nunquam scienter papam hereticum tolerabit.
|
Master: The
first is proved as follows. Although the catholic
church may err as to matters of fact (whence the
universal church did commit a factual error when it
venerated a woman as pope ['Pope Joan': cf. Ockham OQ
1.17.22-24], and it might likewise err in this fashion
if some unbaptized individual who was believed to be
baptized or some secret heretic were to be elected
pope and recognized as pope by the universal church),
nevertheless the universal church cannot be in error
as to matters which pertain to divine and natural law.
But were the universal church to tolerate a heretic
pope, it would err as to matters of divine law,
because it would knowingly recognize as pope one who
would have been deprived of the papacy by divine
right, a recognition which would not avoid an error of
divine law, since to reckon a heretic to be a true
pope is against Holy Writ, in that one evidently
concludes from Divine Scripture that a heretic pope is
not a true pope, as was shown in the 68th chapter of
Book Six [1 Dial. 6.68]. Therefore the catholic church
will never knowingly tolerate a heretic pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Ista
ratio non procedit, quia ecclesia catholica tolerando
papam hereticum non erraret quantum ad ea que sunt
iuris divini nisi papam hereticum reputaret verum
papam. Sed ecclesia catholica posset tolerare papam
hereticum licet non reputat ipsum verum papam, quia
multa tolerantur que minime approbantur, teste
Innocentio tertio qui, ut habetur Extra, De
prebendis,Cum iam dudum, ait: "cum multa per
patientiam tolerentur que si deducta fuerint in
iudicium exigente iustitia non debeant tolerari". Ex
quibus verbis colligitur quod multa tolerantur que
minime approbantur et ita absque errore potest
ecclesia catholica papam hereticum tolerare.
|
Student: This
is not an effective argument, because the catholic
church by tolerating a heretic pope would not err as
to matters of divine law unless it reckoned a heretic
pope to be a true pope. But the catholic church might
tolerate a heretic pope without reckoning him to be a
true pope, because many things are tolerated which are
hardly approved, witness Innocent III who states (as
we find in Extra, De prebendis, Cum iam dudum)[col.
471]: " since many things are patiently tolerated
which if taken to court a rigorous justice would not
allow to be tolerated". From these words one gathers
that many things are tolerated which are hardly
approved, and thus the catholic church may tolerate a
heretic pope without falling into error.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod sicut ecclesia universalis nunquam errabit
quantum ad ea que iuris sunt divini, ita nunquam usque
ad finem seculi ecclesia universalis iustitia et
caritate carebit, iuxta illud Apostoli ad Eph. 5:
"Christus dilexit nos" (ecclesiam) "et tradidit
seipsum" pro ea, ut illam sanctificaret, mundans
lavacro aque in verbo vite, ut exhiberet ipse sibi
gloriosam ecclesiam non habentem maculam neque rugam
aut aliquid huiusmodi sed ut sit sancta et immaculata.
Non esset enim sancta et immaculata neque in caritate
et iustitia radicata si scienter papam hereticum
toleraret. Quare nunquam ecclesia universalis scienter
papam hereticum tolerabit si eum punire potest. Et si
eum corporaliter punire non poterit, saltem ipsum
spiritualiter (verbaliter) reprobabit. Ad cuius
evidentiam dicitur esse sciendum quod licet quedam
mala ab ecclesia tolerantur quia minime puniuntur,
tamen quedam sunt mala que ab ecclesia tolerari non
debent si potest ea punire. Nam sicut secundum
Gregorium habetur (dis. 28 c. Quia sunt) :
"sunt culpe in quibus culpa est relaxare vindictam",
ita sunt quedam culpe que minime sunt tolerande, nam
publice utilitatis intersit ne crimina remaneant
impunita (Extra, De sententia excommunicationis,
Ut fame). Huiusmodi autem culpe sunt ille
precipue que committuntur in Deum et in bonum commune
(23 q. 4 c. Si is et c. Si ea).
Perfidia autem heresis in papa heretico in Deum
committitur et est in preiudicium fidei que communis
est omnium, et ideo perfidiam heresis in papa heretico
nunquam ecclesia universalis tolerabit, quia tolerando
scienter pravitatem hereticam in papa efficeretur
ecclesia schismatica, quia ecclesia que schismatico
scienter adheret schismatica est. Ecclesia autem
schismatica non est ecclesia catholica et universalis,
ergo ecclesia universalis et catholica nunquam
scienter perfidiam pape heretici (quia eo ipso quod
est hereticus est etiam schismaticus) tolerabit,
habendo ipsum pro vero papa. Licet forte multitudo
christianorum papam hereticum tolerabit et veri
catholici persecutionem ab eo gravissimam sustinebunt,
sed ipsum minime tolerabunt sibi tanquam vero pape
obediendo.
|
Master: The
answer is that just as the universal church will never
be in error as to matters of divine law, so will the
universal church never lack for justice and love to
the end of time, according to the statement of the
Apostle in Ephesians 5: "Christ also hath loved us"
(i.e. the church) "and hath given himself" [Ephesians
5:2] for her, that he might make her holy, cleaning
her as a bath of water in the Word of life, that he
might create for himself a glorious church, one holy
and immaculate, having neither stain nor wrinkle nor
anything of the sort. Yet the church would not be holy
and stainless or founded in love and justice if it
knowingly tolerated a heretic pope. Therefore never
will the universal church knowingly tolerate a heretic
pope if it has the power to punish him. And should it
not be able to punish him physically it will at least
condemn him spiritually, by words. As confirming proof
of this, it must be known that while there are some
evils which are tolerated by the church since they are
hardly punished, there are nevertheless other evils
which should not be tolerated by the church if it has
the power to punish them. Indeed just as we have it
from Gregory in dis. 28 c. Quia sunt [col.
103] that "there are some sins concerning which it is
a sin to weaken retribution", so are there certain
sins which must hardly be tolerated, since it is a
matter of public interest that crimes not remain
unpunished (Extra, De sententia
excommunicationis, Ut fame)[col. 904]. Such
sins however are above all those which are committed
against God and against the common good (23 q. 4 c. Si
is and c. Si ea)[col. 912]. But the
treachery of heresy in a heretic pope is committed
against god and in damage to the faith, which is
common to all. Therefore the universal church will
never tolerate the treachery of heresy in a heretic
pope, since by knowingly tolerating heretical
wickedness in the pope it would become a schismatic
church, because a church, which knowingly supports a
schismatic, is a schismatic church. But a schismatic
church is not the catholic and universal church. And
so the universal and catholic church will never
knowingly tolerate the treachery of a heretic pope
(for by the very fact that he is a heretic he is also
a schismatic) by recognizing him as a true pope.
Although the multitude of Christians will perhaps
tolerate a heretic pope, and true Catholics will
suffer the harshest persecution from him, the latter
will even so hardly tolerate him by obeying him as
they would a true pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Recitasti
quomodo probatur quod ecclesia catholica nunquam
scienter papam hereticum tolerabit. Nunc molire
probare secundum, scilicet quod illi qui scirent papam
esse hereticum deberent hoc ecclesie catholice
nuntiare.
|
Student: You
have recited how one proves that the catholic church
would never knowingly tolerate a heretic pope. Now
attempt to prove the corollary, namely that those
knowing the pope to be a heretic would be obligated to
reveal this to the catholic church.
|
|
Magister: Hoc
videtur posse probari sic. Hoc debent catholici aliis
catholicis nescientibus revelare seu nuntiare quod,
celatum, vergeret in diminutionem divini honoris et
fidelium commune et notabile detrimentum. Sed perfidia
pape heretici molientis fidem corrumpere orthodoxorum
vergeret in diminutionem divini honoris et fidelium
commune et notabile detrimentum. Ergo catholici
scientes papam esse hereticum debent hoc aliis
revelare si possunt hoc ipsum probare.
|
Master: It
appears this can be proved as follows. Catholics have
the duty to reveal or to announce to other uninformed
Catholics a matter, which, if concealed, would involve
the diminution of God's honour as well as a common and
conspicuous harm to believers. But the treachery of a
heretic pope attempting to corrupt orthodox faith
would involve the diminution of God's honour as well
as a common and conspicuous harm to believers.
Therefore Catholics who know that the pope is a
heretic must reveal this to others if they can
actually prove it.
|
|
Capitulum 45
|
Chapter
45
|
|
Discipulus: Dissere
de tertio quod innuebat responsio mea ad rationem
factam supra, capitulo 43, et dixisti a quibusdam
putari contrariam veritati.
|
Student: Discuss
the third point implied in my response to the argument
made above in chapter 43, and you stated that it was
held by some to be contrary to the truth.
|
|
Magister:
Tertium quod innuebat tua responsio est quod in nullo
casu absque auctoritate principis alicui licet bellum
sive generale sive particulare suscipere, hoc est
absque auctoritate principis nulli licet alium
occidere. Quod non videtur verum. Nam publicum
latronem cuilibet licet absque auctoritate principis
occidere: Codice, Quando liceat
unicuique sine iudice se vindicare, libro
primo, et glossa notat 23 q. 3 c. Fortitudo,
et q. 5 c. Cum homo, et Extra, De
immunitate ecclesiarum, c. Inter alias.
Item, absque auctoritate principis seu iudicis licitum
est cuilibet vim vi repellere (dis. 1 Ius
naturale). Sed aliquando vis repelli non potest
nisi inferens occidatur, ergo in hoc casu licet absque
auctoritate principis bellum saltem particulare
suscipere. Item, non minus debet populus defendere
patriam contra volentes ipsum occidere et patriam
devastare quam privata persona teneatur se et res
proprias defensare. Sed persone private licet se et
res proprias absque auctoritate principis defensare et
ne occidatur occidere, ergo multo magis toti populo in
absentia principis licet se contra hostes defensare
et, ne occidetur et patriam vastetur, bellum suscipere
generale.
|
Master: The
third point which your response implied is that under
no circumstance is someone permitted to wage public or
private war without the ruler's authority, in other
words that it is not permitted to anyone to kill
someone else without the ruler's authority. This does
not appear to be true. For a highway robber may be
killed by anyone without the ruler's authority (Codex,
Quando liceat unicuique sine iudicio se vindicare,
lib. primo)[rather: Book III, title 27], and
the gloss notes this at 23 q. 3 c. Fortitudo
[col. 1294] and at q. 5 c. Cum homo [col.
1344] and in Extra, De immunitate ecclesiarum,
Inter alias [col. 1406]. Again, it is permitted
to anyone to resist force with force without the
authority of a ruler or judge (dis. 1 Ius
naturale)[col. 2]. But sometimes force cannot
be resisted unless the attacker is killed, therefore
in that case it is permitted to wage at least a
private war without the ruler's authority. Again, a
people is duty bound to defend its country against
those wishing to kill the people and devastate the
country no less than a private person is bound to
defend himself and his private possessions. But a
private person is allowed to defend himself and his
private possessions without the ruler's authority, and
to kill lest he be killed. Therefore all the more is
it permitted to the whole people to defend itself
against enemies when the ruler is absent, and to wage
a public war lest it be killed and the country
ravaged.
|
|
Discipulus: Ad
quid nituntur isti istud tertium reprobare.
|
Student: Why do
these commentators strive to condemn this third point.
|
|
Magister: Hoc
reprobant ut ex contraria veritate eliciant argumentum
ad probandum quod licet predicatoribus et doctoribus
seu magistris absque mandato cuiuscunque prelati
publice predicare atque docere doctrinam pape heretici
veritati catholice adversari.
|
Master: They
condemn it so as to derive an argument from the
contrary truth proving that it is permitted to
preachers and doctors or masters to publicly preach
and teach without mandate from any ecclesiastical
superior that the doctrine of a heretic pope is
inimical to catholic truth.
|
|
Discipulus: Quomodo.
|
Student: How is
this proved.
|
|
Magister: Hoc
modo. Bellum spiritualem contra hostem spiritualem
nitentem non solum personam privatam sed etiam totam
communitatem fidelium spiritualiter per hereticam
pravitatem extinguere non est magis illicitum, etiam
absque auctoritate principis mortalis inferioris Deo,
quam sit bellum corporale contra volentem personam
privatam vel aliquem populum neci tradere corporali.
Sed licet absque auctoritate principis in casu tam
bellum particulare quam generale corporale suscipere.
Ergo multo magis licet predicatoribus et doctoribus
seu magistris absque auctoritate principis mortalis
contra papam hereticum cupientem totam multitudinem
orthodoxorum spiritualiter heretica occidere pravitate
bellum spirituale suscipere. Ergo licet eis doctrinam
eius erroneam efficaciter reprobare et publice
expugnare.
|
Master: In this
fashion. A spiritual war against a spiritual enemy who
is attempting to spiritually annihilate through
heretical wickedness not just a private person but
also the entire community of believers, is not more
illegal (even without the authority of a mortal ruler
inferior to God) than a physical war against one who
wishes to physically destroy a private person or some
population. But one is permitted to wage physical war
both private and public without the ruler's authority.
Therefore all the more is it permitted to preachers
and doctors or masters to wage spiritual war without
the authority of a mortal ruler against a heretic pope
who intends to spiritually annihilate the entire
multitude of true believers through heretical
wickedness. Therefore they are allowed to effectively
condemn his false doctrine and to overcome it
publicly.
|
|
Discipulus: Quomodo
respondetur ad auctoritates que sonare videntur quod
absque auctoritate principis nulli licet bellum
suscipere.
|
Student: How
does one respond to the authorities which seem to say
that no one is allowed to wage war without the ruler's
mandate.
|
|
Magister: Ad
omnes unica datur responsio, quia omnes intelligende
sunt quando auctoritas principis potest convenienter
haberi. Si autem principis auctoritas convenienter
haberi non potest, vel propter eius absentiam vel
propter eius imperitiam aut impotentiam seu propter
eius malitiam, licet absque eius auctoritate ex iusta
et rationabili causa bellum suscipere non solum
particulare sed etiam generale.
|
Master: They
all receive a single answer, in that they all must be
understood as operating when the authority of the
ruler is conveniently available. If however the
ruler's authority is not conveniently available,
either because of his absence or because of his lack
of knowledge or power, or because of his wicked
disposition, one is allowed, if the cause is just and
reasonable, to wage not only private but also public
war without his authority.
|
|
Discipulus: Ista
responsio innuit quod in pluribus casibus vel propter
diversas conditiones principis licet absque eius
auctoritate bellum suscipere, unde predicta per
exempla declara.
|
Student: This
reply suggests that in many cases, or because of the
ruler's different conditions, it is permitted to wage
war without his authority. Explain the aforementioned
cases by some examples.
|
|
Magister: Omnia
per unum exemplum videntur quodammodo posse declarari.
Ponatur enim quod aliquis rex potens vel populus
aliquam civitatem invadat iniuste, satagens omnes
cives extinguere et civitatem funditus dissipare. Si
in hoc casu princeps civitatis est absens ita quod
cives eius auctoritatem et consilium non possunt
requirere, vel si princeps est alienatus a sensu vel
alias infirmus, ita quod eis non potest consulere, vel
si etiam ipsemet princeps malitiose conatur tradere
civitatem, civitati licet pro se defendenda bellum
suscipere principe minime annuente, imo ipso pro
viribus resistente. Unde et per multa exempla posset
ostendi quod plures populi et communitates sepius
deposuerunt iuste suos reges et principes et postea
sibi principes elegerunt. Ex quo patet quod etiam
populus absque auctoritate principis potuit ex causa
iusta et rationabili contra principem deponendum
bellum movere.
|
Master: It
somehow seems possible to explain everything by a
single example. Let us indeed assume that some
powerful king or people unjustly attacks a given city,
fully intent on exterminating all the citizens and
utterly destroying the city. If in this case the ruler
of the city is absent, so that the citizens are unable
to obtain his authority and directive, or if the ruler
has lost his mind or is otherwise incapacitated so
that he can give them no directive, or alternatively
if the ruler himself wickedly attempts to betray the
city, that city has the right to wage war in
self-defence without the ruler's consent, even, to be
sure, should he strongly resist this initiative.
Whence it might be shown by copious examples that many
peoples and communities frequently deposed their kings
and rulers with justice, and afterwards elected rulers
for themselves. From which it similarly appears that a
people, if its cause was just and reasonable, could
have waged war against a ruler who was to be deposed
without the ruler's authority.
|
|
Capitulum 46
|
Chapter
46
|
|
Discipulus: Michi
videtur ostensum aperte quod in pluribus casibus licet
populo absque auctoritate principis bellum generale
movere, ex quo concludi potest, ut apparet, quod licet
predicatoribus et doctoribus contra papam hereticum
absque auctoritate prelati cuiuscunque mortalis bellum
spirituale suscipere, eius doctrinam erroneam
reprobando. Nichilominus tamen peto ut ad eandem
conclusionem aliquas alias rationes adducas.
|
Student: It
seems clearly proved to me that in many cases a people
may wage a public war without the ruler's authority.
From this one may conclude, it appears, that preachers
and doctors are permitted to wage spiritual war
against a heretic pope, and condemn his false doctrine
without the authority of any mortal prelate. But I ask
nevertheless that you provide some further arguments
in favour of this conclusion.
|
|
Magister: Quod
non solum sit licitum sed etiam quod predicatores et
doctores teneantur doctrinam pape erroneam reprobare,
irrequisita auctoritate cuiuscunque prelati mortalis
videtur posse probari secundo principaliter sic. Qui
officium susceptum vel commissum negligit exercere est
merito arguendus. Talis enim servo nequam qui
abscondit talentum sibi commissum non immerito
comparatur. Facit etiam contra preceptum Apostoli
scribentis 2 ad Tim. 4: "ministerium tuum imple". Sed
ad officium predicatorum et doctorum spectat veritatem
catholicam affirmare, et pravitatem hereticam
confutare, que duo sunt opera sapientis, scilicet non
mentiri de quibus novit, et mentientem posse
manifestare. Ergo ad predicatores et doctores spectat
perfidiam pape heretici confutare.
|
Master: Here is
the second main argument which it appears possible to
advance to prove that it is not only legal for
preachers and doctors to condemn the pope's false
doctrine, but that they are obligated to act without
asking for the authoritative sanction of any mortal
prelate. He who neglects to perform an assumed or
assigned official duty merits blame. Such a person may
deservedly be compared to the bad servant who conceals
the funds entrusted to him [Matthew 25:26; Luke
19:22]. This person also contradicts the command of
the Apostle writing in 2 Timothy 4: "make full proof
of thy ministry"[2 Timothy 4:5]. But it belongs to the
office of preachers and doctors to confirm catholic
truth and to refute heretical wickedness. These are
surely the two qualities of the wise man: not to lie
concerning what he knows, and to reveal the identity
of a liar [Ockham, Expositio super libros
Elenchorum, I, 1. par.5, in OPh III, 11, citing
Aristotle]. Therefore it pertains to preachers and
doctors to reject the treachery of a heretic pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Licet
ad predicatores et doctores pertineat pravitatem
hereticam confutare, non tamen spectat ad ipsos omnem
pravitatem hereticam confutare, quia nullus posset hoc
facere. Ergo per hanc rationem probari non potest quod
ad eos spectat perfidiam pape heretici reprobare.
|
Student: Although
it pertains to preachers and doctors to refute
heretical wickedness, it is surely not their business
to refute every single heretical wickedness since no
one would have the stamina for this. Therefore this
argument cannot prove that it is their task to condemn
the treachery of a heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Hec
responsio non sufficit ut videtur multis quia,
secundum beatum Gregorium, secundum qualitatem
auditorum debet formari sermo doctorum, et videtur
accepisse a beato Petro qui, ut legitur 8 q. 1 c. Oportet
ait: "oportet eum qui docet et instruit animas rudes
esse talem ut pro ingenio discentium semetipsum possit
aptare et verbi ordinem pro audientis capacitate
dirigere". Sic oportet predicatorem et doctorem
secundum varietatem temporum doctrinam suam
audientibus ministrare ut quando ab hereticis de
aliquibus erroribus specialibus invaduntur, per
doctrinam predicatorum et doctorum contra eosdem
errores specialiter muniantur. Si ergo papa hereticus
virus sue perfidie in fideles laborat transfundere
oportet predicatores et doctores sue perfidie
specialiter obviare et de veritate contraria auditores
salubriter informare.
|
Master: It
seems to many that this reply is unconvincing for the
following reason. According to blessed Gregory the
speech of doctors must conform to the quality of the
audience [Moralia in Job,
book 30, section 12 in PL 76 col. 530], and it seems
that he borrowed this idea from blessed Peter who
states (we read this in 8 q. 1 c. Oportet):
"it is proper that he who teaches and instructs
uncultured souls be able to adjust himself to the
intelligence of the learners, and construct his verbal
delivery according to the hearer's capacity"[col.
594]. In similar fashion it is proper for the preacher
and doctor to present his doctrine to listeners in
conjunction with the shifting requirements of the
time, so that when heretics putting forth certain
specific errors assault these listeners, they might be
specifically protected against those very errors by
the doctrine of preachers and doctors. Therefore if a
heretic pope exerts himself to transfer the poison of
his treachery unto believers, it is proper for
preachers and doctors to specifically oppose his
treachery and inform their audience with good effect
of the contrary truth.
|
|
Discipulus: Puto
quod hanc rationem intelligo, ideo alias non differas
allegare.
|
Student: I
think that I understand this one, therefore do not
delay the presentation of other arguments.
|
|
Magister: Tertio
principaliter videtur sic posse probari. Ille cui ex
officio incumbit peccanti resistere, si non resistit
peccanti, consentit, et simili modo cum eo iudicandus
est culpabilis. Hec est enim ratio quare sepe
taciturnitas et dissimulatio imputantur prelatis que
tamen subditis minime imputantur, quia ad prelatos et
potestatem habentes spectat sepe peccantibus obviare,
quod tamen ad subditos minime spectat. Sed
predicatoribus et doctoribus ex officio suscepto
incumbit perfidie pape heretici fidem corrumpere
satagentis resistere. Ideo enim, ut dictum est,
officium predicatoris et doctoris debent suscipere ut
doceant catholicam veritatem et confutent hereticam
pravitatem. Ergo si non resistunt pape heretico cum
possunt, eius perfidiam reprobando, eidem consentiunt
et simili modo cum eo sunt culpabiles reputandi. Unde
virtute istius medii omnes auctoritates supra capitulo
38 introducte (et alie que sonare videntur quod qui
non resistit peccanti cum potest, consentit) ad
predictam conclusionem possunt adduci.
|
Master: A third
possible main argument appears to be this. He who is
charged with the official duty of resisting the sinner
consents to the latter's transgression if he fails to
perform this duty, and must be judged to share the
sinner's guilt. And this is the reason why silence and
dissimulation are frequently held as proof against
prelates and not against subjects, since it is
frequently the duty of prelates and of such as wield
power to move against sinners, which is a task hardly
pertaining to subjects. And it is surely the assumed
official duty of preachers and doctors to resist the
treachery of a heretic pope attempting to corrupt the
faith. And thus, as was mentioned, preachers and
doctors must assume their offices in order to teach
catholic truth and refute heretical wickedness [1
Dial. 7.42,43]. Therefore if they do not resist a
heretic pope when they have the power to do so by
condemning his treachery, they consent to his action
and are to be reckoned as guilty as he is. Note that a
consequence of this approach is that all the
authorities introduced earlier in chapter 38 (as well
as others which appear to denote that he who does not
resist a sinner when he can, consents to the sinner's
act) may be utilized to reach the same conclusion.
|
|
Quarto principaliter sic arguitur.
Omnis perfidia inimicorum fidei odio est habenda,
teste Psalmista qui ait: "iniquos odio habui," et
alibi ait: "omnem viam iniquam odio habui," et rursus
ait: "nonne qui oderunt te Domine oderam, et super
inimicos tuos tabescebam. Perfecto odio oderam illos,
inimici facti sunt michi." Ex quibus verbis colligitur
quod omnis nequitia et malitia odio est habenda, et
quod inimici Dei in quantum sunt inimici Dei odio sunt
habendi. Quod etiam ipse Salvator testatur Luc. 14:
"si quis venit ad me et non odit patrem suum et matrem
et uxorem et filios et fratres et sorores adhuc autem
et animam suam, non potest esse meus discipulus". Ex
quibus verbis colligitur quod hoc est in omni homine
odiendum quod est in eo Deo contrarium. Perfidia autem
pape heretici est Deo contraria, ergo odio est
habenda. Sed predicatores et doctores odio non habent
perfidiam pape heretici nisi ipsam, debitis
circumstantiis observatis, detestantur, persequuntur,
et improbare nituntur. Ergo predicatores et doctores
ipsam oportet perfidiam pape heretici reprobare. Maior
videtur evidens. Minor aperte probatur. Quia sicut
secundum beatum Gregorium probatio dilectionis
exhibitio est operis, ita etiam probatio odii
exhibitio est operis. Et secundum eundem Gregorium
amor non est otiosus sed multa operatur si est. Ita
etiam odium non est otiosum sed multa operatur si est.
Amor enim et odium sunt cause distincte distinctos
effectus habentes, et ideo sicut ex amore, si est,
multi sequuntur effectus, ita etiam ex odio plures
effectus emanant. Quare ex odio si est verum respectu
perfidie pape heretici in predicatoribus et doctoribus
opera exteriora sequuntur. Persecutio autem est
effectus odii, et similiter reprobatio et detestatio
exterior. Quare si predicatores et doctores vere
odiunt perfidiam et malitiam pape heretici, ipsam
efficaciter persequuntur. Quod Augustinus, ut habetur
23 q. 4 c. Duo ista, insinuare videtur
dicens: "duo ista nomina cum dicimus, homo peccator,
non utique frustra dicuntur. Quia peccator est,
corripe, et quia homo, miserere, nec omnino liberabis
hominem, nisi cum persecutus fueris peccatorem. Huic
officio nominis invigilet disciplina", et infra: "ita
nulli homini claudenda est misericordia sicut nullo
peccatori impunitas relaxanda". Ex quibus verbis
colligitur quod quilibet ex necessitate tenetur,
quantum sibi licet pro gradu suo et officio, corripere
et persequi peccatorem. Ergo predicatores et doctores
oportet persequi modo congruenti sibi, scilicet
reprobando perfidiam pape heretici.
|
The fourth main argument is this.
Every treachery of the enemies of the faith must be
hated, witness the Psalmist who states: "I hated the
wicked" [Psalms 118:113], and elsewhere he states: "I
have hated every evil way" [Psalms 118:128], and again
he states: "do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate
Thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up
against Thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count
them mine enemies"[Psalms 138:21-22]. We gather from
these words that every villainy and wickedness must be
hated, and that the enemies of God must be hated in so
far as they are enemies of god. And the Saviour
himself attests to this in Luke 14: "if any man come
to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple"[Luke 14:26].
We gather from these words that we must hate in the
person of every man what is in opposition to God. And
the treachery of a heretic pope is opposed to God,
therefore it must be hated. But preachers and doctors
do not hate the treachery of a heretic pope unless,
taking account of appropriate circumstances, they
detest it, persecute it, and attempt to repudiate it.
Therefore it is proper that preachers and doctors
condemn this treachery of a heretic pope. The major
premiss of the argument seems evident. The minor is
patently proved. For just as, according to blessed
Gregory, the proof of love is its active practice [Homilia
30 in Evangelia, ad Ioh. 14:23-31, in PL 76,
col. 1220], so likewise the proof of hate is its
active practice. And according to the same Gregory
love is not idle but produces many effects if it
exists [ibid., col. 1221]. And in similar
fashion, hate is not idle but produces many effects if
it exists. For love and hate are separate causes,
which produce separate effects, and therefore just as
many effects follow from love if it exists, so also do
many effects follow from hate. Hence if the hate of a
heretic pope's treachery be true in preachers and
doctors, there will follow visible acts. But
persecution is an effect of hate, and so is a visible
condemnation and detestation. Hence if preachers and
doctors truly hate the treachery and wickedness of a
heretic pope, they will persecute it with effect. This
is what Augustine seems to convey when he states (as
we read in 23 q. 4 c. Duo ista): "when we
utter these two words, 'sinner man', they are
certainly not uttered in vain. Since he is a sinner,
rebuke him, and because he is a man, show him mercy,
nor will you ever liberate the man unless you will
have persecuted the sinner. Verbal precision
diligently secures such a process"[col. 915], and
further on: "thus mercy is to be denied to no man,
just as exemption from punishment is to be granted to
no sinner"[col. 916]. We gather from these words that
everyone is necessarily bound (to the extent that his
office and estate allows) to rebuke and to persecute
the sinner. Therefore it is proper that preachers and
doctors should proceed with such persecution according
to the method which corresponds to their function,
namely by condemning the treachery of a heretic pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Ex
hac ratione haberetur quod predicatores et doctores
deberent omnium hereticorum doctrinam erroneam
reprobare, imo omnem peccatorem persequi tenerentur,
quod eis impossibile esse dinoscitur. Nullus autem ad
impossibile obligatur.
|
Student: One
might conclude from this argument that preachers and
doctors would be obligated to condemn the false
doctrine of each and every heretic, in fact that they
would be bound to persecute every sinner, which is
clearly an impossible task for them. And no one has
the duty to perform the impossible.
|
|
Magister: Ad
hoc respondetur quod sicut debemus diligere omnes
proximos (et ideo papam tam hereticum quam catholicum
tenemur diligere), non tamen omnibus possumus actu in
speciali beneficia exhibere, sed debemus esse parati
tempore necessitatis pro posse omni indigenti
succurrere. Ita omnes iniquos in quantum iniqui sunt
odire tenemur, et secundum preparationem cordis omnes
persequi astricti sumus. Illum tamen qui deterior est
et magis perniciosus populo christiano fortiusque
honorem Dei conatur minuere, omnes catholici fortius
et melius persequi astringuntur. Et ideo cum papa
hereticus sit deterior et magis nocivus populo
christiano quam alii minus mali, illum singulariter
persequi debent catholici universi, et ideo
predicatores et doctores singulariter contra papam
hereticum debent suum officium exercere, ipsum
efficacissime et doctrinam suam erroneam reprobando.
|
Master: The
answer to this is that just as we have the duty to
love all our neighbours (and therefore we are bound to
love a pope who is a heretic no less than a catholic
one), and yet we cannot demonstrate goodness to
everyone specifically, but must be prepared when
necessary to assist everyone in need as best we can,
so are we obligated to hate all the wicked in so far
as they are wicked, and we are bound to persecute them
all with potential readiness to act. But all Catholics
are obligated to persecute more strongly and
effectively someone who is more wicked and more
destructive to the Christian people, and who attempts
to lessen the honour of God with greater force. And
therefore since a heretic pope is more wicked and more
destructive to the Christian people than others of
lesser wickedness, all Catholics without exception
must specifically target him for persecution.
Therefore preachers and doctors must exercise their
office specifically against a heretic pope, condemning
both him and his false doctrine with utmost effect.
|
|
Discipulus: Si
rationes alias cogitasti, allega.
|
Student: If you
have thought of further arguments, bring them forth.
|
|
Magister: Quinto
principaliter arguitur sic. Sicut oculi corporis
materialis qui sibi et aliis partibus corporis minime
vident illa que sunt eis periculosa et nociva (puta
foveas, laqueos, hostes, bestias, et alia que possunt
inferre corpori lesionem) inutiles reputantur, sic
oculi corporis spiritualis, puta ecclesie, qui sibi et
ecclesie nequaquam monstrant pericula imminentia
ecclesie universe inutiles sunt censendi. Oculi autem
ecclesie sunt predicatores et doctores qui bona et
mala, virtutes et vitia, periculosa et utilia, debent
aliis et sibi videri ac monstrare. Maximum autem
periculum imminet ecclesie Dei quando papa est
hereticus. Ergo si predicatores et doctores non vident
nec monstrant ecclesie periculum quod ex perfidie pape
heretici ecclesie imminet orthodoxe inutiles sunt
censendi.
|
Master: The
fifth main argument is this. Just as the eyes of a
material body are reckoned to be useless if they do
not see, for their benefit and that of other parts of
the body, those objects which are dangerous and
harmful to all (for instance pits, snares, enemies,
wild animals, and other objects which may cause injury
to the body), so the eyes of a spiritual body such as
the church are to be judged useless if they do not see
and show for their benefit and that of the church the
dangers which threaten the universal church. But
preachers and doctors are the eyes of the church, and
they must see and show to others and to themselves
good and bad, virtues and vices, perils and
opportunities. And when the pope is a heretic, the
greatest of dangers threatens the church of God.
Therefore if preachers and doctors neither see nor
point out to the church the danger that threatens the
church of true believers because of the treachery of a
heretic pope, they must be judged useless.
|
|
Sexto sic. Sicut ad testem
pertinet in iudicio perhibere testimonium veritati,
sic ad predicatores et doctores spectat in suis
sermonibus et lectionibus asserere veritatem et
veritati testimonium perhibere, imo predicatores et
doctores videntur testes veritatis. Unde quia apostoli
predicaturi et docturi veritatem fuerunt, testes
veritatis poterant merito appellari, iuxta illud
Redemptoris Act. 1: "eritis michi testes in Hierusalem
et in omni Iudea etc." Et ut legitur in eodem
capitulo, beatus Petrus dixit: "oportet ergo ex his
viris qui nobiscum congregati sunt in omni tempore quo
intravit et exivit inter nos Dominus Iesus incipiens a
baptismate Iohannis usque in diem qua adsumptus est a
nobis testem resurrectionis eius nobiscum fieri unum
ex istis". Predicatores ergo et doctores sunt testes
veritatis. Sed testes cum in iudicio examinantur
tenentur contra papam hereticum asserere veritatem.
Ergo predicatores et doctores in sermonibus et
lectionibus suis contra papam hereticum testimonium
veritati perhibere tenentur.
|
Here is the sixth argument. Just
as it is the business of a witness in court to testify
to the truth, so does it pertain to preachers and
doctors to proclaim the truth in their sermons and
lectures, and bear witness to it. Indeed preachers and
doctors are perceived as witnesses of the truth.
Hence, because the apostles were to preach and teach
the truth, they could deservedly be called witnesses
of the Truth, according to the statement of the
Redeemer in Acts 1: "ye shall be witnesses unto me
both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea etc."[Acts 1:8]
And as we read in the same chapter, blessed Peter
stated: "wherefore of these men which have companied
with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and
out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto
that same day that he was taken up from us, must one
be ordained to be a witness with us of his
resurrection"[Acts 1:21-22]. Therefore preachers and
doctors are witnesses of the truth. But when they are
examined in court, witnesses are bound to state the
truth against a heretic pope. Therefore preachers and
doctors are bound to bear witness to the truth against
a heretic pope in their sermons and lectures.
|
|
Discipulus: Ista
ratio probare videtur quod tunc solummodo predicatores
et doctores in suis sermonibus et lectionibus debeant
contra papam hereticum asserere veritatem quando ad
hoc a suis superioribus compelluntur, quemadmodum
testes tunc solummodo contra papam hereticum perhibere
testimonium veritati tenentur quando ad hoc per suos
superiores artantur.
|
Student: This
argument seems to prove that preachers and doctors are
only bound to assert the truth against a heretic pope
in their sermons and lectures when they are ordered to
do this by their superiors, in the same manner in
which witnesses are only obligated to testify to the
truth against a heretic pope when they are bound to do
so by their superiors.
|
|
Magister: Ista
responsio vel obiectio nulla quibusdam apparet, nam
non solummodo testis debet perhibere testimonium
veritati quando a suo superiori compellitur, imo sepe
ad hoc ex conscientia sine omni coactione per
superiorem astringitur. Quia sicut caritatis affectio
quam quilibet ad alium habere tenetur suggerit
unicuique ut quod uni prodest et alteri non nocet
illud nequaquam prohibeat, sic eadem caritatis
affectio monet unumquemque ut quod alteri prodest et
sibi si faciat minime nocet alteri faciat iuxta
regulam Salvatoris qua unusquisque iubetur alii facere
quod sibi vult fieri, que regula tunc videtur precipue
locum habere quando facere alteri quod sibi vult fieri
nulli nocet nec corporaliter nec spiritualiter. Sed
sepe ferre testimonium veritati etiam coram non
superiore suo sibi non nocet et alteri multum prodest,
quia liberat eum a dampno vel periculo absque
detrimento sui. Ergo tunc quamvis testis non fuerit a
superiori compulsus tenetur perhibere testimonium
veritati. Ergo consimiliter predicatores et doctores,
quando possunt liberare auditores suos ne incidant in
perfidiam pape heretici, de necessitate salutis
tenentur suis auditoribus veritatem contra papam
hereticum indicare.
|
Master: This
reply or objection appears worthless to some. For a
witness must not only testify to the truth when
compelled by his superior, indeed he is frequently
obligated to do so by his conscience without any
coercion from a superior. Because just as the feeling
of charity which everyone is bound to have towards
another suggests to anyone that he should never forbid
something which is useful to one party and does no
harm to another, so the same feeling of charity warns
anyone that he do to another what is beneficial to
that person and if performed does him, the actor, no
harm. In this he would be following the rule of our
Saviour by which everyone is commanded to do to
another what he wishes done to himself [Matthew 7:17].
This rule is especially appropriate when doing to
another what the actor wishes done to himself harms no
one either physically or spiritually. But frequently,
testifying to the truth even before someone who is not
his superior does no harm to the actor and is most
useful to another, because it frees the latter from
condemnation or danger without detriment to the actor.
Therefore in such circumstances a witness is bound to
testify to the truth even if a superior didn't coerce
him. Therefore in a similar manner preachers and
doctors when they can liberate their listeners from
falling into the faithlessness of a heretic pope, are
bound by necessity of salvation to reveal the truth to
their audiences against a heretic pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Tenetne
aliquis modernorum doctorum mutuo se reprobantium quod
testis aliquando non compulsus a superiore tenetur
perhibere testimonium veritati.
|
Student: Does
any one of the mutually conflicting modern doctors
hold that a witness must sometimes bear witness to the
truth without being compelled to this by a superior.
|
|
Magister: Thomas
de Aquino hoc videtur asserere 2a 2e, q.70, art. 1,
dicens: "si vero requiratur eius testimonium non
auctoritate superioris cui obedire tenetur tunc
distinguendum est. Quia si testimonium requiratur ad
liberandum hominem vel ab iniusta morte seu pena
quacunque, vel a falsa infamia, vel etiam ab iniquo
dampno, tunc tenetur homo ad testificandum. Et si eius
testimonium non requiratur, tenetur facere quod in se
est ut veritatem annunciet alicui qui ad hoc possit
prodesse. Dicitur enim in Psalmo 81: 'eripite
pauperem, et egenum de manu peccatoris liberate', et
Prov. 24: 'erue eos qui ducuntur ad mortem', et Rom. 1
dicitur: 'digni sunt morte non solum qui faciunt sed
etiam qui consentiunt facientibus', ubi glossa dicit
quod 'consentire est tacere cum possis redarguere'".
Ex quibus patet quod testis tenetur testimonium
perhibere veritati quandoque quamvis per superiorem
minime compellatur, et per auctoritates quas iste
adducit ostenditur quod predicatores et doctores in
suis sermonibus et lectionibus tenentur si possunt
auditores suos ne incidant in perfidiam pape heretici
preservare, quia ad eundem spectat aliquem ab
ingruente periculo liberare ad quem spectat alium a
periculo in quod incidit si potest eripere.
|
Master: Thomas
Aquinas appears to assert this in 2.2, q. 70, art. 1 [Summa
Theologie] where he states: "if on the other
hand his testimony is not required by authority of a
superior he is bound to obey, then we must make a
distinction. Because if the testimony is needed to
liberate an individual either from an unjust death or
from any punishment, or from a false defamation, or
even from an inequitable fine, then a man is obligated
to testify. And if his testimony is not requested, he
is bound to do what he can to reveal the truth to
someone who might be helpful in this. For it is said
in Psalms 81: 'deliver the poor and needy, rid them
out of the hand of the wicked' [Psalms 81:4], and in
Proverbs 24: 'deliver them that are drawn unto death'
[Proverbs 24:11], and in Romans 1 it is said: 'are
worthy of death not only they who act but also they
who consent to the actors' [Romans 1:32], where the
gloss states that 'to consent is to remain silent when
you can prove a statement untrue' [Glossa
ordinaria to the Bible]". It is evident from
this that sometimes a witness is bound to testify to
the truth although not compelled to do so by a
superior. And by the authorities which he (Aquinas)
provides one shows that in their sermons and lectures
preachers and doctors are obligated, if they can, to
preserve their audiences from falling into the
faithlessness of a heretical pope, because it pertains
to the same person to liberate someone from a
threatening danger, to whom it pertains if he can to
rescue someone from a danger in which that individual
has already fallen.
|
|
Discipulus: Adhuc
alias rationes ad conclusionem principalem allega.
|
Student: Continue
to present arguments in favour of the main conclusion.
|
|
Magister: Septimo
probatur eadem conclusio sic. Sicut advocatus
patrocinium cause iuste prestare tenetur ita
predicatores et doctores veritatem catholicam docere
et pravitatem hereticam reprobare tenentur. Sed
advocatus cause catholicorum contra papam hereticum
patrocinium prestare tenetur, quia advocatus
patrocinium prestare tenetur cause pauperum. Hoc enim
est opus misericordie ad quod pro loco et tempore et
aliis circumstantiis debitis observatis quilibet
obligatur. Ergo multo magis debet advocatus cause
catholicorum contra papam hereticum patrocinium et
defensionem impendere eo quod causa fidei est cause
cuiuscunque pauperis preferenda. Ergo consimiliter
predicatores et doctores in suis sermonibus et
lectionibus debent prestando patrocinium cause fidei
papam hereticum eiusque doctrinam erroneam confutare.
|
Master: The
seventh proof for that conclusion is this. As a lawyer
is bound to present a patron's (=defender's) plea on
behalf of a just cause, so are preachers and doctors
bound to teach catholic truth and to condemn heretical
wickedness. But the advocate of the Catholics' cause
against a heretic pope is obligated to plea as their
legal patron. Note that a lawyer must plead as an
unpaid patron in a cause involving the poor, since
that is an act of compassion to which everyone is
obligated depending on time and place, and taking
account of appropriate circumstances. Therefore all
the more must the advocate of the Catholics' cause
against a heretic pope provide them defence and
patronage, given that the cause of faith is more
important than the cause of any poor individual.
Similarly therefore preachers and doctors are
obligated to refute a heretic pope and his false
doctrine in their sermons and lectures by providing a
patron's plea for the cause of faith.
|
|
Discipulus: Non
videtur quod advocatus semper teneatur causis pauperum
patrocinium impartiri, quia tunc oporteret ipsum omnia
alia negotia sua et aliorum dimittere, et eadem
ratione non semper tenentur predicatores et doctores
perfidiam pape heretici reprobare.
|
Student: It is
not apparent that a lawyer must always be available as
a free patron in causes involving the poor, since it
might then be demanded that he abandon all his other
causes on behalf of other clients. For the same reason
preachers and doctors are not always bound to condemn
the treachery of a heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Non
intendunt isti quod semper advocatus causis pauperum
patrocinium teneatur impendere, nec quod semper omnes
predicatores et doctores papam hereticum debeant in
suis lectionibus et predicationibus reprobare, sed
intendunt quod sicut advocatus quando non apparet in
promptu quod per alium modum quam per suum iuvamen
potest causa pauperis sublevari, tunc de necessitate
salutis ei tenetur patrocinium exhibere. Ita
predicatores et doctores oportet viriliter pape
heretico obviare quando non apparent alii in promptu
qui causam fidei velint et valeant contra papam
hereticum defensare.
|
Master: These
commentators do not argue that a lawyer is bound at
all times to provide a financially unrewarded defence
to the causes of the poor, nor that preachers and
doctors must at all times condemn a heretic pope in
their lectures and sermons. Their point is that a
lawyer is bound by necessity of salvation to provide a
free defence to a poor individual when it is readily
apparent that the cause of this poor person cannot be
alleviated except through such assistance. In the same
fashion it is proper for preachers and doctors to
courageously confront a heretic pope when it is
readily apparent that there are no others who are
willing and able to defend the cause of faith against
a heretic pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Adducas
rationes alias si tibi occurrunt.
|
Student: Present
additional arguments if they occur to you.
|
|
Magister: Octava
ratio est hec. Sicut ad accusatorem spectat crimen
perniciosum rei publice quod potest probare iudici
accusare, ita ad predicatores et doctores spectat
errores perniciosos contra fidem catholicam
insurgentes reprobare. Sed sciens papam esse hereticum
et conantem a fide avertere orthodoxos ipsum, si
potest probare, accusare tenetur. Igitur predicatores
et doctores scientes papam hereticum laborare fidem
corrumpere orthodoxam doctrinam suam erroneam
reprobare tenentur. Maior videtur aperta. Minor
probatur auctoritate Gregorii qui, ut legitur 2 q. 7
c. Sicut, ait: "sicut laudabile discretumque
est reverentiam et honorem exhibere prioribus, ita
rectitudinis et Dei honoris est, si qua in eis sunt
que indigent correctione, nulla dissimulatione
postponere, ne totum (quod absit) corpus morbus
invadat, si languor non fuerit curatus in capite". Ex
quibus verbis colligitur quod ad rectitudinem Deique
timorem spectat accusare quemcunque prelatum qui totum
corpus conatur inficere. Cum ergo papa hereticus totum
corpus ecclesie heretica pravitate molitur inficere,
papa hereticus est a scientibus et probare valentibus
accusandus.
|
Master: The
eighth argument is this. Just as it pertains to an
accuser (who has adequate evidence) to lay out before
the judge a crime fatal to the public weal, so is it
the business of preachers and doctors to condemn
deadly errors which arise against the catholic faith.
But he who knows that the pope is a heretic attempting
to turn true believers away from the faith must accuse
this pope if he has adequate proof. Therefore
preachers and doctors who know that a heretic pope is
exerting himself to corrupt the true faith must
condemn his false doctrine. The major premiss seems
obvious. The minor is proved by the authority of
Gregory who states (we read this in 2 q. 7 c. Sicut):
"just as it is worthy of notice and praise to
demonstrate respect and honour to priors, so is it a
matter of right and of God's honour not to delay
through postponement if there are aspects of their
behaviour which require correction, lest (God forbid)
the disease should invade the entire body if the
head's illness be not cured"[col. 499]. We gather from
these words that to accuse any prelate who is
attempting to poison an entire body is a matter of
right and fear of God. Therefore since a heretic pope
is trying to infect the whole body of the church with
heretical wickedness, those who know this and are able
to prove it must accuse a heretic pope.
|
|
Capitulum 47
|
Chapter
47
|
|
Discipulus: Pro
assertione predicta ad presens nolo plures rationes
audire, quia satis videtur probabile quod predicatores
et doctores si simul concordaverint debeant unanimiter
doctrinam pape erroneam reprobare. Sed nunquid si
multitudo predicatorum et doctorum seu magistrorum
pape heretico consenserit, faverit, vel non
restiterit, debent pauci doctrine pape erronee
obviare.
|
Student: I do
not wish at this time to hear further arguments in
support of the stated position, since it seems
probable enough that if preachers and doctors were of
one mind they would be bound to unanimously condemn
the false doctrine of the pope. But if the multitude
of preachers and doctors or masters were to agree with
a heretic pope, show him favour, or not resist him, is
it really possible that a remaining few would be
obligated to oppose the pope's erroneous doctrine.
|
|
Magister: Sunt
quidam dicentes quod si pauci predicatores et doctores
in doctrina permanserint orthodoxa, et tota alia
multitudo pape heretico consensum et favorem
prebuerit, illi pauci debent ei resistere modis
congruis toto posse. Imo si unus solus remaneret fixus
in fide, deberet intrepide doctrinam erroneam pape
heretici improbare, exemplo Helie prophete qui,
quamvis putasset se solum prophetam fidelem Dei fuisse
relictum, a fide vera minime deviavit, sed hereticos
et apostatas quando fuit opportunitas constantissime
confutavit. Et per consequens multo magis, si aliquis
prelatus cum paucis predicatoribus et doctoribus sibi
subiectis pape heretico nullatenus consentiret, tota
alia multitudine suis erroribus adherente, illi
predicatores et doctores pauci una cum prelato suo
debent doctrine pape erronee contraire. Deberetque
prelatus dicere cum Mathatia illud 1 Mac. 2: "Et si
omnes gentes regi Antiocho" (hoc est pape heretico)
"obedient ut discedat unusquisque a servitute patrum
suorum et consentiunt mandatis eius, ego et filii mei
et fratres mei obediemus legi patrum nostrorum.
Propitius sit nobis Deus. Non est nobis utile
relinquere legem et iustitias Dei. Non audibimus verba
regis Antiochi" (id est pape heretici) "nec
sacrificabimus transgredientes legis nostre mandata ut
eamus altera via".
|
Master: There
are some who say that if a few preachers and doctors
maintained their commitment to orthodox doctrine,
while the entire remaining multitude provided consent
and favour to a heretic pope, those few would have the
duty to resist him by appropriate means with all their
strength. Indeed if but a single doctor remained firm
in the faith, he would be obligated to attack
fearlessly the false doctrine of a heretic pope,
following the example of the prophet Elijah, who,
although he believed himself to be the sole remaining
faithful prophet of God [1 Kings 18:22], did not
swerve from the true faith, but spoke out against
heretics and apostates with utmost consistency when he
had the opportunity to do so. And consequently if some
prelate with a few preachers and doctors subject to
him had in no way given his consent to a heretic pope
while the entire remaining multitude supported the
heretic pope's errors, those few preachers and doctors
along with their prelate should oppose all the more
strongly the false doctrine of the pope. And this
prelate should utter, along with Mathathias, the
following words of 1 Maccabees 2: "even if all people
should obey king Antiochus" (that is to say the
heretic pope) "so that everyone would abandon the
tradition of their fathers and consent to the orders
of the king, I, and my sons, and my brothers, will
continue to obey the law of our fathers. May God be
favourable to us. We do not deem it useful for us to
abandon the law and the justices of God. We will not
listen to the words of king Antiochus" (i.e. of the
heretic pope) "we will not offer sacrifice, and will
not break the commands of our law so as to adopt
another path"[1 Maccabees 2:19-22].
|
|
Discipulus: Videtur
quod si pauci resisterent toti residue multitudini
christianorum laborarent in vanum. Ergo hoc attemptare
nullo modo deberent.
|
Student: It
appears that if a few were to resist to the whole
remaining multitude of Christians, they would be
labouring in vain. Therefore they should in no way
attempt to do this.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod pauci non deberent de victoria desperare. Imo
unus solus de victoria sperare deberet, quia ut
habetur 1 Mac. 3: "non est differentia in conspectus
Dei celi liberare in multis et in paucis, quia non in
multitudine exercitus victoria belli sed de celo
fortitudo est". Et 1 Reg. 14 sic habetur: "non est
Domino difficile salvare vel in multitudine vel in
paucis". Et 2 Para. 14 sic habetur: "Domine non est
apud te ulla distantia utrum in paucis auxilieris an
in pluribus". Ex quibus patet quod si pauci contra
papam hereticum bellum susciperent, tota alia
multitudine sibi perperam adherente, de victoria
desperare non debent, quia bellum tale non est bellum
eorum sed bellum Domini, qui est Veritas que super
omnes vincit in veritate. Ergo habentes fiduciam, pro
eadem certent usque ad mortem, et Deus expugnabit pro
eis inimicos eorum.
|
Master: The
answer is that these few ought not to despair of
gaining victory. Indeed even a single individual must
hope to be victorious, because (we have this in 1
Maccabees 3): "there is no difference in the
perspective of the God of heaven to effect liberation
through many or through few, since victory in war does
not depend on the army's numbers, and strength comes
from heaven"[1 Maccabees 3:18-19]. And in 1 Kings 14
we have this: "for there is no restraint to the Lord
to save by many or by few" [1 Samuel 14:6]. And in 2
Chronicles 14 we have this: "Lord it is nothing with
Thee to help, whether with many or with them that have
no power"[2 Chronicles 14:11]. It is evident from this
that if a few wage war against a heretic pope while
the whole remaining multitude wrongly supports him,
they ought not to despair of victory, for such a war
is not their war but the war of the Lord, and He is
Truth whose truth defeats all. Therefore let them
confidently struggle for truth unto death
[Ecclesiasticus 4:33], and God will destroy their
enemies for them.
|
|
Capitulum 48
|
Chapter
48
|
|
Discipulus:
Auctoritates prescripte michi clare demonstrant quod
unus solus catholicus posset secure bellum
contra papam hereticum cum tota sua cohorte suscipere,
nec deberet de victoria aliqualiter desperare. Dubito
autem ut, si unquam aliquis papa futurus est hereticus
pro multitudine christianorum poterit dici illud
Salvatoris: "filius hominis veniens putas inveniet
fidem in terra", quia reor quod paucissimi sibi
resistent. Puto enim quod tunc adimplebitur prophetia
beati Pauli dicentis 2 ad Tim. 4: "erit enim tempus
cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt sed ad sua
desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes
auribus et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad
fabulas autem convertentur". Quia fabulas et errores
pape heretici multitudo precipue magistrorum
ambitiosorum et avarorum sequetur. Idcirco peto ut
ostendas secundum aliquorum sententiam quid paucis in
sacra pagina eruditis (sive fuerint magistri sive
discipuli) esset agendum si papa efficeretur
hereticus, et quid omnes predicatores et doctores
haberent agere si omnes veritati fidei adhererent.
|
Student: The
authorities just outlined clearly demonstrate to me
that a single Catholic is capable of confidently
waging war against a heretic pope and all his minions,
nor should he in any way despair of victory. But if
some future pope ever becomes a heretic I am uncertain
whether the following statement of our Saviour might
be uttered about the multitude of Christians:
"nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he
find faith on the earth?"[Luke 18:8], because I fear
that very few Christians will resist the heretic pope.
Indeed I think that at that time will be fulfilled the
prophecy of blessed Paul who states in 2 Timothy 4:
"for the time will come when they will not endure
sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they
heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and
they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto fables"{2 Timothy 4:3-4]. Because
it is particularly the host of ambitious and greedy
masters which will follow the fables and errors of a
heretic pope. I pray therefore that you will reveal by
reference to the opinion of some, what ought to be
done by those few learned persons (whether they be
masters or students) should the pope become a heretic,
and what would all preachers and doctors have to do if
they all supported the truth of faith.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod si papa de doctrina diffamaretur erronea, omnes
predicatores et doctores seu lectores vel magistri,
imo etiam omnes literati quantum uniuscuiusque ingenio
et scientie conveniret deberent doctrinam pape
erroneam videre, studere, examinare et discutere
diligenter, exemplo illorum de quibus dicitur Act.17:
"cotidie scrutantes scripturas si hec ita se
haberent".
|
Master: Here is
the answer. If the pope were defamed of spreading
erroneous doctrine, all preachers and doctors or
lecturers or masters, indeed even all the learned to
the extent that this would apply to anyone's intellect
and knowledge, would have the duty to see, to study,
to examine and to discuss the pope's false theory,
following the example of those about whom it is said
in Acts 17 that they "searched the Scriptures daily,
whether those things were so" [Acts 17:11].
|
|
Discipulus: Hoc
dicitur de illis qui scrutantur cotidie veritatem, non
de scrutantibus doctrinas erroneas.
|
Student: This
is said of those who search for the truth daily, not
of those who scrutinize false doctrines.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod ad eosdem spectat scrutari veritatem et errores
contrarias, testante Salomone qui Ecclesiasti 1 ait:
"dedique cor meum ut scirem prudentiam atque doctrinam
erroresque et stultitiam". Ex quibus verbis colligitur
quod ita investigandi et discutiendi sunt errores
contra fidem sicut catholice veritates quia, ut
Sapiens attestatur: "idem est iudex sui et obliqui",
et "eadem est scientia contrariorum". Oportet ergo
predicatores et doctores errores pape heretici
examinare, studere, et discutere diligenter, quia sic
ad veritates plures quas antea nescierunt pervenient,
teste glossa accepta ab Augustino 1 Cor. 11 qui ait:
"ab adversario mota questio discendi extitit occasio".
|
Master: One
replies that it pertains to the same persons to
scrutinize truth and errors contrary thereto, as
witnesses Solomon who states in Ecclesiastes 1: "and I
gave my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and
folly"[Ecclesiastes 1:17]. From these words one
gathers that errors against the faith are to be
investigated and discussed as much as catholic truths,
because, as the Wise One attests: "the same one is
judge of the direct and of the slanted"[Aristotle, De
anima, I, 5. Cf. also J. Hamesse, Les
Auctoritates Aristotelis, Louvain-Paris 1974,
p. 176], and: "the science of contraries is one and
the same"[Aristotle, Physica VIII, I, 8 (and
Ockham, OPh VI, p. 119). Cf. also J. Hamesse, op.
cit., pp. 134, 183]. It is therefore proper for
preachers and doctors to examine, to study, and to
scrupulously discuss the errors of a heretical pope,
because by proceeding in this manner they will arrive
at many truths which they previously did not know,
witness the gloss borrowed from a comment on 1
Corinthians 11 by Augustine, who states: "a problem
raised by an opponent became a learning opportunity"[De
Civitate Dei (The City of God), XVI,
2].
|
|
Discipulus: Quid
facient postquam doctrinam pape erroneam examinaverint
diligenter.
|
Student: What
will they do after having scrupulously examined the
erroneous doctrine of the pope.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod rationibus et scripturarum testimoniis contra eam
quantum possunt debent se munire, ac illi qui
scribendi gratiam receperunt scribant et componant
libros, tractaus, sermones et epistolas, secundum quod
videtur expediens ad reprobandum doctrinam pape
erroneam, opera vero sua modis sibi possibilibus
communicent et divulgent, nominibus suis tacitis vel
expressis, secundum quod expedire videtur. Quedam enim
opera ratione auctoris videntur libentius, et tunc
erit utile nomen auctoris exprimere. Interdum vero
multi odio habent auctorem, et tunc illis nomen
auctoris operis expedit occultare, ut emuli non quis
dicat sed quid dicatur intendant. Illi vero qui
libros, tractatus, et alia opera componendi gratiam
minime habent, in scripturis auctenticis et etiam in
operibus novis in quibus magis discrete doctrina pape
erronea reperitur se occupent studiose, ut cum tempus
venerit opportunum errores pape valeant efficaciter
reprobare. Unde tam illi qui nova opera contra
pravitatem pape heretici ediderunt quam alii
predicatores et doctores in lectionibus et sermonibus
publicis secretisque colloquiis quandoque opportunitas
loquendi affuerit, debent errores pape secundum
gratiam eis datam efficaciter reprobare et veritatem
contrariam declarare et quantum in eis est auribus
omnium inculcare. Unde ut uno verbo quid sentiunt
manifestent, dicant quod more bellatorum qui hostes
suos aperte et per insidias et omnibus modis licitis
quos excogitare valuerint debellare nituntur, debent
predicatores et doctores seu magistri aperte et per
insidias publice et occulte ac modis sibi
convenientibus perfidiam pape heretici expugnare, nec
aliter a culpa fautorie pravitatis heretice sunt
immunes, quia non caret scrupulo societatis occulte
qui manifesto facinori desinit obviare (Extra, De
homicidio, Sicut). Quod intelligendum est cum
quis potest manifesto facinori obviare et non apparet
in promptu quod per alium facinus manifestum valeat
prohiberi.
|
Master: The
answer is that they must provide themselves with as
many arguments and scriptural attestations against it
as they possibly can, and those amongst them who have
been blessed with literary talents will write and
compose books, treatises, sermons, and letters,
whatever seems expedient, in order to condemn the
pope's erroneous doctrine. And of course they will
communicate and publish their works by whatever means
are possible to them, concealing or revealing their
names as expediency dictates. For certain works are
looked at with greater pleasure because of their
author, and in that case it will be useful to state
the author's name expressly. In some instances however
many feel hatred towards the author, and in that
situation it is expedient to conceal the author's name
from them, so that enemies concentrate not on who is
speaking but on what is being said [Seneca, De
quattuor virtutibus cardinalibus, in J.
Hamesse, op. cit., p. 282 n.8.
This doctrine was posited as the basis of Ockham's
method in the Dialogus: cf. 1 Dial. Prologus].
As for those who have little talent for composing
books, treatises and other works, let them earnestly
engross themselves in authentic scriptures and also in
the new works which analyze the pope's false doctrine
more systematically, so that when the opportune time
will come they might be able to condemn effectively
the pope's errors. Hence those preachers and doctors
who will have composed new works against the
wickedness of a heretic pope and their less creative
colleagues both have the duty, as far as their talents
allow, to effectively condemn the pope's errors and to
declare the contrary truth, impressing it on all
listeners as much as they can, in public lectures and
sermons, in secret conversations also, whenever there
might be an opportunity to speak. Hence, so as to
disclose their view in one brief sentence, these
commentators would say that, following the custom of
fighters attempting to defeat their enemies directly,
or by ambushes and all conceivably permissible
methods, preachers and doctors or masters must destroy
the treachery of a heretic pope directly or by
ambushes, publicly as well as secretly, by methods
they find convenient, nor are they otherwise free of
the sin of aiding and abetting heretical wickedness,
because "suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy
is not out of place where someone who can, fails to
act against an obvious crime"(Extra, De
homicidio, Sicut)[col. 795]. This is to be
understood of a situation where someone can prevent an
obvious crime and it is not immediately apparent that
someone else can prevent the obvious crime.
|
|
Et ideo si papa hereticus
laboraret inficere orthodoxos, doctores et
predicatores regionum ad quas doctrina pestifera pape
heretici perveniret, ne illarum incole regionum
averterentur a fide deberent viriliter obviare, nec
carent in hoc casu scrupulo societatis occulte nisi
doctrine erronee pape obviarent si in regionibus illis
non essent alii qui doctrine pape erronee scirent,
vellent, et possent resistere. Et ita predicatores et
doctores in Francia commorantes tenentur doctrinam
pape erroneam reprobare priusquam doctrina eadem in
Francia ceperit publicari, vel probabiliter dubitatur
quod aliquos corrumpet in Francia nisi resistatur
eidem. Sic predicatores et doctores Italie debent ab
eadem doctrina mortifera preservare Italiam, vel si in
aliqua sui parte infecta fuerit debent conari purgare
eandem. Et consimiliter de predicatoribus et
doctoribus aliarum regionum in quibus morantur est
dicendum. Si vero in Francia vel in alia regione sunt
aliqui predicatores et doctores seu magistri qui
sufficienter eandem regionem a dicta doctrina
preservant vel expurgant, alii predicatores et
doctores vel magistri regionis eiusdem non tenentur de
necessitate salutis doctrine illi obviare, ex quo per
alios ei sufficienter resistitur. Sed ubi alii
deficerent, ipsi se opponere murum pro fide catholica
contra papam hereticum tenerentur, alioquin in
fautoriam pravitatis heretice inciderent iuxta
auctoritatem superius allegatam ("nec caret scrupulo
etc.")
|
And therefore if a heretic pope
were labouring to corrupt true believers, the doctors
and preachers of regions where the pope's noxious
doctrine had just arrived would have the duty to
courageously stand against it. Lest the inhabitants of
those regions be alienated from the faith, nor in this
case would the doctors and preachers be free of
suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy unless
they opposed the pope's false doctrine, if there were
no others in those regions who might know how, and be
willing and able, to resist the pope's false doctrine.
And so preachers and doctors residing in France are
bound to condemn the erroneous doctrine of the pope
before that doctrine begins to spread in France, or
there is probable doubt that it might corrupt some in
France unless it is firmly opposed. Likewise, the
preachers and doctors of Italy must preserve Italy
from the same deadly doctrine, or try to purify the
land should Italy have become infected in one of its
parts. And the same must be said concerning preachers
and doctors who reside in other regions. If however
there are some preachers and doctors or masters in
France or in another region who sufficiently protect
or purify that region from the stated doctrine, the
other preachers and doctors or masters of that region
are not bound to oppose that doctrine by necessity of
salvation, since there is adequate resistance to it by
others. But where the others were to fail, then these
preachers and doctors would be bound to stand as a
stone wall protecting the catholic faith against a
heretic pope, otherwise they would lapse into the sin
of aiding and abetting heretical wickedness, as
implied by the authority posited earlier ("suspicion
of involvement in secret conspiracy etc.")
|
|
Discipulus: Videtur
quod illa auctoritas et consimiles non debent de
quibuscunque intelligi sed de illis tantummodo qui
sunt super alios potestatem habentes, quales non sunt
predicatores et doctores nisi fuerint prelati.
|
Student: It
appears that this authority and similar ones must not
be understood of all and sundry, but only of those who
have power over others. Preachers and doctors are not
in this category unless they happen to be prelates.
|
|
Magister: Dicunt
quidam quod hic erras aperte quia auctoritas illa et
consimiles debent intelligi non solum de prelatis sed
etiam de sociis et subiectis, quod primo per
decretalem supra allegatam (Extra, De homicidio,
Sicut) videtur aperte probari. Conditor enim
decretalis illius, scilicet Alexander tertius,
loquitur de occisoribus beati Thome Cantuariensis et
de illis qui associaverunt eosdem quorum diversi
diversimode culpabiles extiterunt. De quibusdam autem
eorum dicit in hec verba: "illi etiam, qui non, ut
ferirent, sed, ut percussoribus opem ferrent, si forte
per aliorum violentiam impedirentur, paulo minori
debent pena mulctari, quia, cum scriptum sit, qui
potuit hominem liberare a morte et non liberavit, eum
occidit, constat ipsos ab homicidii reatu immunes non
esse, qui occisoribus opem contra alios prestare
venerunt, nec caret scrupulo societatis occulte, qui
cum possit manifeste facinori desinit obviare". Ex
quibus verbis colligitur quod Alexander tertius quasi
dupliciter probare conatur quod qui occisoribus opem
prestare venerunt a reatu homicidii minime sunt
immunes. Primo per illud 'qui potuit hominem liberare
etc.', secundo per illud 'nec caret scrupulo etc.'
Ergo utrumque illorum dictorum, scilicet 'qui potuit
hominem liberare etc.' et 'nec caret scrupulo etc.' de
hiis qui occisoribus opem prestare venerunt debet
intelligi. Illi autem non erant prelati occisorum nec
superiores militibus qui erant occisores sed errant
socii vel famuli aut subditi eorumdem. Ergo tales
auctoritates 'qui potuit hominem liberare etc.,' 'nec
caret scrupulo etc.' et consimiles non solum de
prelatis et superioribus et super alios potestatem
habentibus sed et de omnibus debent intelligi, quod
verum est pro tempore necessitatis, cum non apparet
alius in promptu qui velit et valeat proximum a
periculo liberare.
|
Master: Some
say that here you are clearly wrong, because this
authority and similar ones must be understood as
applying not only to prelates but also to associates
and subjects. This may be evidently proved, to begin
with, by the decretal Extra, De homicidio, Sicut,
which was used in argument earlier. Indeed the author
of this decretal, namely Alexander III, speaks of the
killers of blessed Thomas of Canterbury and of those
who collaborated in this crime with varying degrees of
culpability. And concerning some of these
collaborators Alexander states the following words:
"and those also must receive a slightly lesser
punishment who were there not to carry out the deed,
but to assist the killers should they perhaps have
been impeded by the force of others; for, as Scripture
says, 'he who can free a man from death and does not,
slays him' [echo of Proverbs 24:11]. It stands that
those who came to assist the killers against others
are not free from the guilt of homicide, nor is
suspicion of involvement in secret conspiracy out of
place when someone who can, fails to act against an
obvious crime"[col. 795]. We gather from these words
that Alexander III is in effect attempting to prove
twice over that those who came to assist the killers
are not free from the guilt of homicide. First by this
text: 'he who can free a man etc.', and then by this
one: 'nor is suspicion of involvement etc.' Therefore
each of these statements, namely 'he who can free a
man etc.', and 'nor is suspicion of involvement etc.'
must be understood of those who came to assist the
killers. But these were neither the prelates of the
killers nor the superiors of the soldiers who were the
killers: they were their associates, or attendants, or
servants. Therefore such authorities as 'he who can
free a man etc.', 'nor is suspicion of involvement
etc.' and similar ones must be understood not only of
prelates and superiors and of such as have power over
others, but of all and sundry. This is true in time of
necessity, when a specific someone willing and able to
free a neighbour from danger is not readily available.
|
|
Quod etiam tales auctoritates 'qui
potuit etc.' et 'nec caret scrupulo societatis occulte
etc.' de sociis et de omnibus debeant intelligi
probatur secundo sic. Non minus tenetur quilibet
socius et subditus vel prelatus subvenire necessitati
spirituali proximi quam corporali. Sed quilibet
tempore necessitatis, ubi non apparet alius qui
proximo subveniat, tenetur opera misericordie
corporalia proximo, si potest, impendere. Ergo multo
magis quilibet subditus, socius et prelatus opera
misericordie spiritualia, si convenienter potest cum
non apparet alius qui subveniat, tenetur tempore
necessitatis proximo exhibere. Manifesto autem
facinori obviare cum quis convenienter potest,
proximum ne doctrina pape heretici inficiatur erronea
preservare, regionem totam vel pro parte doctrina
erronea pape infectam per sermones , informationes,
exhortationes et scripturas catholicas expurgare, et
consimilia, sunt inter opera misericordie spiritualia
computanda. Ergo ad ista et consimilia tempore
necessitatis cum non apparent (neque prelati neque
alii) qui velint vel possint talia operari, quilibet
sive socius sive subditus qui convenienter potest,
ista debet proximis de necessitate salutis impendere.
Ex quibus colligitur quod si predicatores et doctores
seu magistri sive in sermonibus et lectionibus
publicis sive per informationes occultas possunt
aliquos vel aliquem a doctrina pape erronea revocare
et non faciunt, nec apparet alius qui hoc faciat, sunt
fautores heretice pravitatis, nec carent scrupulo
societatis occulte ex quo possunt et (non apparet
alius qui velit et possit) manifesto facinori desinunt
obviare.
|
And that such authorities as 'he
who can etc.' and 'nor is suspicion of involvement in
secret conspiracy etc.' must be understood of
associates and of all others is secondly proved thus.
A given associate and subject or prelate is no less
bound to support a neighbour's spiritual necessity
than his physical necessity. But anyone, at a critical
moment, when no one else is available to support a
neighbour, is bound to provide charitable physical
assistance to the neighbour if he can. Therefore all
the more is any subject, associate, and prelate, bound
to provide charitable assistance of a spiritual kind
to a neighbour in time of necessity, if he can do this
conveniently, when no one else is there to provide
such support. But these actions-preventing an obvious
crime when one can do this conveniently, protecting a
neighbour lest he be corrupted by the false doctrine
of a heretic pope, purifying through sermons,
informations, exhortations and catholic writings a
region infected in whole or in part by the pope's
false doctrine-and similar ones, are to be assessed
works of spiritual charity. Therefore in time of
necessity any person, whether a subject or an
associate, who may conveniently perform such works, is
bound by necessity of salvation to provide them to his
neighbours, when there are none (prelates or others)
willing or able to do so. We gather from these
considerations that if preachers and doctors or
masters are able, either through public sermons and
lectures or by secret communications, to dissuade some
or someone from accepting a pope's false doctrine,
their failure to do so when there is no one else
available for the task makes them aiders and abettors
of heretical wickedness, nor are they free from the
suspicion of secret conspiracy since they can prevent
an obvious crime and do not (there is no one else
willing and able).
|
|
Discipulus: Quid
si metu mortis tali facinori desinunt obviare.
|
Student: What
if they fail to prevent such a crime for fear of being
killed.
|
|
Magister: Videtur
quibusdam quod si probabiliter crederent quod possent
aliquos a doctrina pape erronea revocare, nec
probabiliter reputarent quod alio tempore, si
viverent, maiorem possent facere fructum, peccarent
mortaliter obmittendo metu mortis alios a doctrina
pape erronea revocare. Verumptamen propter metum
mortis excusarentur in tantum quod sententiam
excommunicationis nequaquam incurrerent, quemadmodum
si quis inter sarracenos et infideles alios
constitutus metu mortis negaret Christum, et
veneraretur Machometum, peccaret mortaliter sed
sententiam excommunicationis evaderet.
|
Master: It
appears to some that if these preachers and doctors
were to hold a probable belief that they might
dissuade a number of people from accepting the pope's
false doctrine, and if these preachers and doctors do
not surmise with probability that by remaining alive
they might reap a larger harvest at another time, they
would commit a mortal sin by avoiding for fear of
death to dissuade others from accepting the pope's
false doctrine. Nevertheless fear of death would
excuse them to this extent that they would not incur a
sentence of excommunication. Similarly, if someone
living among Moslems and other non-believers were to
deny Christ for fear of dying, and offer homage to
Mohammed, he would commit a mortal sin but escape a
sentence of excommunication.
|
|
Capitulum 49
|
Chapter
49
|
|
Discipulus: Inquisivimus
de predicatoribus et doctoribus si teneantur doctrinam
pape erroneam reprobare. Nunc dissere de illis
predicatoribus et doctoribus qui impugnatores pape
heretici improbarent vel persequerentur aut
quomodolibet infestarent.
|
Student: We
have inquired of preachers and doctors whether they
would be bound to reject the false doctrine of a pope.
Proceed now to treat of those preachers and doctors
who would condemn or persecute or harass in whatever
fashion the opponents of a heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Circa
hanc interrogationem videtur aliquibus distinguendum
quod improbare impugnatores pape heretici contingit
dupliciter. Uno modo eorum assertiones per
auctoritates et rationes solummodo convincere
satagendo, alio modo personis eorum detrahendo, vel in
perpera irrogando, aut persecutionem quamlibet
procurando, vel contra ipsos alios provocando, seu eis
per se vel per alios molestiam quamlibet inferendo.
Item, aut assertio pape erronea est dampnata explicite
aut solummodo implicite. Item, si est dampnata
explicite aut predicatores et doctores qui non
impugnant ipsam possunt faciliter scire quod assertio
pape est dampnata explicite aut non possunt hoc
faciliter scire. Item, aut sciunt papam a viris in
sacra pagina eruditis de certis articulis fortiter
impugnari aut nesciunt.
|
Master: It
appears to some that this question requires
distinctions. There are two ways of condemning the
opponents of a heretic pope. One way is by attempting
to dissolve their contentions solely by authorities
and arguments. Another way is by disparaging their
persons or inflicting wickednesses upon them, or by
arranging for them to suffer any kind of persecution,
or by provoking others against them, or by distressing
them in whatever fashion, directly or through others.
Again, either the pope's false proposition is
condemned explicitly or only implicitly. Again, if it
is condemned explicitly, either those preachers and
doctors who do not attack it may easily learn that the
pope's proposition is condemned explicitly or they
have no possibility of obtaining such information.
Again, either they know that the pope is being
strongly attacked concerning certain propositions by
men learned in Holy Writ, or they do not know this.
|
|
Discipulus: Quomodo
potest contingere quod aliqua assertio pape erronea
sit dampnata explicite et tamen quod predicatores seu
doctores hoc non possunt faciliter scire.
|
Student: How
can it happen that some false proposition of the pope
is explicitly condemned and yet preachers and doctors
cannot know this with ease.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod hoc potest contingere propter ignorantiam
predicatorum et doctorum et propter defectum librorum.
Multi enim sunt predicatores et doctores tam simplices
et tam parvam scripturarum habentes notitiam et
peritiam, quod veritates quam plurimas sanctarum
scripturarum ignorant et de determinationibus ecclesie
parum vel nichil sciunt. Multi etiam eorum ad copiam
scripturarum in quibus veritates catholice plures
explicite approbantur et per consequens falsitates
contrarie reprobantur et condempnantur faciliter
pervenire non possunt. Sicut, ut dicunt, pauci preter
fratres Minores habent decretalem Nicholai tertii in
qua explicite approbatur quod abdicationem
proprietatis omnium rerum Christus verbo docuit et
exemplo firmavit et per consequens falsitas
contradictoria est explicite condempnata.
Condempnationem etiam summorum pontificum qui
magistros quosdam parisienses dampnantes statum
mendicantium condempnaverunt, pauci habent preter
fratres Predicatores et Minores, et ita multi ad
scripturas continentes dampnationem talium heresum
facile pervenire non possunt. Quidam autem a peritis
longe distant, nec adest eis opportunitas consulendi
peritos, quare si non sunt in scripturis excellenter
instructi non facile scire possunt tales hereses esse
explicite condempnatas.
|
Master: The
answer is that this may happen because of the
ignorance of preachers and doctors, and because of a
lack of documents. Indeed there are preachers and
doctors who are so simple-minded and have such minimal
knowledge of and expertise in written sources, that
they are ignorant of very many truths of Holy Writ,
and know little or nothing about the church's
determinations. And there are also many preachers and
doctors who do not have easy access to copies of
writings in which many catholic truths are explicitly
approved, and consequently many contrary falsehoods
are rejected and condemned. Just as, say these
commentators, few except the Brothers Minor possess
the decretal of Nicholas III in which there is
explicit approval that Christ taught by word and
confirmed by example the abandonment of property in
all things, and thus the contradictory falsehood is
explicitly condemned [Exiit qui seminat,
Liber Sextus, col. 1112]. Few likewise, except the
Brothers Preachers and Minors have the condemnation
issued by supreme pontiffs who condemned certain
Parisian masters for their negative judgement on the
status of Mendicants [Alexander IV, Non sine
multa (1257): cf. Ockham OP III, p. 115]. And
thus many preachers and doctors do not have easy
access to writings which contain the condemnation of
such heresies, while some preachers and doctors are
far removed from specially qualified erudites and have
no opportunity of consulting them. Therefore if they
are not well instructed as to written sources they
cannot easily know that such heresies are explicitly
condemned.
|
|
Discipulus:
De exemplis adductis in secundo tractatu De
dogmatibus Iohannis 22 loquemur, per que, quamvis
malitiose ab emulis adducantur, intelligo quomodo
aliqui predicatores seu doctores de quibusdam
heresibus non possunt faciliter scire an sint
explicite condempnate. Quamobrem enarra qualiter per
prescriptas distinctiones ad interrogationem
propositam respondetur.
|
We shall
discuss the enumerated examples in the second treatise
"Concerning the doctrines of John XXII". Although his
enemies are pursuing a wicked agenda in presenting
these examples, I do understand through them how it is
possible that some preachers or doctors cannot easily
know about certain heresies whether they are
explicitly condemned. Wherefore describe how one
answers the question initially raised with the help of
these distinctions.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quinque conclusiones tenendo. Quarum prima est, quod
predicatores et doctores assertiones impugnantium
papam hereticum de assertione que non est dampnata
explicite impugnantes, solo sermone nitendo convincere
per rationes et auctoritates quod assertiones eorum
contrarie assertioni pape heretici non continent
veritatem, non sunt censendi fautores heretice
pravitatis, nec ex hoc solo sunt reputandi peccare
mortaliter. Hec conclusio probatur per hoc quod
theologi possunt absque fautoria heretice pravitatis
et absque peccato mortali circa assertiones
theologicas que non sunt explicite approbate nec
explicite condempnate contrarie opinari, et opiniones
suas contrarias rationibus et auctoritatibus fulcire
conari. Ergo licet papa hereticus et impugnatores eius
teneant opiniones contrarias, absque fautoria heretice
pravitatis et absque peccato mortali possunt
predicatores et doctores assertionem pape que in rei
veritate est heretica, licet hoc nesciant, conari
probare et assertionem contrariam improbare.
|
Master: The
answer involves holding five conclusions. The first of
these is that preachers and doctors who attack in
words alone the contentions of those who oppose a
statement by a heretic pope which is not explicitly
condemned, attempting to prove through arguments and
authorities that the contentions of these opponents
which are contrary to the statement of the heretic
pope are not truthful, should not be interpreted as
aiding and abetting heretical wickedness, nor are they
to be reckoned by this fact alone to have committed a
mortal sin. The proof of this conclusion is that
theologians are entitled, without being deemed
collaborators in heretical wickedness or mortals
sinners, to offer contrary opinions concerning
theological propositions which are not yet explicitly
approved nor explicitly condemned, and to attempt to
bolster their contrary opinions by arguments and
authorities. Therefore even if a heretic pope and his
opponents should hold contrary opinions, preachers and
doctors may attempt to positively defend a statement
of the pope which is in truth heretical, although they
do not know this, and to reject the contrary
assertion, without lapsing into collaboration with
heretical wickedness and without committing a mortal
sin.
|
|
Discipulus: Contra
hanc conclusionem et probationem eius michi due
obiectiones occurrunt. Quarum prima est quod si
assertio pape non est dampnata explicite non est
propter eam hereticus iudicandus. Ergo impugnantes
papam propter eam asserendo eum esse hereticum sunt
merito confutandi. Secunda obiectio est contra hoc
quod dicitur et innuitur quod licet predicatores et
doctores conentur auctoritatibus et rationibus
improbare assertionem impugnantium hereticam
assertionem pape, non sunt censendi fautores heretice
pravitatis. Hoc enim non videtur verum. Nam nullus
potest plus favere heretice pravitati quam conando eam
auctoritatibus et rationibus approbare et ostendere
veram esse. Si ergo aliqui moliuntur rationibus et
auctoritatibus comprobare assertionem pape heretici
que est heretica esse veram et assertionem contrariam
esse falsam, videtur quod censendi sunt fautores
heretice pravitatis.
|
Student: Two
objections occur to me against this conclusion and its
proof. The first of these is that if the pope's
statement is not explicitly condemned, he must not be
judged a heretic on its account. Therefore those who
oppose the pope because of this statement, claiming
that he is a heretic, are deservedly to be silenced.
The second objection is directed against the stated
insinuation that even though preachers and doctors
were to attempt by authorities and arguments to refute
the contention of those who attack the pope's
heretical statement, they must not be judged to be
collaborators in heretical wickedness. This indeed
does not seem true. For no one can favour heretical
wickedness to a greater extent than by attempting its
commendation, and by demonstrating its veracity
through authorities and arguments. If therefore some
try to confirm by arguments and authorities that a
heretical assertion of a heretical pope is true and
that the contrary assertion is false, it appears that
they must be viewed as collaborators in heretical
wickedness.
|
|
Magister: Ad
primam respondetur quod licet assertio pape non sit
dampnata explicite, in casu est licitum asserere et
tenere papam esse hereticum. Ad cuius evidentiam
dicitur esse sciendum quod si assertio pape non est
dampnata explicite, aut papa eam tenet solummodo
opinando (et tunc licet scientibus in rei veritate eam
esse hereticam asserere quod est heretica sed non
licet eis dicere nec asserere papam esse hereticum,
quia ex quo papa solummodo opinando dicit eam non est
hereticus reputandus), aut papa talem heresim non
dampnatam explicite non opinando sed pertinaciter
asserendo tenet, que pertinacia, sicut patet ex libro
quarto huius, potest diversimode deprehendi, et in hoc
casu licet catholicis scientibus papam heresim
dampnatam solummodo implicite pertinaciter asserere et
tenere, non tantummodo affirmare assertionem pape esse
hereticam, sed licet eis sentire quod papa est
hereticus. Periculose tamen hoc publice assererent
quia forte hoc probare non possent, et forsan extra
concilium generale et in absentia catholice pape,
quamvis esset verum non deberent hoc publice
affirmare.
|
Master: The
answer to the first objection is that even if the
pope's assertion is not explicitly condemned, it is
permissible in a particular situation to contend and
to hold that the pope is a heretic. The following
clarification is stated as evidence for this point. If
the pope's assertion is not explicitly condemned, then
either the pope holds it as a mere opinion (and it is
then permitted to those who know in truth that the
assertion is heretical to contend that it is so, but
they are not permitted to state or to contend that the
pope is a heretic - because of the fact that the pope
only utters this assertion as an opinion he is not to
be reckoned a heretic), or else the pope holds such a
heresy (which is not explicitly condemned) not as an
opinion but as a pertinacious assertion. Such
pertinacity, and Book Four of our treatise makes this
clear [1 Dial. 4, passim], may be discovered
in many ways, and in that case Catholics who know that
the pope is pertinaciously asserting and holding a
heresy which is only condemned implicitly are allowed
not merely to claim that the pope's assertion is
heretical, but are allowed to believe that the pope
himself is a heretic. However it would be dangerous
for them to proclaim this publicly because they might
not, perhaps, be able to prove it, and perhaps they
ought not to publicly claim this outside of a general
council and in the absence of a catholic pope, even if
it were true.
|
|
Ad secundam obiectionem
respondetur quod ad fautoriam heresis que non est
dampnata explicite non sufficit quod quis eandem
rationibus et auctoritatibus munire conetur, sed ultra
hoc requiritur quod pertinaciter seu inique talem
heresim rationibus et auctoritatibus fulcire sive
alias munire conetur, quemadmodum ad hereticam
pravitatem non sufficit quod quis errando heresi
adhereat, sed requiritur quod pertinaciter adhereat.
|
The answer to the second objection
is that in order to be an abettor of a heresy which is
not explicitly condemned it is not sufficient that
someone attempt to fortify it with arguments and
authorities, but there is a wider requirement that he
attempt to bolster or otherwise fortify such heresy
with arguments and authorities in a pertinacious and
wicked manner. Similarly, in order for heretical
wickedness to exist it is not sufficient that someone
should erroneously support heresy, but it is required
that he support it pertinaciously.
|
|
Discipulus: Indica
que sunt alie conclusiones quas tenet predicta opinio.
|
Student: Disclose
the other conclusions which are held by the opinion
under review.
|
|
Magister: Secunda
conclusio est quod predicatores et doctores qui
impugnatores doctrine erronee pape quantum ad
assertionem non dampnatam explicite, non solum
rationibus et auctoritatibus sed etiam detrahendo et
in perpera irrogando aut contra eos alios provocando
vel eis per se vel per alios molestiam quomodolibet
inferendo, impugnant, peccant mortaliter et sunt
fautores heretice pravitatis. Quia qui propter bonum
et licitum infert alteri nocumentum notabile, peccat
mortaliter, et si propter impugnationem licitam
heretice pravitatis infert alteri nocumentum, est
fautor heretice pravitatis. Sed impugnare assertionem
pape hereticam licet non sit dampnata explicite est
bonum et licitum. Ergo predicatores et doctores qui
propter impugnationem huiusmodi inferunt impugnantibus
nocumentum notabile peccant mortaliter et sunt
fautores heretice pravitatis. Hoc autem faciunt qui
eis detrahunt et in perpera et contumelias irrogant,
et qui contra eos alios provocant vel per se vel per
alios molestiam irrogant. Ergo peccant mortaliter et
sunt fautores heretice pravitatis.
|
Master: The
second conclusion is that preachers and doctors who
attack thinkers opposing the pope's erroneous doctrine
because of a statement not explicitly condemned, and
attack them not just by arguments and authorities, but
also by disparaging their persons and inflicting
wickednesses upon them, or by provoking others against
them, or by distressing them in whatever fashion,
personally or through others, sin mortally and are
collaborators in heretical wickedness. For he who
causes notable harm to another on account of a good
and lawful action, sins mortally, and is a
collaborator in heretical wickedness if he causes harm
to another because of the latter's lawful opposition
to heretical wickedness. But to oppose a heretical
assertion of the pope is a good and lawful thing even
if that assertion is not explicitly condemned.
Therefore preachers and doctors who cause notable harm
to opponents because of such opposition sin mortally
and are collaborators in heretical wickedness. And
this is what they do who disparage the opponents, and
inflict wickednesses and indignities upon them, and
who provoke others against them, or distress them
personally or through others. Therefore they sin
mortally and are collaborators in heretical
wickedness.
|
|
Tertia conclusio est quod illi
predicatores et doctores qui impugnatores pape
heretici propter assertionem dampnatam explicite quam
non possunt faciliter scire esse dampnatam explicite
propter imperitiam in scripturis auctenticis, aut
propter defectum librorum, aut propter quamcunque
aliam causam propter quam nesciunt papam de heresi
impugnari, impugnant, assertionem pape solummodo
rationibus et auctoritatibus satagendo munire et
assertionem contrariam rationibus et auctoritatibus
tantummodo improbare conando, non peccant mortaliter
nec sunt fautores heretice pravitatis censendi, quia
absque peccato mortali potest quis, dummodo
pertinaciam non adiungat, opinando negare assertionem
catholicam etiam explicite approbatam, et contrariam
hereticam assertionem dampnatam explicite opinari. Si
enim aliquis non habens memoriam de historia libri
Regum absque pertinacia diceret et rationibus
aliquibus confirmaret quod David non habuit simul
plures uxores, non peccaret mortaliter nec esset
fautor heretice pravitatis. Sic dicunt aliqui quod
licet quidam qui nunquam viderunt decretalem Nicholai
tertii Exiit qui seminat opinarentur, et
suam opinionem auctoritatibus et rationibus confirmare
studerent, quod Christus habuit alicuius rei
proprietatem, quamvis hoc facerent imitando papam
hereticum qui hoc diceret, non peccarent mortaliter si
dictam decretalem Exiit faciliter habere non
possent, nec scirent papam propter assertionem
predictam a viris eruditis in sacra pagina impugnari,
quia opinari heresim dampnatam explicite nescienter
potest quis absque peccato mortali et fautoria
heretice pravitatis, dummodo pertinacia nullatenus
misceatur.
|
The third conclusion is that those
preachers and doctors who attack thinkers opposing the
pope because of a statement explicitly condemned, do
not sin mortally and should not be considered
collaborators of heretical wickedness if they merely
attempt to fortify the pope's statement by arguments
and authorities and only try to refute the contrary
statement by arguments and authorities, and also if
they cannot easily know that the pope's assertion is
explicitly condemned - either due to their lack of
expertise in understanding original documents, or
because they don't possess the relevant texts, or
because of any other reason whatsoever which explains
their being unaware that the pope is being attacked
for heresy. For as long as there is no added
pertinacity on his part someone may, without
committing a mortal sin, emit an opinion which negates
even an explicitly approved catholic assertion, and
hold as an opinion the contrary, explicitly condemned,
heretical assertion. If for instance someone having a
memory lapse about events described in the Book of
Kings were to say without pertinacity and confirm with
a few arguments that David did not simultaneously have
many wives [2 Samuel 2:2], he would neither sin
mortally nor be a collaborator in heretical
wickedness. Similarly there are some who say that if
those who have never seen the decretal of Nicholas III
called Exiit qui seminat were to emit the
opinion that Christ had property in some thing, and
carefully confirmed their opinion by authorities and
reasons, even were they to do this in imitation of a
heretic pope's statement to the same effect, they
would not sin mortally if they could not easily obtain
this decretal Exiit, or did not know that
the pope was being attacked by men highly learned in
Holy Writ for having made the aforementioned
declaration. For someone may unknowingly utter as an
opinion a heresy which is explicitly condemned,
without mortal sin and collaboration in heretical
wicked ness, so long as pertinacity is in no way
conjoined to his opinion.
|
|
Quarta conclusio est quod
predicatores et doctores qui impugnantes papam
hereticum pro assertione heretica dampnata explicite
quam possunt faciliter scire esse dampnatam explicite
et propter quam sciunt papam de heresi impugnari,
reprobant aut impugnant, peccant mortaliter nec a
fautoria pravitatis heretice sunt immunes. Quia tantum
zelum debent habere de fide catholica quam honori et
favori cuiuslibet mortalis preferre tenentur, quod cum
nuntiatur eis papam in certo articulo contra fidem
catholicam errare, si de eadem assertione se
intromittere approbando vel reprobando proponunt, non
debent negligere querere diligenter an assertio pape
sit condempnata, et ita si possunt faciliter scire
assertionem eandem esse dampnatam explicite seu
contrariam veritatem esse explicite approbatam,
nullatenus a peccato mortali et a fautoria heretice
pravitatis excusarentur si impugnantes assertionem
pape erroneam improbare presumunt.
|
The fourth conclusion is that
preachers and doctors sin mortally, and are not
innocent of collaboration in heretical wickedness, who
attack or condemn thinkers opposing a heretic pope
because of an explicitly condemned heretical
assertion, which the preachers and doctors may easily
learn to be explicitly condemned and on account of
which they know the pope is being attacked for heresy.
For they should have such zeal for the catholic faith,
which they are bound to rank above the honour and
favour of any mortal, that when they receive news that
the pope has erred against the catholic faith on a
certain issue, if they intend to become involved in
the issue of his assertion either in a supportive or
in a critical role, they must not neglect to
scrupulously inquire whether the pope's assertion has
been condemned. And thus, if they can easily learn
that his assertion is explicitly condemned or the
contrary truth explicitly approved, in no way would
they be excused from mortal sin and collaboration in
heretical wickedness if they presume to attack those
who oppose the erroneous assertion of the pope.
|
|
Quinta conclusio est quod
predicatores et doctores impugnatores doctrine erronee
pape heretici dampnatam explicite, sive sciant sive
ignorent eam esse dampnatam explicite, propter
impugnationem huiusmodi persequuntur, eis detrahendo
vel contumelias aut in perpera irrogando, vel contra
eos alios provocando seu per se aut per alios
molestiam quomodolibet inferendo, peccant mortaliter
et sunt fautores heretice pravitatis reputandi.
Gravius tamen peccant illi qui sciunt doctrinam pape
esse erroneam quam illi qui ignorant.
|
The fifth conclusion is that
preachers and doctors who because of the latter's
opposition persecute opponents of a heretic pope's
false and explicitly condemned doctrine by disparaging
them or by inflicting wickednesses or indignities upon
them, or by provoking others against them, or by
distressing them in whatever fashion, directly or
through others, sin mortally and are to be considered
collaborators in heretical wickedness, whether they
know or not that the pope's erroneous doctrine is
explicitly condemned. And those who know that the
doctrine of the pope is erroneous sin more grievously
than those who do not know this.
|
|
Discipulus:
Quare non possunt ignorantes per ignorantiam excusari.
|
Student: Why
may the ignorant not be excused by their ignorance.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod ignorantia iuris quod quis scire tenetur non
excusat. Hoc autem quilibet scire tenetur quod
impugnantes aliquam doctrinam tanquam erroneam non
sunt aliqualiter molestandi nisi certitudinaliter
constet eos falso vel inique impugnare doctrinam
eandem. Quare cum, si doctrina pape sit erronea, non
possit constare quod impugnatores ipsius propter solam
impugnationem eam falso impugnant vel inique (quia
huiusmodi impugnatio est licita), non sunt propter
impugnationem huiusmodi aliqualiter molestandi.
|
Master: The
answer is that ignorance of a law which one is
obligated to know is no excuse. And everyone is bound
to know this: that those who are in opposition to a
given doctrine because it is presumed by them to be
erroneous must in no way be distressed unless it is
quite certain that they are opposing this doctrine in
error or without regard for equity. Therefore, since
it is not possible to be certain, given that the
pope's doctrine is false, that those who oppose it are
by that fact alone attacking it wrongly or immorally
(because their opposition is lawful), they are not to
be in any way distressed on account of such
opposition.
|
|
Capitulum 50
|
Chapter
50
|
|
Discipulus: Puto
quod ad probandum omnes conclusiones predictas
rationes et auctoritates quamplures, si cogitares,
scires adducere, quas omnes causa brevitatis omitte,
et dic breviter quid sentiendum esset de doctoribus et
magistris qui doctrinam pape manifeste erroneam
defensare aut excusare quomodolibet niterentur,
doctrinas autem aliorum (et maxime pauperum)
disputabiles et excusabiles, imo veras et catholicas,
licet doctrinis quorundam theologorum contrarias,
dampnare et pervertere ac ad malum sensum trahere
conarentur.
|
Student: I
believe that if you were to reflect, you would be able
to produce very many arguments and authorities proving
all the aforementioned conclusions. But omit all of
them for the sake of brevity, and state concisely what
ought to be our feelings concerning doctors and
masters who would strive to defend or to excuse in any
way a papal doctrine which was obviously erroneous,
while exerting themselves to condemn, misrepresent,
and falsify the meaning of doctrines held by others,
and above all by Mendicants, doctrines which were
arguable and excusable, indeed true and catholic, even
if contrary to the doctrines of certain theologians.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod talium doctorum nequitia faciliter describi non
potest, quia tales ab omni amore et zelo veritatis
sunt penitus alieni, ostendentes aperte quod nequaquam
amore scientie et veritatis ad magisterium
ascenderunt, sed propter gulam aut honores vel
divitias obtinendas in studio laboraverunt.
|
Master: The
answer is that the moral worthlessness of such doctors
could not be easily described, for people of this kind
are deeply alienated from any love of and zeal for the
truth. Their behaviour clearly indicates that they
never rose to the status of master for the love of
knowledge and truth, but laboured at the university
for the sake of their gullet or for the purpose of
acquiring honours or riches.
|
|
Discipulus: Quibus
vitiis sunt tales censendi impliciti.
|
Student: What
vices should we believe such people to be involved in.
|
|
Magister:
Respondetur quod tales sunt acceptatores personarum.
Talibus enim loquitur Isaias 5 capitulo, dicens: "Ve
qui potentes estis ad bibendum vinum et viri fortes ad
miscendam ebrietatem, qui iustificatis impium pro
muneribus et iustitiam iusti aufertis ab eo". Tales
enim doctores qui iustificant papam hereticum 'pro
muneribus', hoc est pro beneficiis, gratiis et
honoribus obtinendis, et 'iustitiam iusti' auferunt
'ab eo', veritatem sue doctrine perperam pervertendo
et ad malum sensum (ut placeant pape heretico) inique
trahendo, sunt 'potentes ad bibendum vinum', quia
inter alios fines malos quos spectant per magisterium
obtinere, impletio ventris cibo et potu infimum locum
minime tenet, ut de eis vere dicatur illud Apostoli ad
Philip. 3: "quorum deus venter" est, quia propter
ventrem et honorem et alia terrena commoda consequenda
et incommoda devitanda laborant in studio et
addiscunt. Unde et de quolibet tali doctore dicit
Salomon Prov. 28: "qui cognoscit in iudicio faciem non
facit bene. Iste et pro buccella panis deserit
veritatem". Ille 'cognoscit faciem in iudicio' qui
doctrinam manifeste erroneam ideo nititur excusare vel
etiam defensare quia a papa est tradita et inventa, et
doctrinam pauperis catholicam et excusabilem, ut pape
heretico placeat, contra mentem dicentis ad malum
satagit trahere intellectum, qui 'pro buccella panis'
id est pro uno bono convivio ubi confusionem non
metuit temporalem, catholicam paratus est deserere
veritatem.
|
Master: The
answer is that such individuals discriminate about
persons for selfish advantage. For it is their ilk
that Isaiah addresses in his 5th chapter, saying: "woe
unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of
strength to mingle strong drink; which justify the
wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of
the righteous from him"[Isaiah 5:22-23]. For such
doctors who justify a heretic pope 'for reward', that
is to say for the sake of obtaining benefices,
favours, and honours, and who 'take away the
righteousness of the righteous from him', by wickedly
misrepresenting the truth of his doctrine, and
unethically falsifying its meaning in order to please
a heretic pope, they are 'mighty to drink wine',
because among the various nasty ends they are seeking
to achieve by the status of master, the filling of
their belly with food and drink is hardly last on the
list. The statement of the Apostle in Philippians 3
truly applies to them "whose god is their belly"
[Philippians 3:19], for they labour and learn at the
university for the sake of their belly and so as to
gain access to honour and to other worldly
conveniences, while avoiding inconveniences. Hence it
is of any doctor of this stripe that Solomon says in
proverbs 28: "to have respect of person is not good:
for a piece of bread that man will
transgress"[Proverbs 28:21]. He has 'respect of
persons' who strives to excuse or even defend an
obviously erroneous doctrine simply because it is
discovered and popularized by a pope; and who busies
himself in falsifying the meaning of a Mendicant's
catholic and excusable doctrine, twisting the author's
intended understanding in order to please a heretic
pope. 'For a piece of bread', i.e. for one good dinner
party at which he fears no temporal anxiety, he is
ready to abandon catholic truth.
|
|
Discipulus: Ex
hiis coniicio quod si unquam aliquis papa futurus
manifestus erit hereticus, patebit aperte qui doctores
illius temporis zelo veritatis catholice et propter
hereticos convincendos (si unquam insurgerent) in
studio laboraverunt, et qui propter terrena scientie
operam impenderunt.
|
Student: I
surmise from these comments that if ever some future
pope becomes a manifest heretic, it will be clearly
apparent which doctors of that time would have
laboured at the university for zeal of the catholic
truth and in order to overcome heretics (if such were
to arise), and which doctors devoted effort to
learning for the sake of worldly convenience.
|
|
Magister: Nonnullis
apparet quod hic falleris, quia teste Christo multi
"ad tempus credunt et in tempore temptationis
recedunt". Sic forte nonnulli, si papa esset
hereticus, bono zelo in principio laborabunt, sed cum
venerit tribulatio pro fide sustinenda illi firmissime
adherebunt.
|
Master: It
appears to a few that here you would be wrong, for as
Christ attests: "these for a while believe, and in
time of temptation fall away"[Luke 8:13]. So perhaps a
few doctors, should the pope become a heretic, would
at first be active with good zeal, but when
persecution for maintaining the faith supervened,
these doctors would support the heretic pope most
firmly.
|
|
Discipulus: Quamvis
michi modo appareat quod tempore futuri pape heretici,
si fuerit, non posit sciri qui propter zelum veritatis
studio vacare ceperunt, tamen satis videbitur
manifeste qui erunt sinceri et fortes fidei zelatores,
ideo redi ad materiam in isto capitulo disserendam et
enumera alia vitia quibus doctores de quibus hic est
sermo reputantur impliciti, nec cures alias
probationes adducere.
|
Student: Although
it now appears to me that at the time of a future
heretic pope, should he come to be, one will not be
able to know which doctors began to follow the path of
learning prompted by zeal of the truth, it will
nevertheless be clear enough which of them are sincere
and strong partisans of the faith. Return therefore to
the matter which is to be discussed in this chapter,
and specify seriatim the other vices in which the
doctors about whom we are talking are reckoned to be
involved. Do not bother to provide further technical
proofs.
|
|
Magister: Isti
doctores putantur fautores heretice pravitatis,
ambitiosi, avari, adulatores, propter excusationem vel
assertionem doctrine erronee pape heretici. Propter
perversionem autem aliarum doctrinarum putantur
invidi, maliciosi, innocentie persecutores,
detractores, diffamatores, calumpniatores, falsorum
criminum impositores. Unde et in Spiritum Sanctum
multipliciter peccare censentur. Propter utrumque
autem vitium falsi, mendaces, fallaces, seductores et
fraudulenti creduntur.
|
Master: For
excusing or agreeing with the erroneous doctrine of a
heretic pope, these doctors are thought to be
collaborators in heretical wickedness, eager for
advancement, greedy for gain, sycophants. And for the
falsification of other doctrines they are thought to
be jealous, malicious, persecutors of innocence,
disparagers, defamers, slanderers, imposers of false
crimes. Hence they are judged to be sinning against
the Holy Spirit in many different ways [Matthew
12:31-32]. And for both wickednesses they are believed
to be traitors, liars, deceivers, pied pipers, and
swindlers.
|
|
Discipulus: Qua
pena essent tales plectendi.
|
Student: What
penalty should such persons suffer.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod tales omnibus penis que debentur vitiis superius
numeratis essent merito percellendi. Unde dicitur quod
sunt excommunicati, et ab omni officio deponendi, imo
videtur quibusdam quod essent curie seculari tradendi
vel perpetuo carceri mancipandi.
|
Master: The
answer is that such individuals should be deservedly
afflicted with all the penalties owed to the vices
that were enumerated above. Hence it is said that they
are excommunicated, and must be deposed from any
office. Indeed it appears to some that they are to be
handed over to the secular arm or surrendered to
perpetual imprisonment.
|
|
Capitulum 51
|
Chapter
51
|
|
Discipulus: De
predictis posset fieri longus tractatus, sed quia
cupio quod cito isti tractatui finis imponatur ideo ad
religiosos censeo transeundum, de quibus interrogo an
religiosi qui pape heretico non resistunt sint inter
fautores pravitatis heretice computandi.
|
Student: A long
account might be written about the aforementioned
matters, but since I wish to bring this treatise to a
conclusion soon, I believe consequently that we should
shift our attention to the issue of the religious.
Concerning which I ask whether the religious who do
not resist a heretic pope are to be numbered among the
collaborators in heretical wickedness.
|
|
Magister: De
religiosis distinguitur. Quidam enim religiosi
regulariter aliquos de fratribus suis ad studium
theologie transmittunt, pluribus etiam officium
predicationis et confessionis committunt, multique ex
diversis causis per mundum discurrunt et de loco ad
locum sepius moventur, magnamque communicationem
habent inter se quantumcunque sint per mundum
dispersi. Unde accidit quod ea que publice fiunt, non
solum in curia romana sed etiam in studiis generalibus
et in aliis locis frequentibus, facilius, certius et
distinctius cognoscuntur ab eis.
|
Master: A
distinction must be made about the religious. For
certain religious, as a rule, send away some of their
brethren to be schooled in theology, and also commit
to many the office of preaching and of hearing
confessions. Furthermore, quite a few of them travel
about the world for different causes, frequently
moving from place to place, and they communicate a
great deal amongst themselves even though they are
scattered throughout the world. Hence it so happens
that they know public events occurring not only in the
Roman Curia but also in schools and universities and
in other crowded places easily, certainly, and
accurately.
|
|
Alii sunt religiosi qui ex
consuetudine in certis locis continue residentes loca
sua non mutant raroque exeunt claustra sua, nec
aliquos de fratribus ad studia vel alia loca
transmittunt ac in diversis locis manentes parvam vel
nullam communicationem inter se habere noscuntur, et
ideo sepe de hiis que in curia romana et in aliis
locis frequentibus publice fiunt multa ignorant que
aliis minime sunt ignota.
|
There are other religious whose
custom is to continuously reside in certain places,
who do not change their habitat and rarely leave their
cloisters, nor do they send some of their brethren to
schools or to other places. Remaining fixed in various
places, these religious are known to have little or no
communication with one another, and therefore they are
frequently ignorant of many events which occur in the
Roman Curia and in other crowded locations, events
which are well known to others.
|
|
Si igitur papa esset hereticus
publicus, hoc est publice diffiniens assertionem que
est heresis explicite condempnata vel publice
predicans aut docens assertionem contra veritatem apud
omnes catholicos divulgatam, puta si publice
predicaret Christum non fuisse natum de virgine, vel
resurrectionem non esse futuram, aut non esse infernum
nec aliquas animas cruciari in inferno, contra primos
religiosos esset violenta presumptio quod minime
ignorarent papam esse hereticum quia tales religiosi
ea que publice fiunt in curia romana non ignorant. Tot
enim litteras sibi mutuo scribunt, precipue de
novitatibus que contingunt, quod vix aliquid notabile
fit in curia romana quin cito et in brevi tempore in
omnibus locis eorum per universum orbem publice
cognoscatur, et ideo si adheserint pape heretico
postquam eius perfidia fuerit publicata, presumendum
est quod scienter adhererent pravitate heretice et
ideo fautores heretice pravitatis sunt censendi si
dixerint vel tenuerint papam esse catholicum et
fidelem.
|
Let us assume that the pope was a
public heretic, in other words that he publicly
defined a statement which is an explicitly condemned
heresy, or that he publicly preached or taught an
assertion contrary to the truth established among all
Catholics: for instance, if he publicly preached that
Christ was not born of a virgin, or that there will be
no resurrection, or that there is no hell, nor are
some souls suffering in hell [an oblique allusion to
Pope John XXII's sermons on the Beatific Vision].
There would be a very strong presumption against the
first kind of religious that they could hardly fail to
know that the pope is a heretic, because such
religious are not ignorant of public events occurring
in the Roman Curia. Indeed they write themselves so
many letters to and fro, particularly of freshly
breaking developments, that hardly anything of
significance occurs in the Roman Curia without being
quickly and in short order publicly known in all of
their residences throughout the entire world.
Therefore if such religious were to support a heretic
pope after his treachery had been made public, one
must presume that they knowingly supported heretical
wickedness, and therefore should they say or hold that
the pope is catholic and faithful, they are to be
judged collaborators in heretical wickedness.
|
|
Discipulus: Quid
si non dixerint papam esse catholicum et fidelem,
tamen sibi obediunt nichil de eius fidelitate vel
infidelitate se aliqualiter intromittendo.
|
Student: What
if they do not say that the pope is catholic and
faithful, and yet obey him while not dealing in any
way with the issue of his faithfulness or
faithlessness.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
a quibusdam quod in hoc casu, si non possunt perfidiam
pape ne transfundatur ad alios prohibere, non sunt
censendi fautores pravitatis heretice, sed sunt
putandi fautores heretici, quia ex quo perfidiam pape
heretici prohibere non possunt, nec credentes
erroribus suis corrigere, nec ne alii credant eius
erroribus impedire, tacendo de eius perfidia non
videntur culpam incurrere, sed obediendo sibi a culpa
minime sunt immunes.
|
Master: Some
reply that in this case, if they cannot prevent the
pope's treachery from actively influencing others,
they should not be thought collaborators in heretical
wickedness, but should be reckoned to be collaborators
of a heretic. Because they cannot prevent the
treachery of a heretic pope, nor correct those who
believe his errors, nor impede others from believing
his errors, they do not appear to be at fault by
remaining silent with respect to his treachery. But by
obeying him they are hardly immune from sin.
|
|
Discipulus: Dic
de aliis religiosis.
|
Student: What
about the other kind of religious.
|
|
Magister: De
aliis dicitur quod non est presumptio tam violenta
contra eos quod sciant vel teneantur scire papam esse
hereticum, et ideo non sunt subito iudicandi favere
heretice pravitati, vel quod peccent pape heretico
obediendo, sed examinandi sunt sollicite an sciant
papam esse hereticum vel propter illa que audierunt
teneantur hoc scire, et secundum hoc vel culpabiles
vel a culpa liberi sunt censendi. Si enim ignorant
papam esse hereticum et non laborant ignorantia crassa
et supina, obediendo pape heretico ab omni culpa sunt
immunes. Si vero sciunt papam esse hereticum vel
ignorant quia nolunt scire, aut laborant ignorantia
crassa et supina, obediendo pape heretico peccant
mortaliter nec possunt a culpa aliqualiter excusari.
|
Master: Of the
others it is said that the presumption against them is
not as strong that they know or are bound to know that
the pope is a heretic. Therefore they must not
immediately be judged as favouring heretical
wickedness, or that they would sin by obeying a
heretic pope. They must rather be carefully examined
to discover whether they know that the pope is a
heretic or whether they ought to know this because of
the things they have heard, and depending on the
outcome of such an examination they are to be thought
either guilty or free of guilt. For if they do not
know that the pope is a heretic and do not labour in
grossly passive ignorance, they are completely free of
guilt in obeying a heretic pope. If on the other hand
they know that the pope is a heretic or don't know it
because they don't want to know, or labour in grossly
passive ignorance, they sin mortally by obeying a
heretic pope and can in no way be excused from guilt.
|
|
Discipulus: Quid
spectat ad religiosos facere si papa fuerit hereticus.
|
Student: What
should the religious do if the pope were to become a
heretic.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur
quod ad primos religiosos si fuerint predicatores vel
confessores aut lectores, quando predicant et legunt
aut confessiones audiunt spectat, debitis
circumstantiis observatis, auditoribus suis perfidiam
pape heretici nuntiare ut caveant pestiferam doctrinam
eius. Ad alios autem quando vadunt per mundum spectat
ut, quando est opportunitas, illis quibus loquuntur
non publice predicando sed loquela simplici perfidiam
pape heretici studeant intimare. Ad alios autem
religiosos, si sciverint papam esse hereticum, hoc
spectat quod sibi tanquam pape nullo modo obediant, et
quod modis sibi congruentibus alios ab obedientia
eiusdem revocare tenentur.
|
Master: The
answer is this. It is the task of the first kind of
religious, if they are preachers or confessors or
lecturers, taking appropriate circumstances into
account, to reveal to their listeners the treachery of
the heretic pope when they preach and read or hear
confessions, so that these listeners may beware of his
noxious doctrine. It pertains to other religious of
this kind, when they travel about the world, to
concentrate on informing those with whom they speak,
when the opportunity to do so is there, of the heretic
pope's treachery, not by publicly preaching to them
but by simple conversation. As to the second kind of
religious, if they know that the pope is a heretic, it
is their task not to grant him in any way the
obedience due to a pope. They are also bound, using
whatever means are appropriate to them, to urge others
not to obey the heretic pope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|