| Capitulum 52 | Chapter 52 |
| Discipulus: Consequenter de regibus et principibus ac aliis publicis potestatibus et communitatibus aliqua interrogare propono. Dic autem in primis an reges et principes qui permitterent doctrinam pape heretici in suis regnis et dominiis publicari et doceri essent inter fautores heretice pravitatis computandi. | Student: Next I propose to ask some questions about kings and rulers and other public powers and communities. But first of all, tell me whether kings and rulers who allow the doctrine of the heretic pope to be published and taught in their kingdoms and dominions should be counted among the supporters of heretical wickedness. |
| Magister: Videtur nonnullis de regibus et principibus distinguendum, quia aut sunt omnino illiterati, aut sunt literati, notitiam Sanctarum Scripturarum habentes. Si sunt in Sacris Literis eruditi, et doctrina pape erronea est tam patenter heretica quod omnes catholici in Sacris Literis eruditi sciunt eam hereticam, reges et principes scientes per Sacras Literas doctrinam pape esse erroneam sunt fautores heretice pravitatis si eam sustinent in suis regnis et dominiis publicari et doceri, nisi ex causis probabilibus et verisimilibus estimarent quod si opponerent se publice doctrine pape erronee nulla exaltatio fidei vel utilitas fidelium sequeretur, sed catholici per talem oppositionem regum et principum corporaliter et spiritualiter turbarentur, ac plures propter talem contradictionem averterentur a fide et ad perfidiam pape heretice se transferrent. | Master: It seems to some that a distinction should be made about kings and rulers, because they are either completely illiterate, or are literate, having knowledge of sacred letters. If they are learned in sacred letters, and the pope’s erroneous doctrine is so patently heretical that all Catholics learned in sacred letters know it to be heretical, kings and rulers, knowing from sacred letters that the doctrine of the pope is erroneous, are heretical supporters of wickedness if they allow it to be published and taught in their kingdoms and dominions -- unless they consider from probable and verisimilar arguments that if they were to oppose themselves publicly to the pope’s erroneous doctrine, no exaltation of the faith or benefit of the faithful would follow, but Catholics would be disturbed physically and spiritually by such opposition of kings and rulers, and many would be turned away from the faith because of such a contradiction and would transfer themselves to faithlessness of the heretical pope. |
| Discipulus: Ista opinio casum pene impossibilem et incredibilem videtur innuere. Non enim videtur credibile quod si aliquis rex doctrinam pape heretici in suo regno publicari et doceri omnimode prohiberet, quod propter hoc plures averterentur a fide et ad doctrinam pape erroneam se transferrent, cum etiam, si rex aliquis papam hereticum captivaret et neci corporali traderet, nec sibi nec suis magnum periculum immineret. Videmus enim hiis diebus quod non solum reges et principes sed etiam civitates et castra satis parve potentie summo pontifici presumunt resistere, nec tamen multi eorum corporaliter humiliantur. Quanto magis si rex potens et dives papam hereticum captivaret qui nec esset magni generis et nobilis, nec liberos relinqueret divites et potentes, periculum corporale nullatenus formidare deberet. Unde et hoc omnino michi videtur probabile, quod rex absque periculo temporali posset secure papam hereticum captivare et eum corporaliter trucidare, sed an hoc facere ex conscientia teneretur non est michi clarum, de quo tamen aliqualiter pertractatum est supra libro sexto. Ideo revertere ad opinionem priorem, et narra quid teneat de regibus et principibus illiteratis. | Student: This opinion seems to suggest an almost impossible and incredible case. For it does not seem credible that if some king were to forbid in every way that the doctrine of a heretic pope be published and taught in his kingdom, that on this account many would be turned away from the faith and transfer themselves to the pope’s erroneous doctrine, since even if some king were to capture a heretic pope and hand him over to physical death, much danger would not threaten him or his subjects. For we see in these days that not only kings and rulers but also cities and castles or quite little power presume to resist the Supreme Pontiff, and yet not many of them are physically humiliated. How much more so, if a powerful and wealthy king were to capture a heretic pope who was neither of great lineage nor noble nor left rich and powerful children, he should not in the least fear physical danger. Hence this also seems entirely probable to me, that a king could safely capture a heretic pope without temporal danger and physically kill him. But whether he would be bound to do this out of conscience is not clear to me. However, the question has has been somewhat discussed above in Book VI. Therefore, return to the previous opinion, and tell what it holds about illiterate kings and rulers. |
| Magister: Dicitur quod reges illiterati qui notitia Scripturarum minime pollent in plurimis excusantur si permittunt dictam doctrinam in suis regnis et dominiis publicari, doceri, et teneri, quia propter innotitiam Scripturarum non tenentur statim prohibere doctrinam pape heretici, presertim si eis a viris literatis minime intimatur quod doctrina pape sapit hereticam pravitatem, et doctrina pape erronea est talis quod non est directe contra veritatem catholicam apud omnes catholicos divulgatam. Dicunt igitur isti quod si doctrina erronea pape heretici est contra veritatem catholicam apud omnes catholicos divulgatam, reges, quantumcunque illiterati, si scienter sustinent eam in suis regnis et dominiis publicari, doceri, et teneri, nisi probabiliter timeant quod ex prohibitione talis doctrine nulla spiritualis utilitas sequeretur et periculose catholici turbarentur, sunt inter fautores heretice pravitatis computandi. | Master: It is said that illiterate kings who have little knowledge of the Scriptures are in many cases excused if they allow the said doctrine to be published, taught, and held in their kingdoms and dominions. Because of their ignorance of the Scriptures they are not bound to immediately prohibit the doctrine of the heretic pope, especially if they are not informed by literate men that the doctrine of the pope smacks of heretical wickedness, and the pope’s erroneous doctrine is such that it is not directly contrary to a Catholic truth spread among all Catholics. They therefore say that if the erroneous doctrine of the heretic pope is against a Catholic truth spread among all Catholics, kings, however illiterate, if they knowingly support its being published, taught, and held in their kingdoms and dominions (unless they fear with probability that no spiritual benefit would follow from the prohibition of such doctrine and that Catholics would be dangerously disturbed), they should be counted among the supporters of heretical wickedness. |
| Si vero doctrina pape heretici erronea non est contra veritatem catholicam apud omnes catholicos divulgatam, sed est contra veritatem catholicam quam reges et principes credere explicite non tenentur, licet debeant eam credere implicite, distinguitur. Quia aut ad notitiam regum et principum per clamorem et rumorem publicum et manifestum pervenit quod doctrina pape a viris literatis in Scripturis Divinis, qui hactenus bone opinionis et fame fuerunt, fortiter et efficaciter impugnatur, qui etiam petunt instanter ut de papa heretico vel de se, si erraverint, fiat iustitie complementum, aut talis clamor ad reges et principes non pervenit. In primo casu reges et principes ex zelo fidei, quam omni homini preferre tenentur, debent diligentissime facere examinari doctrinam pape per sapientes, si habent in regnis suis, vel per alios, si in regnis suis non sunt sufficientes ad examinationem talem, et secundum unam sententiam prohibere debent ne doctrina talis in regnis eorum et dominiis publicetur et doceatur antequam fuerit sufficienter discussa et examinata. Secundum vero aliam sententiam antequam constiterit legitime regibus doctrinam pape esse erroneam, eam prohibere non debent. In secundo casu reges et principes prohibere doctrinam pape erroneam non tenentur, quia neque per certitudinem neque per famam constat eis doctrinam pape esse erroneam. | If, however, the erroneous doctrine of the heretic pope is not contrary to a Catholic truth spread among all Catholics, but is contrary to a Catholic truth which kings and rulers are not bound to believe explicitly (though they should believe it implicitly), a distinction is made. Because either it comes to the knowledge of kings and rulers by a public and manifest outcry and rumor that the doctrine of the pope is being strongly and effectively attacked by men literate in the divine Scriptures, who have hitherto been of good opinion and fame, who also urgently request that justice be done regarding the heretic pope or, if they have erred, regarding themselves, or else such an outcry does not reach kings and rulers. In the first case, kings and rulers, out of zeal for the faith which they are bound to prefer to every man, must most diligently have the pope’s doctrine examined by wise men, if they have any in their kingdoms, or by others, if there are not enough men in their kingdoms for such an examination; and, according to one opinion, they must forbid such doctrine to be published and taught in their kingdoms and dominions until it has been sufficiently analysed and examined. Or, according to another opinion, they should not prohibit it until it is lawfully established to the kings that the teaching of the pope is erroneous. According to the second opinion, kings and rulers are not bound to prohibit the teaching of the pope, because it is neither certain nor known to them by fame that the teaching of the pope is erroneous. |
| Capitulum 53 | Chapter 53 |
| Discipulus: Circa ista narrata peto ut tria tantummodo probare coneris. Quorum primum est quod, si reges et principes qui potenciam temporalem pape et suorum nequaquam metuerent, audierint papam de doctrina erronea a viris in Sacra Pagina eruditis, et qui semper antea bone opinionis et fame fuerunt, fortiter impugnari, et ab eisdem peritis cum instancia petatur concilium generale ut veritas fidei declaretur, teneantur diligenter querere veritatem et efficaciter laborare ut per concilium generale vel alium modum congruum veritas fidei ostendatur et distincte patefiat catholicis universis. | Student: Regarding what has been narrated, I ask that you try to prove only three things. First, that if kings and rulers who do not fear the temporal power of the pope and his followers hear that the pope is being strongly attacked for an erroneous doctrine by men learned in the Holy Scriptures who have always been of good opinion and fame before, and if those experts urgently request a general council to clarify the truth of the faith, they are bound to diligently seek the truth and to labor effectively so that by a general council or some other suitable method the truth of the faith is shown and made distinctly clear to all Catholics. |
| Secundum est quod reges et principes, si per quemcunque modum legitime constiterit eis doctrinam pape esse erroneam, teneantur ne publicetur et doceatur in suis regnis et dominiis prohibere, si propter talem prohibitionem non timent dispendium populi christiani. | Second, that kings and rulers, if by any means it becomes lawfully clear to them that the pope’s doctrine is erroneous, are bound to prohibit it from being published and taught in their kingdoms and dominions, if they do not fear damage to the Christian people because of such a prohibition. |
| Tertium est quod, si rex aliquis propter potentiam temporalem pape heretici vel suorum sequacium probabiliter et ex causis urgentibus formidaret quod ex prohibitione doctrine pape heretici in regno suo nulla utilitas neque corporalis neque spiritualis fidelium sequeretur sed magis catholici turbarentur et plures averterentur a fide, a tali prohibitione doctrine pape erronee cessare deberet, et quod publicetur in regno suo permittere. | Third, that if any king, because of the temporal power of the heretic pope or his followers, were to fear, with probability and for urgent reasons, that from the prohibition of the doctrine of the heretic pope in his kingdom no benefit, either physical or spiritual, would follow for the faithful, but rather that Catholics would be disturbed and many would be turned away from the faith, he should cease from such a prohibition of the doctrine of the erroneous pope and permit it to be published in his kingdom. |
| Magister: Primum et secundum simul videntur una ratione posse probari, que talis est. Ille ad quem spectat omnem pravitatem hereticam extirpare, et ne in terra sibi subiecta pullulet impedire, tenetur modo predicto de doctrina pape erronea taliter impugnata, qua papa hereticus omnes cupit inficere orthodoxos, diligenter inquirere an sit consona vel dissona catholice veritati. Si enim circa talem inquisitionem negligens appareret, propter negligentiam eius possent sibi subditi periculose corrumpi heretica pravitate. Sed reges et principes christiani debent omnem hereticam pravitatem extirpare quantum in eis est, et ne in terris eis subiectis pullulet impedire. Ergo si audiunt doctrinam pape hereticam qua omnes cupit inficere orthodoxos, a viris peritis in Sacra Pagina impugnari, debent sollicite querere veritatem, an scilicet doctrina pape erronea sit consona vel dissona catholice veritati. | Master: The first and second seem provable together by one argument, which is as follows. He to whom it concerns to eradicate all heretical wickedness, and to prevent it from growing in the land subject to him, is bound in the aforesaid way to diligently inquire into an pope’s erroneous doctrine thus attacked, with which the heretic pope desires to infect all the orthodox, [to decide] whether it is consonant or dissonant with Catholic truth. For if he appeared negligent about such an inquiry, because of his negligence his subjects could be dangerously corrupted by heretical wickedness. But Christian kings and rulers should eradicate all heretical wickedness, as far as it is within their power, and prevent it from growing in the lands subject to them. Therefore, if they hear the heretical doctrine of the pope, with which he desires to infect all the orthodox, being attacked by men skilled in the Holy Scripture, they should diligently inquire into the truth, namely, whether the pope’s erroneous doctrine is consonant or dissonant with Catholic truth. |
| Maior istius rationis videtur evidens et tamen probatur. Primo sic. Cui competit potestas aliquid faciendi, omnia ad ipsum pertinere noscuntur per que illud convenienter facere potest, quemadmodum, si aliqua causa alicui committitur, super omnia que ad ipsam causam pertinere noscuntur plenariam recipit potestatem, et, sicut concesso principali, conceditur accessorium (Extra, De officio iudicis delegati, c. Preterea, et c. Significasti, et c. Prudentiam, et c. Suspicionis.) Si ergo regibus et principibus competit hereticam pravitatem ne in terris sibi subiectis pullulet, impedire, et hoc interdum facere minime possunt nisi diligenter inquirant an doctrina pape ad quam omnes intendit cogere christianos sit consona vel dissona veritati, sequitur quod tunc saltem talem debent inquisitionem facere quando eis per famam publicam nuntiatur quod doctrina pape quam in terris eorum publicare proponit a viris peritis in Sacris Literis impugnatur, qui toto posse laborant ut veritas fidei declaretur. | The major of this argument seems evident, and yet it is proved, first as follows. If power to do something belongs to someone, all things are known to belong to that person by which he can suitably do it, just as, if some cause is committed to someone, he receives full power over all things known to belong to that cause, and, as the principal is granted, the accessory is granted (Extra, De officio iudicis delegati, c. Preterea, and c. Significasti, and c. Prudentiam, and c. Suspicionis). If therefore it belongs to kings and rulers to prevent heretical wickedness from growing in the lands subject to them, and they (sometimes) cannot do this unless they diligently inquire whether the pope’s doctrine, to which he intends to compel all Christians, is consonant or dissonant with the truth, it follows that then (at least) they must make such an inquiry when it is announced to them by public fame that the pope’s doctrine that he proposes to publish in their lands is being attacked by men skilled in the Holy Scriptures, who labor with all their might that the truth of the faith may be declared. |
| Secundo probatur eadem maior sic. Sicut ad eundem spectat de personis diffamatis inquirere et de accusatis secundum iuris ordinem iudicare, ita ad eundem spectat de aliqua pravitate publice nuntiata diligenter inquirere veritatem ad quem spectat eandem pravitatem, si aperte perpetrata fuerit, extirpare. Sed ad reges et principes spectat pravitatem hereticam pape heretici, si eam aperte cognoverint in suis regnis et dominiis pullulasse, penitus extirpare. Ergo ad eosdem spectat, si publice fuerit nuntiatum quod doctrina pape quam in regnis et dominiis eorum plantare conatur a viris eruditis tanquam heretica impugnatur, diligenter querere veritatem. | Second, the same major is proved thus. Just as it pertains to the same [authority] both to investigate defamed persons and to judge accused persons according to the order of law, so it pertains to the same [authority] to investigate diligently the truth about some publicly reported wickedness, and to eradicate the same wickedness, if it has been openly perpetrated. But it pertains to kings and rulers to completely eradicate the heretical wickedness of a heretic pope, if they have openly known that it has grown in their kingdoms and dominions. Therefore it pertains to the same [kings and rulers], if it has been publicly announced that the doctrine which the pope is trying to plant in their kingdoms and dominions is being attacked by learned men as heretical, to diligently investigate the truth. |
| Tertio sic. Ad quem spectat periculis que cognoverit ingruere obviare, ad eundem spectat de periculis que per famam publicam nuntiantur querere veritatem, sicut ad quem spectat hostibus invadentibus terram aliquam toto posse resistere, ad eundem spectat, si est publica fama quod aliqui volunt eandem terram invadere, diligenter querere veritatem ut, si fama contineat veritatem, ad resistendum sit minime imparatus, quia secundum beatum Gregorium “minus iacula feriunt que previdentur,” et quidam saluberrimum dans consilium ait: “prospice que veniunt hos casus esse ferendos, nam levius ledit quidquid previdimus ante.” Cum ergo, si doctrina pape est erronea, non modicum periculum toti christianitati immineat, ad quos spectat pravitatem hereticam extirpare ad eosdem spectat de doctrina pape que tanquam heretica a viris in Sacris Literis eruditis fortiter impugnatur, postquam per famam publicam hoc eis constiterit, diligenter inquirere veritatem. | Third, as follows. To the person to whom it pertains to meet dangers he knows are coming, to him it also pertains to seek the truth about dangers announced by public fame, just as to the person to whom it pertains to to resist with all his might enemies invading the land, it also pertains, if there is a public fame that some people want to invade that land, to seek the truth diligently so that, if the fame contains the truth, he may not be unprepared to resist (because according to blessed Gregory, “arrows kill less if they are foreseen,” and someone giving most wholesome advice says, “Look out for these calamities that must be be endured that are coming, for what we foresee harms less”). Since, therefore, if the pope’s doctrine is erroneous, no small danger threatens all of Christianity, to those to whom it pertains to eradicate heretical wickedness, to them it also pertains to diligently seek the truth about the pope’s doctrine, which is strongly attacked as heretical by men learned in the Holy Scriptures, after this has become clear to them through public fame. |
| Sic ergo probata est maior. Minor, scilicet quod ad reges et principes spectat omnem pravitatem hereticam de eorum terris et dominiis extirpare et ne pullulet impedire, probatur sic. Ille qui propter hereticos de terra sua fugere non tenetur, nec tamen debet communicare eisdem nec eos quomodolibet receptare, potest eos de terra fugare, vel etiam captivare, vel penitus extirpare. Rex autem aut principes propter papam hereticum vel sequaces eius non tenentur de terra sua recedere, nec debent communicare eisdem nec eos quomodolibet receptare. Ergo possunt eos de terra sua fugare, aut etiam captivare, vel penitus extirpare. Qui autem talem obtinet super hereticos potestatem debet de terra sua expurgare et ita terram suam de omni pravitate heretica expurgare, quia terra de hereticis expurgata de omni pravitate heretica expurgata dinoscitur hereticos. Patet ergo quod spectat ad reges et principes impedire ne doctrina pape erronea in eorum regnis et dominiis divulgetur aut quomodolibet teneatur. Qui autem potest facinus prohibere et non prohibet, cum tamen hoc ad ipsum pertineat, eidem facinori favet. Reges ergo et principes qui sciunt doctrinam pape esse hereticam, vel si ignorant, laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, quia nolunt scire doctrinam pape esse erroneam, aut negligunt indagare, si non prohibent eam in suis regnis et dominiis, sunt inter fautores heretice pravitatis computandi. | Thus, therefore, the major has been proved. The minor, namely, that it pertains to kings and rulers to eradicate all heretical wickedness from their lands and dominions and to prevent it from growing, is proved thus. Someone who is not bound to flee from his land because of heretics, nor yet ought to communicate with them or receive them in any way, can drive them out of the land, or even capture them, or completely eradicate them. But the king or rulers are not bound to withdraw from their land because of the heretic pope or his followers, nor ought they to communicate with them or receive them in any way. Therefore they can drive them out of their land, or even capture them, or completely eradicate them. But someone who possesses such power over heretics must purge heretics from his land and thus purge his land of all heretical wickedness, because a land purged of heretics is known to be purged of all heretical wickedness. It is therefore clear that it pertains to kings and rulers to prevent the pope’s erroneous doctrine from being spread or held in any way in their kingdoms and dominions. But someone who can forbid a crime and does not forbid it, although this pertains to him, favors that crime. Therefore kings and rulers who know that the doctrine of the pope is heretical, or if they do not know, suffer from gross and supine ignorance (because they do not want to know that the doctrine of the pope is erroneous, or neglect to investigate), if they do not forbid it in their kingdoms and dominions, should be counted among supporters of heretical wickedness. |
| Capitulum 54 | Chapter 54 |
| Discipulus: Hec, ut puto, ab hiis que tractata sunt supra libro sexto c. 99 dependent, ideo, hiis omissis, tertium quod est supra c. 53 premissum probare coneris. | Student: These things, as I think, depend on those which were treated above in Book VI, Chapter 99, therefore, leaving them aside, try to prove the third thing stated above in Chapter 53. |
| Magister: Tertium ibi premissum est quod, si rex aliquis propter potentiam temporalem pape heretici et suorum sequacium vel sibi faventium probabiliter et ex causis urgentibus formidaret quod ex prohibitione doctrine pape heretici in regno suo nulla utilitas, neque spiritualis neque corporalis, fidelium sequeretur, sed magis catholici turbarentur et plures averterentur a fide, a tali prohibitione cessare deberet et quod doctrina predicta publicaretur et doceretur in regno suo sustinere, quod videtur posse probari. | Master: The third thing
stated there is that, if any king, because of the temporal
power of the heretic pope and his followers or those who
favor him, were to fear, with probability and for urgent
reasons, that from the prohibition of the doctrine of the
heretic pope in his kingdom no benefit, either spiritual
or physical, would follow for the faithful, but rather
that Catholics would be disturbed and many would be turned
away from the faith, he should cease from such prohibition
and tolerate the publication and teaching of the aforesaid
doctrine in his kingdom. This seems provable. [Note: See Knysh, ABMA vol. 42, p.16ff.] |
| Primo sic. Oportet regem, sicut et quemlibet alium sapientem, extremam dementiam declinare. Sed talis prohibitio esset extreme dementie, quia non minoris dementie est frustra niti et nichil nisi turbationem bonorum querere quam frustra niti et nil nisi odium querere, quod extreme dementie est, Ieronimo attestante, qui, approbando sententiam cuiusdam, ait in prologo Esdre: “frustra autem, ut ait quidam, niti neque aliud se fatigando nisi odium querere, extreme dementie est.” Ergo rex qui per prohibitionem huiusmodi nil nisi turbationem fidelium quereret, a tali deberet turbatione [prohibitione We] cessare. | First, thus. It is necessary for a king, like any other wise man, to avoid extreme madness. But such a prohibition would be the extreme of madness, because it is no less madness to strive in vain and to seek nothing but the disturbance of the good, than to strive in vain and to seek nothing but hatred, which is the extreme of madness, as Jerome attests, who, approving someone’s opinion, says in the prologue to Esdras: “But in vain, as someone says, to strive in vain and to weary oneself and to seek nothing but hatred, is the extreme of madness.” Therefore a king who by a prohibition of this kind would seek nothing but the disturbance of the faithful should cease from such prohibition. |
| Secundo sic. Non minus omittenda est prohibitio doctrine erronee pape propter vitandam turbationem fidelium absque omni utilitate eorum (et etiam infidelium) quam sit omittenda correctio propter schisma vitandum, quia schisma ideo vitandum dinoscitur quia est Christianitati nocivum. Sed turbatio fidelium absque omni eorum utilitate est Christianitati nociva. Ergo sicut schisma est vitandum, ita turbatio fidelium absque eorum utilitate est penitus declinanda. Sed propter schisma vitandum ommittenda est correctio, teste Augustino, qui, contra epistolam Parmeniani, ut legitur 23 q. 4 c. Cum quisque, ait: “cum quisque fratrum id est christianorum, intus in ecclesie societate constitutorum, in aliquo tali peccato fuerit deprehensus, ut anathemate dignus habeatur, fiat hoc ubi periculum schismatis nullum est.” Et infra: “quando ita cuiusque crimen notum est omnibus, et omnibus execrabile apparet, ut vel nullos prorsus, vel non tales habeat defensores, per quos possit schisma contingere, non dormiat severitas discipline.” Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod propter schisma vitandum a severitate correctionis et discipline oportet cessare. Ergo consimiliter propter turbationem fidelium declinandam oportet regem a prohibitione doctrine pape erronee ad tempus cessare. | Second, thus. Prohibition of a pope’s erroneous doctrine should be omitted to avoid disturbing the faithful without benefit to them (or to unbelievers) no less than correction should be omitted in order to avoid schism, because it is known that schism should be avoided for the reason that it is harmful to Christianity. But disturbing the faithful without benefit to them is harmful to Christianity. Therefore, just as schism should be avoided, so disturbing the faithful without benefit to them should be completely avoided. But correction must be omitted [when that is necessary] to avoid schism, as Augustine testifies. In ‘Against the letter of Parmenianus’ [3.2.13], as is read in 23 q. 4 c. Cum quisque, he says: “When any of the brothers, i.e. of Christians, established within the fellowship of the Church, has been caught in some sin such that he is deemed worthy of anathema, let this be done where there is no danger of schism.” And below: “When someone’s crime is so well known to all, and appears execrable to all, that he has either no defenders at all, or he has none such that through them schism can occur, let the severity of discipline not sleep.” From these words it is gathered that to avoid schism, it is necessary to cease from the severity of correction and discipline. Therefore, similarly, in order to avert the disturbance of the faithful, it is necessary for a king to cease for a time from prohibiting the pope’s erroneous doctrine. |
| Discipulus: Dicitur forte quod secus est quando fides impugnatur et quando alia peccata committuntur. Licet enim a correctione aliorum excessuum sit cessandum propter schisma vitandum, tamen quando fides impugnatur oportet illos ad quos spectat resistere, quia, ut allegatum est supra, in decretis 7 q. 1 c. Adversitas § Cum vero sic legitur: “cum vero non prelatorum tantum, sed totius ecclesie salus queritur, fides impugnatur, necesse est ut ex adverso ascendant, et in die belli seipsos murum opponant pro domo Domini, animas suas ponant pro ovibus suis, ut exemplo sue passionis attendant quos sermone doctrine diutius confirmare non valent.” Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod, cum fides impugnatur, prelati non tacere aut dissimulare sed resistere debent usque ad sanguinem, ergo ratione consimili reges, quando impugnatur fides, usque ad mortem tenentur resistere, quia, sicut prelatos oportet ecclesiam defensare sermone, doctrina, et vita bona, ac tandem, si opportuerit, passione, ita et reges per potentiam temporalem ecclesiam defensare tenentur. Quare, si papa hereticus fidem impugnat, reges et principes dissimulare minime debent, sed debent sibi resistere viriliter et potenter etiam usque ad mortem, iuxta illud Sapientis: “usque ad mortem certa pro iustitia.” Et eadem ratione certandum est usque ad mortem pro fide, cum multo magis certandum sit pro fide quam pro quacunque humana iustitia aut patria vel subditis seu re temporali quacunque. | Student: Perhaps it is said that when the faith is attacked it is different from when other sins are committed. For although one must cease from correcting other excesses in order to avoid schism, nevertheless when the faith is attacked those whose responsibility it is must resist, because, as was quoted above, in the decrees 7 q. 1 Adversitas § Cum vero it is read thus: “When the salvation not only of prelates, but of the whole Church is in question, and the faith is attacked, they [the prelates] must go up against them and in the day of war set themselves up as a wall for the house of the Lord, and lay down their lives for their sheep, so that by the example of their suffering they may enkindle those whom they are no longer able to confirm with word and doctrine.” From these words it is gathered that, when the faith is attacked, prelates should not be silent or dissemble but should resist even to the point of bloodshed. Therefore, for a similar reason, when the faith is attacked kings are bound to resist even to death, because, just as prelates must defend the Church with speech, doctrine, and good life, and finally, if necessary, with suffering, so too kings are bound to defend the Church by temporal power. Therefore, if a heretic pope attacks the faith, kings and rulers should not dissemble at all, but should resist manfully and powerfully even to death, according to the saying of the Wise Man [Ecclesiasticus 4:33]: “fight for justice even unto death.” And for the same reason, one should fight even unto death for the faith, since one should fight much more for the faith than for any human justice or country or subjects or any temporal thing. |
| Magister: Respondetur quod positionem predictam nequaquam intelligis. Non enim intendit quod nunquam spectet ad reges et principes etiam usque ad mortem pro fide certare catholica, sed vult quod cum ex certamine nulla penitus speratur utilitas, sed de notabili et periculosa aut perniciosa turbatione probabiliter dubitatur, abstinendum est ad tempus a tali certamine, exemplo Christi et Pauli ac aliorum plurimorum sanctorum, qui interdum non tantummodo certantibus minime restiterunt, sed etiam fugerunt de loco certaminis. Ubi autem reges et principes ex certamine tali et resistentia ac prohibitione doctrine erronee pape heretici fructum aliquem spiritualem sperarent, etiam usque ad mortem oporteret eos, si velint veri catholici reputari, doctrine pape resistere, et eam in suis regnis et dominiis prohibere. Quemadmodum prelati, quando exemplo sue passionis possent subditos accendere, quos sermone doctrine confirmare nullatenus potuerunt, deberent ascendere ex adverso et animas suas pro ovibus ponere. | Master: The answer made is that you do not understand the aforesaid position at all. For it does not intend that it never pertains to kings and rulers to fight even unto death for the Catholic faith, but it means that when no benefit is expected from the fight, but there is probable doubt regarding a notable and dangerous or pernicious disturbance, one should abstain for a time from such a fight, following the example of Christ and Paul and many other saints, who sometimes not only did not resist the fighters at all, but even fled from the place of the fight. But where kings and rulers hoped for some spiritual fruit from such a fight and resistance and prohibition of the heretic pope’s heretical doctrine, they would be obliged, if they wished to be considered true Catholics, to resist even unto death the doctrine of the pope and to prohibit it in their kingdoms and dominions. Just as prelates, when they could by the example of their suffering enkindle their subjects, whom they could in no way confirm with their words and doctrine, should rise up against them and lay down their lives for the sheep. |
| Cum ergo dicitur “cum vero non prelatorum tantum etc.”, respondetur quod, quando fides impugnatur et ex passione prelatorum speratur pro fide quod catholici confirmabuntur in fide, tunc prelati debent mortem suscipere. Si autem ex passione sua confirmationem fidelium non sperarent, sed timerent quod post mortem suam fideles infirmi in fide catholica fluctuarent, deberent mortem fugiendo vel dissimulando vitare, et alia tempora quibus valerent fructum facere expectare, cuius sententie videtur esse beatus Gregorius, qui, in libro Dyalogorum, ut habetur 7 q. 1 c. Ibi, ait: “ubi omnino fructus de bonis deest, fit aliquando de malis labor supervacuus, maxime si e vicino cause suppetant, que fructum Deo valeant ferre meliorem.” Et paulo post: “Sepe agitur in animo perfectorum quod silentio pretereundum non est, quia, cum laborem suum sine fructu esse considerent, in locum alium ad laborem cum fructu migrant. Unde ille quoque egregius predicator, qui dissolvi cupiebat et esse cum Christo, cui Christus est vivere et mori lucrum, qui certamina passionum non solum ipse appetiit, sed ad tolleranda hec et alios accendit, Damasci persecutionem passus, ut potuisset evadere, murum, funem sportamque quesivit seque latenter deponi voluit. Numquid Paulum mortem timuisse dicimus, quam se ipse pro Iesu amore testatur appetere? Sed cum in eodem loco minorem sibi fructum adesse conspiceret, gravem ad laborem se alibi cum fructu servavit; fortis etenim Dei preliator teneri intra claustra noluit, certaminis campum quesivit.” Ex quibus colligitur quod fidei zelatoribus licet intentione fructum faciendi maiorem campum certaminis pro tempore declinare. | Therefore, when it is said “When the salvation not only of prelates” etc., the answer made is that when the faith is attacked and it is hoped for the faith that from the suffering of prelates Catholics will be confirmed in the faith, then prelates should accept death. But if they did not hope for the confirmation of the faithful from their passion, but feared that after their death the weak faithful would waver in the Catholic faith, they should avoid death by fleeing or dissimulating, and wait for other times when they would be able to bear fruit. This seems to be the opinion of Blessed Gregory, who, in his book of Dialogues, as is found in 7 q. 1 c. Ibi, says: “Where fruit for good people is completely lacking, it is sometimes pointless to labour for the wicked, especially if there are causes nearby that can bear better fruit for God.” And a little later: “It is often in the minds of the perfect, which should not be passed over in silence, that when they consider their labor to be without fruit, they migrate to another place to labor with fruit. Hence also that excellent preacher [Paul], who desired to be dissolved and to be with Christ, for whom Christ is to live and to die is gain [Phil. 1:21], who not only himself desired the struggles of sufferings, but also urged others to endure them, having suffered persecution in Damascus, in order to be able to escape the wall, sought a rope and a basket and wanted to be let down secretly [Acts 9:25]. Do we say that Paul feared death, which he himself testifies to having desired for the love of Jesus? But when he saw that in that place there was less fruit, he reserved himself for labor with fruit elsewhere; for the brave warrior of God did not want to be kept in prison, but sought a field of struggle.” From these words it is concluded that zealots of the faith are permitted to decline a field of struggle for the time being, with the intention of producing more fruit. |
| Quare, quamvis reges et principes, si viderint quod prohibitio doctrine pape erronee in regnis et terris sibi subiectis est ad honorem Dei et fidelibus fructuosa, doctrinam pape erroneam ne inficere valeat orthodoxos debeant prohibere, et pro tali prohibitione tenenda, si opportuerit, etiam arma movere (exemplo sincerissimi zelatoris legis Dei Iude Machabei qui, suos confortans ad bellum pro lege divina, ut legitur 1 Mach. 3, ait: “accingimini et estote filii potentes et estote parati in mane ut pugnetis adversus nationes has que convenerunt disperdere nos et sancta nostra, quoniam melius est nos mori in bello quam videre mala gentis nostre et sanctorum”), tamen quando rex aliquis aperte videret quod sine fructu et cum turbatione perniciosa fidelium doctrinam pape erroneam prohiberet, dissimulare deberet et tempus aliud expectare quo cum fructu maiori doctrinam eandem pestiferam prohibere et de suo regno penitus extirpare valeret. | Therefore, although kings and rulers, if they see that the prohibition of the pope’s erroneous doctrine in the kingdoms and lands subject to them is fruitful for the honor of God and for the faithful, they should prohibit the pope’s erroneous doctrine from infecting the orthodox, and in order to uphold such a prohibition even take up arms if necessary, on the example, of that most sincere zealot of the law of God, Judas Maccabees, who, strengthening his followers to war for the divine law, as we read in 1 Mach. 3, says: “Gird yourselves and be strong, sons, and be ready in the morning to fight against these nations that have gathered to destroy us and our holy places, since it is better for us to die in war than to see the evils of our nation and the holy places”. Nevertheless, when any king were to see openly that he was prohibiting the pope’s erroneous doctrine without fruit and with pernicious disturbance of the faithful, he should dissimulate and wait for another time when he could prohibit the same pestilent doctrine with greater fruit and completely eradicate it from his kingdom. |
| Discipulus: Rationem predictam intelligo, licet casus predictus quem innuit michi penitus impossibilis videatur. Ideo alias rationes ad assertionem eandem adducas. | Student: I understand the aforementioned argument, although the case it suggests seems to me completely impossible. Therefore, you please adduce other arguments for the same assertion. |
| Magister: Tercia ratio principalis est hec. Non minus dissimulanda vel tolleranda ad tempus est doctrina pape erronea propter stragem spiritualem et corporalem vel etiam tantummodo spiritualem populorum multorum vitandam, quam propter stragem corporalem multorum vitandam sit propter alios excessus severitati correctionis et iustitie detrahendum. Sed propter stragem multorum vitandam sunt alia flagitia minime punienda, teste Augustino, qui, scribens ad Bonifacium, et habetur dist. 50 c. Ut constitueretur, ait: “ubi per graves dissensionum scissuras non huius aut illius hominis est periculum, sed populorum strages iacent, detrahendum est aliquid severitati, ut maioribus malis sanandis caritas sincera subveniat.“ Ergo consimiliter, ubi sine omni fructu plurimorum strages spiritualis iaceret, quia plurimi averterentur a fide si rex prohiberet doctrinam pape erroneam, est a prohibitione huiusmodi abstinendum. | Master: The third main argument is this. A pope’s erroneous doctrine should be ignored or tolerated for a time to avoid the spiritual and bodily, or even only spiritual, slaughter of many peoples, no less than for the sake of avoiding the bodily slaughter of many the severity of correction and justice for other excesses should be should reduced. But in order to avoid the slaughter of many, other crimes should not be punished, as Augustine testifies. Writing to Boniface, and it is found in dist.50 c. Ut constitueretur, he says: “Where, through serious divisions of dissension, there is danger not to this or that man, but the destruction of peoples lies open, there must be some reduction of severity, so that sincere charity may help to heal the more serious evils.” Therefore similarly, where there would be fruitless spiritual destruction of many, because many would be turned away from the faith if the king were to prohibit the pope’s erroneous teaching, it is necessary to abstain from such a prohibition. |
| Quarto sic arguitur. Sicut rex preceptis et statutis aut etiam, si opportuerit, materialibus armis debet doctrinam pape erroneam extirpare, ita predicatores et doctores ac magistri apertis rationibus et Scripturarum testimoniis debent doctrinam pape erroneam impugnare. Sed predicatores et doctores ac magistri non debent sine fructu et cum turbatione fidelium doctrinam pape erroneam expugnare, ipsa Veritate testante, que ait Matth. 7: “nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos. “ Ergo nec rex sine fructu cum turbatione fidelium debet in regno suo doctrinam pape erroneam prohibere, sed tempus in quo valeat cum fructu extirpare ipsam expectare tenetur. | Fourth, it is argued thus. Just as a king must extirpate the pope’s erroneous teaching by precepts and statutes or even, if necessary, by material weapons, so preachers and doctors and teachers must attack the pope’s erroneous teaching with open arguments and the testimonies of the Scriptures. But preachers and doctors and teachers must not attack the erroneous teaching of the pope without fruit and with disturbance of the faithful, as the Truth itself testifies, who says in Matt. 7: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine.” Therefore, neither should a king, without benefit and disturbance to the faithful, prohibit the pope’s erroneous teaching in his kingdom, but he is bound to wait for the time when he can eradicate it fruitfully. |
| Quinto sic. Quod non est ad gloriam Dei est minime faciendum, quia nichil nisi ad gloriam Dei fieri debet, teste Apostolo qui 1 Cor. 10 ait: “omnia in gloriam Dei facite,“ qui etiam ad Coloss. 3 ait: “omne quodcunque facitis in verbo aut in opere omnia in nomine Domini Iesu.“ Sed prohibitio doctrine pape erronee sine omni utilitate cum turbatione fidelium non esset ad gloriam Dei. Ergo in hoc casu rex non debet in suo regno doctrinam pape erroneam prohibere. | Fifth, as follows. What is not to the glory of God should not be done at all, because nothing should be done except for the glory of God, as the Apostle testifies, who says in 1 Cor. 10: “Do all things for the glory of God,” who also says in Col. 3: “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” But prohibiting the pope’s erroneous teaching without any benefit and disturbance to the faithful would not be to the glory of God. Therefore, in this case, the king should not prohibit the pope’s erroneous teaching in his kingdom. |
| Capitulum 55 | Chapter 55 |
| Discipulus: Quia reor quod, si unquam aliquis papa fiet hereticus, omni regi Christianitatis potenti in regno suo, si sapienter et prudenter processerit, facile erit absque omni notabili periculo spirituali vel corporali de regno suo doctrinam pape erroneam extirpare, et ideo, si rex aliquis sustinebit doctrinam eandem in regno suo et terris sibi subiectis doceri, publicari, et teneri, hoc accidet aut propter defectum zeli ad catholicam fidem, aut propter defectum sagacitatis et prudencie, aut propter cupiditatem pecuniam aut divicias extorquendi a papa heretico, aut propter corrupcionem aliam que ab omni rege christiano elongari deberet. Et ita opinor quod casus quem innuit predicta opinio nunquam eveniet. Ideo circa eandem opinionem non amplius immoreris, sed ad publicas potestates et communitates te converte, et dic an publice potestates et communitates regibus et principibus inferiores, si sustinuerint sequaces pape heretici doctrinam eius erroneam divulgare, docere, et tenere, debeant inter fautores hereticorum et heretice pravitatis computari. | Student: Because I think that, if any pope ever becomes a heretic, it will be easy for any king of Christianity who is powerful in his kingdom, if he proceeds wisely and prudently, to eradicate the pope’s erroneous doctrine from his kingdom without any notable spiritual or physical danger. Therefore, if any king will allow that doctrine to be taught, published, and held in his kingdom and the lands subject to him, this will happen either because of a lack of zeal for the Catholic faith, or because of a lack of sagacity and prudence, or because of a desire to extort money or wealth from the heretic pope, or because of some other corruption that should be far removed from every Christian king. And so I think that the case that the aforesaid opinion suggests will never occur. Therefore, do not dwell any longer on that opinion, but turn to public powers and communities, and say whether public powers and communities inferior to kings and rulers, if they have allowed the followers of the heretic pope to spread, teach, and hold his erroneous doctrine, should be counted among the supporters of heretics and heretical wickedness. |
| Magister: Publice potestates regibus et principibus inferiores, et communitates, quantum ad fidem catholicam defendendam et pravitatem hereticam extirpandam a regibus et principibus nequaquam differre videntur, nisi quoad potestatem temporalem, quia minoris potencie sunt communiter quam reges et principes, et ideo nonnullis apparet quod per illa que dicta sunt de regibus et principibus patere potest quid de aliis publicis potestatibus et communitatibus sit tenendum. Si enim aliqua publica potestas vel communitas est tante potencie quod cum fructu spirituali potest doctrinam pape erroneam prohibere, ad hoc tenetur de necessitate salutis. Si vero est tam parve potencie temporalis quod ex prohibicione doctrine illius sequeretur turbacio fidelium absque omni fructu spirituali, eam dogmatizari licite sustinebit, et ad tempus aliud expectabit. | Master: Public powers inferior to kings and rulers, and communities, in respect of defending the Catholic faith and extirpating heretical wickedness, do not seem to differ at all from kings and rulers except as to temporal power, because they are generally of lesser power than kings and rulers. And therefore it appears to some that from what has been said about kings and rulers it can be clear what should be held about other public powers and communities. For if any public power or community is of such power that it can with spiritual fruit prohibit the pope’s erroneous doctrine, it is bound to do this of necessity for salvation. But if it is of such little temporal power that from the prohibition of the pope’s doctrine confusion of the faithful would result without any spiritual fruit, it will permissibly allow his doctrine to be taught and will wait for another time. |
| Discipulus: Quomodo scietur an aliqua potestas vel communitas sit tante potencie quod cum fructu spirituali poterit doctrinam pape erroneam extirpare vel prohibere? | Student: How will it be known whether any power or community is so powerful that it will be able to eradicate or prohibit the erroneous teaching of the pope with spiritual fruit? |
| Magister: Respondetur quod [add si?] quecunque persona vel communitas est tante potentie quod pro rebus temporalibus vel honoribus obtinendis vel tenendis vel pro quocunque dampno vel incommodo temporali vitando audet pape sive catholico sive heretico rebellare et resistere, debet tante potentie reputari quod auderet et posset pro fide defendenda doctrinam pape erroneam prohibere. Quod si non fecerit, debet censeri zelum fidei catholice non habere, ymmo fautrix heretice pravitatis est merito iudicanda. Ad quamlibet enim personam et communitatem super alios potestatem habentem spectat sibi subiectos, cum potest, a pravitate heretica preservare. | Master: The answer made is that if any person or community is so powerful that to obtain or hold temporal things or honors or to avoid any temporal harm or inconvenience it dares to rebel and resist the pope, whether Catholic or heretic, it should be considered so powerful that it would dare and would be able, to defend the faith, to prohibit the erroneous teaching of the pope. If it does not do this, it should be considered not to have the zeal for the Catholic faith; indeed it should deservedly be judged a supporter of heretical wickedness. For it is incumbent upon any person or community having power over others to preserve its subjects from heretical wickedness, when it can. |
| Quod sic ostenditur. Aut prelati sunt solliciti pravitatem hereticam pape heretici extirpare, aut sunt dampnabiliter negligentes. Si sunt solliciti, et non possunt per se eam extirpare, brachium invocant seculare. Seculares autem a prelatis ecclesie requisiti tenentur fideliter adiuvare ut pravitas heretica confundatur. Ergo in hoc casu tenentur doctrinam pape erroneam prohibere. Si autem prelati in extirpando hereses pape et sequacium eius sunt dampnabiliter negligentes, in hoc casu debent seculares minime requisiti, si possunt cum fructu spirituali, pravitatem hereticam et hereticos extirpare. Ergo ubi veritas catholica ad hoc ut defendatur, et pravitas heretica ut confundatur, requirit opem et operam secularium super alios potestatem habentium, ipsi, si possunt cum fructu spirituali, de necessitate salutis sunt astricti doctrinam pape erroneam prohibere et totis viribus impedire, ne, dogmatizata et publicata, inficiat orthodoxos. | This is shown as follows. Either the prelates are solicitous to eradicate the heretic pope’s heretical wickedness, or they are blameably negligent. If they are solicitous and cannot eradicate it by themselves, they invoke the secular arm. But seculars, when called upon by the prelates of the Church, are bound to faithfully assist in confounding heretical wickedness. Therefore, in this case, they are bound to prohibit the erroneous teaching of the pope. But if the prelates are blameably negligent in extirpating the heresies of the pope and his followers, in this case the seculars, without being called on, should, if they can with spiritual fruit, extirpate heretical wickedness and heretics. Therefore, where defending Catholic truth and confounding heretical wickedness requires the help and effort of seculars who have power over others, they are bound, of necessity for salvation, to prohibit, if they can with spiritual fruit, the erroneous teaching of the pope and to hinder it with all their might, lest, when taught and published it infect the orthodox. |
| Capitulum 56 | Chapter 56 |
| Discipulus: Licet circa istam rationem possent dubia et obiectiones multe moveri, quia tamen ad ea potest per precedentia faciliter responderi, pertranseo, et de simplicibus nullam super alios potestatem habentibus interrogo an sint fautores hereticorum et heretice pravitatis si doctrine pape erronee non resistunt. | Student: Although many doubts and objections could be raised about this argument, because nevertheless they can be easily answered by the above, I pass on, and I ask about simple people without power over others, whether they are supporters of heretics and heretical depravity if they do not resist the erroneous doctrine of the pope. |
| Magister: Ista interrogatio dupliciter potest intelligi, quia aut intelligitur de aliqua tota multitudine simplicium nullam super alios potestatem habentium, aut intelligitur de quolibet tali simplici. | Master: This question can be understood in two ways, because either it is understood of some entire multitude of simple people without power over others, or it is understood of any such simple person. |
| Si intelligitur primo modo, dicitur quod si est tanta multitudo quod cum fructu spirituali posset doctrinam pape erroneam prohibere, censenda est favere hereticis et heretice pravitati, nisi resistat. Hoc probatur primo sic. Non minus tenetur multitudo talis defendere fidem et resistere destruentibus eam quam tenetur resistere invadentibus inique et iniuste socium vel patriam. Sed talis multitudo tenetur resistere invadentibus inique et iniuste socium vel patriam (23 q. 3 c. Fortitudo). Ergo multo magis tenetur resistere, si potest, destruentibus fidem. Quare, si papa vult fidem destruere et hereticam inducere pravitatem, multitudo que potest sibi resistere debet ei viriliter obviare, et ne inficiat catholicos impedire. | If it is understood in the first way, it is said that if there is such a multitude that with spiritual fruit it could prohibit the pope’s erroneous doctrine, it should be considered to favor heretics and heretical depravity if it does not resist. This is proved first as follows. Such a multitude is no less bound to defend the faith and resist those who destroy it than it is bound to resist those who wickedly and unjustly attack a companion or the country. But such a multitude is bound to resist those who wickedly and unjustly attack a companion or the country (23 q. 3 c. Fortitudo). Therefore, much more, it is bound to resist, if it can, those who destroy the faith. Therefore, if the pope wants to destroy the faith and introduce heretical wickedness, the multitude that can resist him must manfully oppose him and prevent him from infecting Catholics. |
| Secundo sic. Ad eosdem spectat defendere Christum et fidem eius. Sed ad multitudinem que nequaquam super alios potestatem habebat, pertinebat defendere Christum, teste Augustino, qui, ut allegatum est supra, et legitur 23 q. 3 c. ultimo, ait: “ostendit propheta nec illos immunes a scelere esse, qui permiserunt principibus Christum interficere, cum pro multitudine timerentur, et possent illos a facto, et se a consensu liberare. “ Ergo ad multitudinem similiter spectat fidem Christi defendere, nec sunt immunes a scelere si permittunt pape, prelatis, regibus, principibus, et publicis potestatibus quibuscunque, fidem subvertere orthodoxam, si pro multitudine timeantur et possint illos a facto et se a consensu liberare, quia, sicut dixit Augustinis ibidem: “ qui desinit obviare cum potest, consentit.” Et ideo si multitudo Christianorum super alios potestatem nequaquam habentium posset resistere doctrine pape erronee et non faceret, consentiret eidem. | Second as follows. It pertains to the same [person etc.] to defend Christ and to defend his faith. But to a multitude without power over others it pertained to defend Christ, as Augustine testifies, who, as alleged above, and is read in 23 q. 3 last chapter, says: “The Prophet shows that those who allowed the rulers to kill Christ, when they were feared by the multitude, were not immune from crime, and could free them from the deed and themselves from consent.” Therefore it pertains to the multitude in the same way to defend the faith of Christ, nor are they immune from crime if they allow the pope, prelates, kings, rulers, and public powers of any kind, to subvert the orthodox faith, if they are feared by the multitude, and [the multitude] could free them from the deed and themselves from consent, because, as Augustine said in the same place: “He who gives up resisting when he can, consents.” And therefore if the multitude of Christians without power over others could resist the erroneous doctrine of the pope and did not do so, they would consent to it. |
| Consimiliter si multitudo simplicium in uno regno vel in uno ducatu vel in una civitate posset prohibere tam sequaces pape heretici quam dominum temporalem ne publicarent vel facerent aut permitterent publicari doctrinam pape erroneam, quam scirent esse erroneam, et non facerent, inter consentientes doctrine erronee pape computari deberent. Et causa secundum istos sepe tacta est prius, quia, videlicet, nullius rei temporalis vel hominis cuiuscunque mortalis defensio magis spectat ad quemcumque hominem vel multitudinem Christianorum quam defensio fidei orthodoxe. Et ideo si multitudo in quocunque casu contra regem proprium, vel dominum temporalem, vel papam, vel alium quemcunque quamcumque rem temporalem vel hominem debet defendere, multo magis contra eundem debet defendere fidem, si potest. Constat autem quod si papa vel rex vel dominus temporalis vellet omnes viros et mulieres, parvulos et innocentes corporaliter trucidare, totam terram vastare et ad solitudinem et desertum reducere, multitudo simplicium super alios nequaquam potestatem habentium deberet pape, regi, et cuicunque domino temporali resistere. Ergo si papa, reges et principes, ac alii domini temporales vellent fidem destruere et ad sectam falsam sibi subditos inducere, multitudo eis teneretur resistere, cum posset, quia aliter consentiret eisdem. Verumptamen, si multitudo propter imperitiam nesciret doctrinam pape esse erroneam, et ignorantia crassa et supina minime laboraret, excusaretur, quamvis doctrine pape erronee nullatenus obviaret, quemadmodum turba Iudeorum fuisset excusata de morte Christi si, ipsis nescientibus et ignorantia crassa et supina nequaquam laborantibus, Christum principes occidissent. | Similarly, if the multitude of simple people in one kingdom or in one duchy or in one city could prevent both the followers of the heretic pope and the temporal lord from publishing, or causing or permitting to be published, the pope’s erroneous doctrine, which they knew to be erroneous, and did not do so, they should be counted among those who consent to the pope’s erroneous doctrine. And the reason, according to these [i.e. the exponents of this opinion] has been repeatedly touched upon above, [also here, here, and below] namely, because the defense of no temporal thing or mortal man pertains more to any man or multitude of Christians than the defense of the orthodox faith. And therefore if there is any case in which a multitude must defend against its own king, or temporal lord, or pope, or any other person, any temporal thing or man, much more must it defend the faith against the same, if it can. It is clear, however, that if the pope or king or temporal lord wished to physically massacre all men and women, children and innocents, to lay waste the whole earth and reduce it to solitude and desert, the multitude of simple people without power over others should resist the pope, the king or any temporal lord. Therefore, if the pope, kings and rulers, and other temporal lords wished to destroy the faith and lead their subjects to a false sect, the multitude would be obliged to resist them, when they could, because otherwise they would consent to them. However, if the multitude, due to their inexperience, did not know that the pope’s doctrine was erroneous, and did not labour under gross and supine ignorance, they would be excused even if they did not in any way oppose the pope’s erroneous doctrine, just as the multitude of Jews would have been excused concerning the death of Christ if, while they were unaware and did not labour under gross and supine ignorance, their rulers had killed Christ. |
| Si autem interrogatio tua intelligitur divisim de simplicibus super alios potestatem nequaquam habentibus, sic dicitur quod si unus solus posset cum fructu dicte doctrine resistere et alios ad resistendum provocare, si non resisteret esset fautor hereticorum et heretice pravitatis. Verumptamen, sicut simplices non semper tenentur scire doctrinam pape heretici esse erroneam quando prelati et alii maiores scire tenentur, quia non ita faciliter possunt scire (reges et principes ac quedam alie publice potestates possunt sepe vocare peritos et per eos cognoscere veritatem de doctrina pape heretici quos simplices vocare non valent), ita in multis casibus simplices non tenentur dicte doctrine resistere quando prelati, reges, principes, ac alie publice potestates tenentur obviare. | But if your question is understood dividedly [one-by-one] about simple people without power over others, then it is said that if one person alone could successfully resist the said doctrine and provoke others to resist, if he did not resist he would be a supporter of heretics and heretical wickedness. However, just as simple people are not always bound to know that the doctrine of a heretic pope is erroneous, when prelates and other superiors are bound to know, because they cannot know it so easily (kings and rulers and certain other public powers can often call on experts, and through them learn the truth about the doctrine of a heretic pope, but simple people are not able to call on them), so in many cases simple people are not bound to resist the said doctrine, when prelates, kings, rulers and other public powers are bound to oppose it. |
| Discipulus: Hic essent multa querenda que abbreviationis causa dimitto, et unum tantum interrogo, an scilicet reges et principes ac alie publice potestates teneantur vocare peritos, et quomodo debent per eos querere de doctrina predicta. | Student: There are many things to be asked about here, which I omit for the sake of brevity, and I ask only one thing, namely, whether kings and rulers and other public powers are bound to call experts, and how they should inquire through them about the aforesaid doctrine. |
| Magister: An teneantur vocare peritos, et quando ex predictis dependere videtur. Sed quomodo per eos debent querere veritatem superius minime est discussum. Circa quod dicitur, quod publice potestates cum peritos vocaverunt debent eis indicere iuramentum, ut dicant plenam et meram veritatem de doctrina pape que reputatur heretica, eis fortiter comminando quod, si a veritate et scientia deviaverint, in perpetuum confundentur, et firmiter promittendo quod, si plenam et meram veritatem dixerint, eos honoribus premiabunt, et ab omni confusione et impugnatione in perpetuum defensabunt. | Master: Whether they are bound to call experts, and when, seems to depend on the what was said above. But how they should inquire through them about the truth has not been discussed above. Regarding this, it is said that when public powers have called experts they should put to them an oath to tell the full and pure truth about the doctrine of the pope that is considered heretical, strongly threatening them that if they deviate from truth and knowledge they will be forever confounded, and firmly promising that if they tell the full and pure truth, they will reward them with honors and defend them forever from all confusion and attack. |
| Discipulus: Dubito quod si unquam aliquis papa erit hereticus multitudo peritorum ei firmiter adherebit, et ideo necesse erit, si rex aliquis vel alius potens velit ab eis querere veritatem de doctrina pape heretici, eos per iuramenta et per horribilissimas comminationes constringere. Sed dic quid faciendum est de peritis, si respondere recusent. | Student: I doubt that if there ever will be a heretic pope, the multitude of experts will firmly adhere to him, and therefore that, if some king or other powerful person wishes to demand from them the truth about the doctrine of a heretic pope, it will be necessary to bind them by oaths and by the most horrible threats. But tell me what should be done regarding experts who refuse to answer. |
| Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod in hoc casu sunt habendi suspecti de heretica pravitate, nec unquam eis in aliquo negotio est credendum, quia, sicut habetur 2 q.7 c. Non potest: “non potest erga homines esse fidelis qui Deo extiterit infidelis.” | Master: To this the answer made is that in this case they are should be regarded as suspect of heretical wickedness, and they should never be trusted in any matter, because, as is stated in 2 q.7 c. Non potest: “No one can be faithful toward men who has been unfaithful to God.” |
| Capitulum 57 | Chapter 57 |
| Discipulus: Quamvis quamplurima adhuc circa fautores heretice pravitatis essent discutienda, illis tamen pro nunc omissis, que ad tractatum De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam reservo, ad fautores tantummodo hereticorum me transfero, de quibus discutias primo qui sunt fautores hereticorum. | Student: Although there are still many things to be discussed about the supporters of heretical wickedness, nevertheless, leaving them aside for now, which I reserve for the treatise “On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith”, I transfer myself to the supporters of heretics only, about whom you should first discuss: Who are supporters of heretics? |
| Magister: Dicitur quod illi sunt fautores hereticorum qui, quamvis de erroribus eorumdem se nullatenus intromittant, personis tamen eorum favent, prebendo eis consilium vel auxilium aut qualemcunque favorem, non ut errores suos divulgent, doceant, vel defendant, sed ut personas suas conservent, custodiant, vel defendant, aut ut ditiores, maiores, vel contra alios potentiores fiant. | Master: It is said that those are the supporters of heretics who, although they do not enter into their errors in any way, nevertheless favor their persons, offering them advice or assistance or any kind of favor, not so that they may spread, teach, or defend their errors, but so that they may preserve, guard, or defend their persons, or so that they may become richer, greater, or more powerful against others. |
| Discipulus: De talibus fautoribus hereticorum dictum est supra c. 27. Quantum pro nunc, requiro quoad hoc ut sciatur qui sunt fautores hereticorum [this sentence seems corrupt]. Ideo nunc breviter dic qua pena isti fautores hereticorum sint plectendi. | Student: Such supporters of heretics have been spoken about above, in Chapter 27. As for now, I ask in respect of this that it may be known who are the supporters of heretics [Text obscure: perhaps “Look there to know who are the supporters of heretics”]. Therefore, now say briefly with what punishment these supporters of heretics should be punished. |
| Magister: Pena taxatur explicite Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus, 1o § Credentes. Ibi enim loquitur de pena illorum qui sunt fautores hereticorum et non sunt fautores heretice pravitatis. | Master: The punishment is explicitly fixed in Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus, 1o § Credentes. For there it speaks of the punishment of those who are supporters of heretics and are not supporters of heretical wickedness. |
| Capitulum 58 | Chapter 58 |
| Discipulus: Licet ex hiis que sunt in isto septimo pertractata via videatur aperta ad sciendum et cognoscendum qui sunt censendi fautores tam hereticorum quam heretice pravitatis, tamen circa utrosque fautores unam tantummodo difficultatem discutias, an scilicet communicantes et obedientes pape heretico vel cuicunque alii prelato heretico sint censendi fautores tam hereticorum quam heretice pravitatis. | Student: Although from what is discussed in this Book VII the way seems open to knowing and understanding who should be considered supporters both of heretics and of heretical wickedness, nevertheless, regarding both kinds of supporters [chapter 27], please discuss just one difficulty, namely whether those who communicate with and obey a heretic pope or any other heretic prelate should be considered supporters, both of heretics and heretical wickedness. |
| Magister: Unam interrogationem proponis que tamen duas includit, quarum una est de communicantibus pape heretico vel alii heretico, et alia est de obedientibus ei. | Master: You propose one question which nevertheless includes two, one of which is about those who communicate with a heretic pope or another heretic, and the other is about those who obey him. |
| Discipulus: Ex quo dicis quod interrogatio mea duas includit, dic quomodo distinguuntur. | Student: Since you say that my question includes two, tell me how they are distinguished. |
| Magister: Respondetur quod distinguuntur sicut communicare et obedire. Multi enim communicant alicui qui nequaquam obediunt, et multi obediunt alicui, servando eius mandata antiqua vel nova sibi per literas intimata, qui tamen sibi nequaquam communicant. | Master: The answer made is that they are distinguished as communicating and obeying. For many communicate with someone who do not obey [him] at all, and many obey someone, keeping his commands, old or new, conveyed to them by letters, who nevertheless do not communicate with him at all. |
| Discipulus: Dic ergo primo de communicantibus pape heretico. | Student: Therefore tell me first about those who communicate with a heretic pope. |
| Magister: Contingit secundum quosdam communicare pape heretico multis modis. Uno modo corporaliter tantum, scilicet comedendo, bibendo, conversando, loquendo. Alio modo ei in crimine et quomodolibet consentiendo, ipsum videlicet quocunque modo, verbo vel scripto aut facto esse verum papam et catholicum asserendo. | Master: According to some, people can communicate with a heretic pope in many ways. In one way only bodily, namely by eating, drinking, conversing, speaking. In another way by consenting to him in any way, namely by asserting in any way, in word or writing or deed, that he is the true pope and Catholic. |
| Qui primo modo tantum communicaret pape heretico, non esset propter hoc fautor tam hereticorum quam heretice pravitatis. Quod enim non esset fautor heretice pravitatis probatur ex hoc quod secundum Apostolum 1 Cor. 6 cum infidelibus absque favore infidelitatis licet taliter communicare. Ergo per talem communicationem cum hereticis non potest ostendi quod communicans sit fautor heretice pravitatis. Quod etiam non sit propter hoc fautor hereticorum patet ex hoc quod inimicus inimico suo non favet, et tamen contingit inimicum et insidiatorem taliter communicare alteri, teste Sapienti Ecclesiastici 13, qui, loquens de divite pauperi non favente sed pauperem consumente, ait: “si habes convivet tecum et evacuabit te et ipse non dolebit super te.” Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod convivere et communicare alicui potest esse absque omni favore. | Someone who communicated with a heretic pope only in the first way would not on that account be a supporter of heretics or of heretical wickedness. That he would not be a supporter of heretical wickedness is proved from the fact that according to the Apostle 1 Cor. 6 it is permissible to communicate in such a way with unbelievers without the favoring of unbelief. Therefore, by such communication with heretics it cannot be shown that the communicator is a supporter of heretical wickedness. That he is also not on that account a supporter of heretics is clear from the fact that an enemy does not favor his enemy, and yet it happens that an enemy and an assailant communicates in such a way with another, as is witnessed by the Wise Man in Ecclesiasticus 13, who, speaking of a rich man who does not favor a poor man but eats up the poor man, says: “If you have anything, he will live with you and will empty you, and he will not grieve over you.” From these words it is gathered that living together and communicating with someone can be without any favor. |
| Discipulus: Satis apparet michi quod contingit alicui communicare absque omni favore, immo ad detrimentum eius, sed nunquid contingit absque peccato communicare corporaliter tantum pape heretico. | Student: It seems clear enough to me that it is possible for someone to communicate without any favor, indeed to his detriment, but does it happen without sin to communicate only bodily with a heretic pope ? |
| Magister: Circa hoc possunt esse diverse sententie. Una, quod nullo modo licet cuicunque catholico communicare pape heretico, et hec sententia videtur posse probari. Regule scripture divine omnes Christianos astringunt. Sed in scriptura divina precipitur ne quis etiam corporaliter hereticis communicare presumat. Ergo nulli Christiano licet communicare etiam corporaliter pape heretico. Maior videtur nota. Minor probatur auctoritate beati Iohannis qui in canonica sua secunda ait: “si quis venit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non adfert, nolite recipere eum in domum, nec ’ave’ ei dixeritis. Qui enim dicit illi ‘ave’ communicat in operibus illius malignis.” | Master: There can be various opinions about this. One, that it is in no way permissible for any Catholic to communicate with a heretic pope, and this opinion seems to be able to be proved. The rules of divine scripture bind all Christians. But it is written in divine scripture that no one should presume to communicate bodily with heretics. Therefore, no Christian is permitted to communicate bodily with a heretic pope. The major seems known. The minor is proved by the authority of blessed John, who says in his second canonical letter: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor say 'Greetings!' to him, for whoever says 'Greetings!' to him shares in his evil works." |
| Discipulus: Hec auctoritas ad hanc conclusionem prolixe tractata est supra libro sexto c. 68. Ideo si habes aliam auctoritatem, adducas. | Student: This text has been discussed at length above in Book VI, Chapter 68. Therefore, if you have another authority, bring it. |
| Magister: Hoc idem Apostolus Paulus sentire videtur qui, ad Titum scribens, ait: “hereticum hominem post primam et secundam correpcionem devita.” Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod postquam constiterit papam esse hereticum, est ab omnibus catholicis evitandus. Ergo non est sibi corporaliter communicandum. | Master: The Apostle Paul seems to think the same thing. Writing to Titus [3:10-11], he says: “A man that is a heretic, after a first and a second correction, avoid.” From these words it is gathered that after it is established that the pope is a heretic, he should be avoided by all Catholics. Therefore he should not be communicated to him bodily. |
| Discipulus: Hec etiam auctoritas adducta est ibidem. Ideo narra sententiam contrariam. | Student: That text is also cited there. Therefore, state the contrary opinion. |
| Magister: Alia est sententia quod in casu licet communicare corporaliter tantummodo pape heretico. Ad cuius evidentiam dicitur esse sciendum quod corporalis communio cum hereticis a iure divino minime prohibetur, sed tantummodo a iure humano, quod exemplo et auctoritate probatur. | Master: Another opinion is that on occasion it is permissible to communicate only bodily with a heretic pope. To prove this, it is said that it should be known that bodily communion with heretics is not at all forbidden by divine law, but only by human law, which is proved by example and authority. |
| Exemplo quidem Iuliani apostate, qui fuit hereticus cui Christiani licite communicaverunt corporaliter, ut habetur 11 q. 3 c. Iulianus, quod non fecissent si talis communio a iure divino fuisset prohibita. Et hoc eciam similiter exemplo et auctoritate Bonifacii martiris videtur aperte probari. Idem enim martir, ut legitur 11 q. 3 c. Antecessor, scribens Zacharie pape, ait: “antecessor predecessoris vestri venerande memorie Gregorius, dum me indignum ordinavit et ad predicandum verbum Dei Germanicis gentibus misit, sacramento me astrinxit, ut canonicis et iustis epscopis et presbiteris in verbo facto consensu astipulator fierem et adiuvator. Quod cum divina gratia implere studui. Falsos etiam sacerdotes hypocritas et seductores populorum vel corrigerem ad viam salutis, vel declinarem et abstinerem a communione ipsorum, quod ex parte servavi, et ex parte custodire et implere non potui, sed spiritualiter implevi sacramentum, quia in consensum et in consilium eorum non venit anima mea, corporaliter autem ab eis omnino abstinere non potui.” Ex quibus verbis colligitur manifeste quod iste martir licite corporaliter communicavit hereticis, quod tamen non fecisset si talis communio cum hereticis fuisset prohibita a iure divino. | By the example, indeed, of Julian the apostate, who was a heretic with whom Christians permissibly communicated bodily, as is found in 11 q. 3 c. Iulianus, which they would not have done if such communion had been forbidden by divine law. And this also seems to be clearly proved by the example and authority of the martyr Boniface. For that martyr, as is read in 11 q. 3 c. Antecessor, writing to pope Zacharias, said: “The predecessor of your predecessor, Gregory of venerable memory, when he ordained unworthy me and sent me to preach the word of God to the Germanic nations, bound me by oath to become a coadjutor and helper to canonical and just bishops and presbyters in word, deed and consent. And with divine grace I strove to fulfill this. I would also correct false priests, hypocrites and seducers of the people, to the way of salvation, or I would turn away and abstain from their communion. I partly observed this, and partly I could not keep and fulfill it, but I fulfilled the sacrament spiritually, because my soul did not come into their consent and counsel; but I was not able altogether to abstain from them bodily.” From these words it is clearly gathered that this martyr licitly communicated bodily with heretics, which he would not have done if such communion with heretics had been forbidden by divine law. |
| Discipulus: Ex hiis verbis non habetur quod illi falsi sacerdotes quibus communicavit Bonifacius erant heretici, quia nec de hereticis fit hic mencio. | Student: From these words it is not clear that those false priests with whom Boniface communicated were heretics, because here no mention is made of heretics. |
| Magister: Quod fuerint heretici testatur Zacharias papa, qui, scribens eidem martiri, ut capitulum sequens ostendit, ait: “Quod predecessor noster beate memorie Gregorius, huius sancte sedis apostolice presul, dum ad predicandum verbum Dei evangelii tuam misisset fraternitatem in Germanie partibus et gentibus illis paganis, et verbo pollicitationis illam voluit esse ante munitam, ita ut orthodoxos episcopos, presbiteros, vel quoscunque reperire potuisses in verbo exhortationis perfectos, amplius confirmares, et eis communicares, quod et factum est. Si quos vero seductores episcopos aut pseudopresbiteros vel quosque a recto fidei tramite deviantes reperisses, nulla tibi cum eis esset communio, quod te Deo solatiante, usque ad presens spiritualiter servasse confessus es, vel, si omnino propter principalem et humanum favorem gentis Francorum, dum ad eos accessisses, corporaliter abstinere non valuisti cogente ecclesiarum Dei necessitate, et tamen in eorum consilio et communionis consensu anima tua non est coinquinata. Itaque propter hoc, quod cum eis conversatus es, non consentiens iniquitati eorum, nullum tibi est detrimentum coram Deo.” Ex quibus verbis aperte colligitur quod sacerdotes et episcopi quibus communicavit Bonifacius martir fuerunt heretici et pseudopresbiteri a recto fidei tramite deviantes, quibus tamen communicando nullum detrimentum apud Deum incurrit. Ergo talis corporalis communio non est a iure divino prohibita. | Master: That there were heretics is attested by pope Zacharias. Writing to the same martyr, as the following chapter [11 q. 3 c. 105] shows, he says: “That our predecessor Gregory of blessed memory, apostolic prelate of this Holy See, when he sent your brotherhood to preach the word of God’s gospel in the regions of Germany and among those pagan nations, and wished it to be fortified beforehand by the word of promise, so that you would further confirm orthodox bishops, presbyters, or whomever you could find perfect in the word of exhortation, and communicate with them, which has been done. But if you had found any seducing bishops or pseudo-presbyters, or any who deviated from the straight path of faith, you would have no communion with them, which you confessed, by God’s help, to have kept spiritually until the present -- or, if altogether for the sake of the princely and human favor of the Frankish nation, when you approached them, you were unable to abstain bodily, compelled by the necessity of the churches of God, and yet in their counsel and sharing of consent your soul was not defiled. Therefore, because you have had dealings with them without consenting to their iniquity, there is no harm to you before God.” From these words it is clearly gathered that the priests and bishops with whom the martyr Boniface communicated were heretics and pseudo-presbyters deviating from the straight path of faith, yet by communicating with them he incurred no harm before God. Therefore such bodily communion is not forbidden by divine law. |
| Discipulus: Dic quomodo ex hiis concluditur quod contingit communicare pape heretico absque peccato. | Student: Tell me how it is concluded from these [premises] that it is possible to communicate with a heretic pope without sin. |
| Magister: Hoc probatur sic. Quod nec a iure naturali nec a iure divino est prohibitum, a iure humano in dispendium populi christiani vel alicuius communitatis fidelium prohiberi non potest. Quia ex quo lex humana pro communi utilitate fieri debet, ut ex verbis Isidori que ponuntur dist. 4 c. Erit autem colligitur manifeste, nulla lex humana ligare potest in eo casu in quo si servaretur in communitatis dispendium redundaret. Sed communicare pape heretico non est prohibitum a iure naturali nec a iure divino, ut probatum est. Ergo nulla lex humana prohibere potest communicare pape heretico quando talis prohibitio in alicuius communitatis populi christiani dispendium redundaret. Sed posset contingere casus, propter potentiam temporalem pape heretici, si catholici sibi nollent communicare, quod ex hoc sequeretur dispendium alicuius regni vel regionis, quia forte totam regionem subverteret. Ergo in tali casu vel consimili nulla lex humana potest prohibere communicare pape heretico dicto modo. | Master: This is proved as follow. What is prohibited neither by natural law nor by divine law cannot be prohibited by human law to the detriment of the Christian people or of any community of the faithful. Because since human law must be made for the common good, as is clearly gathered from the words of Isidore which are put in the dist. 4 c. Erit autem, no human law can bind in a case in which, if it were observed, it would result in detriment to the community. But communicating with a heretic pope is not prohibited by natural law nor by divine law, as has been proved. Therefore no human law can prohibit communicating with a heretic pope when such a prohibition would result in detriment to any community of the Christian people. But a case could happen that, because of the temporal power of a heretic pope, if Catholics were unwilling to communicate with him, from this would follow detriment to some kingdom or region, because perhaps he would subvert the whole region. Therefore in such a case or a similar one no human law can prohibit communicating with a heretic pope in the said way. |
| Capitulum 59 | Chapter 59 |
| Discipulus: Videtur probabile quod in casu liceret communicare corporaliter pape heretico, quemadmodum Bonifacius martir, non obstante iuramento de non communicando hereticis, corporaliter communicavit eisdem, et multi sancti viri corporaliter communicaverunt Iuliano apostate qui fuit hereticus manifestus. Ideo dic an aliquo alio modo quam corporaliter tantum, scilicet communicando sibi in divinis, audiendo missam eius vel divinum officium ab eo, aut ipsum facto, scripto, vel verbo, esse verum papam et catholicum asserendo, liceat cuicunque communicare pape heretico. | Student: It seems probable that on occasion it would be permissible to communicate bodily with a heretic pope, just as Boniface the martyr, despite his oath not to communicate with heretics, communicated bodily with them, and many holy men communicated bodily with Julian the apostate, who was a manifest heretic. Therefore tell me whether in any other way than bodily only it is permissible for anyone to communicate with a heretic pope, namely by communicating with him in divine things, by hearing his mass or divine office from him, or by asserting by deed, writing, or word, that he is a true pope and a Catholic.. |
| Magister: Circa hoc possunt esse opiniones varie et diverse, quarum prima est quod pape heretico licet communicare in divino officio et eum habendo pro papa quousque per sententiam generalis concilii fuerit condempnatus. Hec assertio videtur multis modis posse probari. | Master: There can be various and diverse opinions about this, the first of which is that it is permissible to communicate with a heretic pope in divine office and in holding him as pope until he has been condemned by the sentence of a general council. This assertion seems provable in many ways. |
| Primo sic. Non deterioris conditionis est summus pontifex novi testamenti quam fuerunt sacerdotes veteris testamenti. Sed sacerdotes veteris testamenti in hiis que ad sacerdotale officium spectabant non fuerunt vitandi propter pravitatem hereticam ante publicam dampnationem eorum. Ergo eadem ratione papa, qui est summus sacerdos nove legis, non est propter pravitatem hereticam devitandus in hiis que ad papale spectant officium antequam fuerit per generale concilium condempnatus. Ergo licet communicare pape heretico in hiis que pertinent ad papale officium. | First, as follows. The supreme pontiff of the New Testament is of no worse condition than were the priests of the Old Testament. But the priests of the Old Testament, in things that pertained to the priestly office, were not to be avoided because of their heretical wickedness before their public condemnation. Therefore, for the same reason, a pope, who is the high priest of the New Law, in things that pertain to the papal office, should not be avoided because of his heretical wickedness before he has been condemned by a general council. Therefore, it is permissible to communicate with a heretic pope in things that pertain to the papal office. |
| Maior videtur aperta. Minor ostenditur. Nam sacerdotes veteris legis qui predicationi et doctrine Christi nequiter resistebant fuerunt heretici, eo quod contra fidem errabant et suo errori pertinaciter adheserunt, et tamen Christus docuit quod eis erat communicandum et in hiis que ad sacerdotale spectabant officium, cum dicit leproso Matth. 8: “vade ostende te sacerdoti et offer munus quod precepit Moises in testimonium illis.” Et Luc. 17 dixit Christus leprosis: “ite, ostendite vos sacerdotibus.” Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod non obstante quod illi sacerdotes fuerint heretici, tamen Christus voluit quod leprosi communicarent eis in hiis que spectabant ad eorum officium. | The major seems obvious. The minor is shown. For the priests of the Old Law who wickedly resisted the preaching and teaching of Christ were heretics, because they erred against the faith and pertinaciously clung to their error. And yet Christ taught that they were to be communicated with also in things that pertained to the priestly office when he says to the leper in Matt. 8: “Go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift which Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” And in Luke 17 Christ said to the lepers: “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” From these words it is gathered that although those priests were heretics, Christ wanted the lepers to communicate with them in things that pertained to their office. |
| Hoc etiam Augustinus sentire videtur qui, loquens de prophetis qui populum suum propter idolatriam et per consequens propter heresim increpabant, ut habetur 23 q. 4 c. 1, ait: “non enim prophete, qui hoc dicebant, populum suum dimiserunt, sed inter eos habitabant, quos increpabant, unum templum cum eis intrabant, eadem sacramenta celebrabant. “ Et idem, ut habetur causa et questione predictis, c. Si quis, ait: “ communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione sacramentorum, sed consensione factorum. “ Et, ut legitur c. Recedite, ait: “recedite et exite inde, et immundum ne tetigeritis. Sed cum tactu cordis non corporis.” Et infra: “clamavit Moises ista, clamavit Isaias, clamavit Hieremias, clamavit Ezechiel. Videamus, si dimiserunt populum Dei, et se ad gentes alias transtulerunt. Quam multa, et quam vehementer Hieremias increpavit in peccatores et sceleratos populi sui? Inter eos tamen erat, unum cum eis templum intrabat, eadem sacramenta celebrabat, in eadem sceleratorum hominum congregatione vivebat.” Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod prophete cum hereticis et idolatris, quorum tunc erat numerus non modicus in populo, idem templum intrabant, et eadem sacramenta tractabant. Ergo communicare hereticis in divinis et in aliis que ad sacerdotale spectant officium non erat illicitum. Ergo nec modo est illicitum communicare pape heretico in hiis que ad papale spectant officium, saltem antequam fuerit per sententiam generalis concilii condempnatus. | This also seems to be the opinion of Augustine. Speaking of the prophets who rebuked their people for idolatry and consequently for heresy, as is found in 23 q. 4 c. 1, he says: “For the prophets who said this did not abandon their people, but they lived among those whom they rebuked, and entered the same temple with them, celebrated the same sacraments.” And the same [Augustine], as is found in the same Cause and Question, c. Si quis, says: “Being in communion with bad persons does not defile a person through taking part [with them] in the sacraments, but by consent to their deeds.” And, as is read in c. Recedite, he says: “Depart and go out from there, and do not touch the unclean thing. But with the touch of the heart, not of the body.” And below: “Moses cried out these things, Isaiah cried out, Jeremiah cried out, Ezekiel cried out. Let us see if they abandoned the people of God and transferred themselves to other nations. How many times, and how vehemently Jeremiah rebuked the sinners and wicked people of his people? Yet he was among them, he entered the same temple with them, he celebrated the same sacraments, and he lived in the same congregation of wicked men.” From these words it is given to understand that the prophet entered the same temple with heretics and idolaters, of whom there was then no small number among the people, and handled the same sacraments. Therefore it was not impermissible to communicate with heretics in divine things and in other things that pertain to the priestly office. Therefore now it is not impermissible to communicate with a heretic pope in things that pertain to the papal office, at least until he has been condemned by the sentence of a general council. |
| Secundo eadem assertio videtur sic posse probari. Non est maius peccatum communicare hereticis in divinis quam procurare et laborare quod ecclesie catholicorum reddantur hereticis ad ritus suos celebrandos in eis. Sed hoc est licitum, quod probatur per exemplum beati Iohannis pape. In cuius Legenda sic legitur: “hic vocatus est a Theodorico rege Ravennam, quem ipse rex rogans misit in legationem Constantinopolim ad Iustinum imperatorem orthodoxum, quia eodem tempore Iustinus imperator, vir religiosus summo ardoris amore religionis christiane voluit hereticos extricare. Nam summo fervore Christianitatis hoc consilio usus est ut ecclesias Arrianorum catholicas consecraret. Pro hac causa hereticus rex Theodoricus hoc audiens exarsit, et voluit totam Italiam gladio extinguere. Eodem tempore Iohannes papa egrotus infirmitate cum fletu ambulavit et senatores et consules cum eo, id est Theodorus, Importunus, Agapitus exconsul et alius Agapitus patricius, qui hoc accipientes in mandatis legationum ut redderentur ecclesie hereticis in partibus orientis, quod si non, omnem Italiam gladio perderet.” Ex quibus colligitur quod licet ecclesias reddere hereticis et procurare quod reddantur eisdem. Ergo consimiliter licet communicare hereticis in divinis et per consequens licet communicare pape heretico in hiis que spectant ad papale officium. | Second, the same assertion seems provable as follows. It is no greater sin to communicate with heretics in divine things than to procure and labour that the churches of Catholics be returned to heretics to celebrate their rites in them. But this is permissible, which is proved by the example of blessed pope John. In his Legend it is read thus: “Here he was summoned by King Theodoric to Ravenna, whom the king himself, at the king’s request, sent on an embassy to Constantinople to the orthodox emperor Justin, because at the same time the emperor Justin, a religious man with the greatest love of ardor of the Christian religion, wished to extirpate heretics. For with the greatest fervor of Christianity he planned to consecrate as Catholic the churches of the Arians. For this reason the heretical king Theodoric, hearing this, was enraged, and wished to extinguish all of Italy with the sword. At the same time pope John, sick with illness, walked with tears and the senators and consuls with him (that is, Theodore, Importunus, Agapitus the ex-consul, and another Agapitus the patrician), who, accepting this in the mandates of the embassies, that the churches in the eastern parts be returned to the heretics, and that if not, he would destroy all of Italy with the sword.” From these words it is gathered that it is permissible to return churches to heretics and to procure that they be returned to them. Therefore, similarly, it is permissible to communicate with heretics in divine things, and consequently it is permissible to communicate with a heretic pope in things that pertain to the papal office. |
| Tertio sic. Quem debent fideles in aliquo officio tollerare, eidem possunt licite communicare quantum ad ea que ad idem spectant officium. Quia si non deberent sibi communicare, deberent efficaciter laborare ut eodem officio privaretur. Sed in aliquo casu saltem debent fideles papam hereticum in papatus officio tollerare. Ergo in aliquo casu saltem licet eis communicare pape heretico quantum ad ea que ad papatus spectant officium. Maior videtur manifesta. Minor probatur. Quia non minus tollerandus est papa hereticus quam doctrina heretica ipsius, cum papa hereticus nonnisi propter doctrinam hereticam debeat impugnari. Sed, sicut ostensum est, in aliquo casu est doctrina pape heretici tolleranda. Ergo etiam interdum est papa hereticus tollerandus. Hoc etiam Augustinus sentire videtur qui, ut legitur 23 q. 4 c. 1, ait: “tollerandi sunt quidem mali pro pace. “ Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod causa pacis conservande tollerandi sunt mali. Eadem autem causa eundem habet effectum, et ubi est eadem ratio debet esse idem ius. Si ergo quidem mali causa pacis conservande sunt tollerandi, sequitur quod papa hereticus causa pacis conservande tollerari debet. | Third, thus. If the faithful should tolerate someone in some office, they can permissibly communicate with him as to things that pertain to that office, because if they should not communicate with him, they should work effectively to deprive him of that office. But in some case at least the faithful must tolerate a heretic pope in the office of the papacy. Therefore, in some case at least it is permissible for them to communicate with a heretic pope as to things that pertain to the office of the papacy. The major seems clear. The minor is proved. Because a heretic pope should be tolerated no less than his heretical doctrine, since a heretic pope should be attacked only because of his heretical doctrine. But, as has been shown, in some case the doctrine of a heretic pope should be tolerated. Therefore, sometimes a heretic pope should be tolerated. This also seems to be the opinion of Augustine, who, as we read in 23 q. 4 c. 1, says: “The wicked are indeed to be tolerated for the sake of peace.” From these words it is gathered that for the sake of preserving peace the wicked should be tolerated. But the same cause has the same effect, and where there is the same reason there should be the same right. If, therefore, the wicked should be tolerated for the sake of preserving peace, it follows that a heretic pope should be tolerated for the sake of preserving peace. |
| Quarto sic. Vitam Christi debent catholici imitari. Sed Christus in hiis que ad religionem christianam spectant communicavit Iude, qui non solum proditor sed etiam hereticus existebat, quia ei sacram communionem dedit, ut ait Augustinus in epistola ad Vincentium, et ponitur 23 q. 4 c. Quam magnum. Ergo licet catholicis communicare hereticis in hiis que ad religionem christianam spectant, et per consequens licet eis communicare pape heretico in hiis que ad papatus spectant officium, antequam fuerit per sententiam generalis concilii condempnatus. | Fourth, thus. Catholics must imitate the life of Christ. But Christ communicated with Judas in things that pertain to the Christian religion (he was not only a traitor but also a heretic), because he gave him holy communion, as Augustine says in his letter to Vincent, and it is found in 23 q. 4 c. Quam magnum. Therefore it is permissible for Catholics to communicate with heretics in things that pertain to the Christian religion, and consequently it is permissible for them to communicate with a heretic pope in things that pertain to the office of the papacy, before he has been condemned by the sentence of a general council. |
| Capitulum 60 | Chapter 60 |
| Discipulus: Aliam sententiam circa interrogationem propositam audire desidero. | Student: I would like to hear another opinion about the question proposed. |
| Magister: Alia sententia est que de communicantibus pape heretico reputat distinguendum. Quia aut communicantes pape heretico sciunt ipsum esse hereticum aut ignorant, et si ignorant, aut laborant ignorantia affectata vel crassa et supina, aut laborant ignorantia invincibili vel probabili et non crassa et supina. Communicantes scienter pape heretico alio modo quam corporaliter tantum, puta communicando sibi in hiis que spectant ad papatus officium vel ad officium cuiuscunque ecclesiastici ministerii, excepta susceptione baptismi in necessitatis articulo aut quocunque modo, verbo, facto, aut scripto habendo eum pro vero papa, protestando aut asserendo eum facto vel scripto aut verbo esse catholicum, sunt fautores et heretici et heretice pravitatis, et penam fautorum hereticorum et heretice pravitatis incurrunt, nisi metu mortis vel forsitan gravium tormentorum sibi predicto modo communicent. Tunc enim non essent censendi fautores neque hereticorum neque heretice pravitatis quamvis peccarent mortaliter. | Master: There is another opinion that considers it necessary to distinguish those who communicate with a heretic pope. Because either those who communicate with a heretic pope know that he is a heretic, or are they are ignorant of it, and if they are ignorant, either they suffer from affected or gross and supine ignorance, or they suffer from invincible or probable ignorance and not gross and supine. Those who knowingly communicate with a heretic pope in a way other than bodily only, for example by communicating with him in things that pertain to the office of the papacy or to the office of any ecclesiastical ministry (except for the reception of baptism in an situation of necessity), or in any way whatsoever, by word, deed, or writing, holding him to be the true pope, protesting or asserting by deed, writing, or word that he is Catholic, are supporters of both heretics and heretical wickedness, and they incur the penalty of supporters of heretics and heretical wickedness -- unless they communicate with him in the aforesaid way out of fear of death or perhaps grave torments, for then they would not be considered supporters of either heretics or heretical wickedness, though they sin mortally. |
| Discipulus: Circa istam sententiam quattuor probanda michi videntur. Quorum primum est quod non licet predicto modo communicare pape heretico. | Student: There seem to me to be four things to be proved concerning this opinion. The first is that it is not permissible to communicate in the aforesaid manner with a heretic pope. |
| Secundum est quod communicantes predicto modo pape heretico absque metu mortis et gravium tormentorum sunt fautores hereticorum et heretice pravitatis. | The second is that those who communicate in the aforesaid manner with a heretic pope, without fear of death and grave torments, are supporters of heretics and heretical wickedness. |
| Tertium est quod communicantes predicto modo pape heretico metu mortis vel gravium tormentorum non sunt fautores hereticorum vel heretice pravitatis. | The third is that those who communicate in the aforesaid manner with a heretic pope with fear of death or grave torments are not supporters of heretics or heretical wickedness. |
| Quartum est quod taliter communicantes pape heretico peccant mortaliter. | The fourth is that those who communicate in such a manner with a heretic pope sin mortally. |
| Pro istis itaque quattuor allegare conare. Primo tamen, ut assertionem predictam magis intelligam et sic pateat michi via ad noscendum an aliquid contineat veritatis, enumera alios modos distincte quibus isti dicunt nulli licere communicare scienter pape heretico. | Try therefore to argue for these four. First, however, so that I may better understand the aforesaid assertion, and so that the way may be open to me to know whether it contains any truth, list distinctly the other ways by which these people say that it is not permissible for anyone to knowingly communicate with a heretic pope. |
| Magister: Dicunt quod nulli catholico licet scienter a papa heretico audire missam vel aliquod divinum officium, nec aliquod suscipere sacramentum, excepto baptismo in necessitatis articulo, nec aliquam ecclesiasticam dignitatem, nec aliquod ecclesiasticum officium, puta inquisitionem heretice pravitatis, vel penitentiariam, aut aliquid aliud, nec licet catholico dicere vel scribere aliquod verbum quo papa vel catholicus asseratur, nec sibi quamcunque reverentiam exhibere qua quis aperte quod sit papa vel catholicus protestetur. | Master: They say that no Catholic is permitted knowingly to hear mass or any divine office from a heretic pope, nor to receive any sacrament (except baptism a situation of necessity), nor any ecclesiastical dignity, nor any ecclesiastical office (such as inquisition into heretical depravity, or a penitentiary, or anything else); nor is it permitted for a Catholic to say or write any word by which he is asserted to be a pope or a Catholic, nor to show him any reverence by which one openly testifies that he is a pope or a Catholic. |
| Discipulus: Puto quod assertionem predictam, quantum ad quattuor que dixi probanda, intelligam. Ideo primum illorum quattuor probare conare. | Student: I think I understand the aforementioned assertion, as far as the four points I said should be proved. Try therefore to prove the first of these four. |
| Magister: Quod non liceat communicare pape heretico scienter modo predicto probatur sic. Nulli heretico licet communicare modo predicto, ergo nec pape heretico licet communicare modo predicto. Consequentia non solum patet per regulam scientie racionalis qua dicitur quod a superiori cum distributione ad inferius consequentia tenet, sed etiam patet ex hoc quod papa hereticus nullo gaudet privilegio speciali ultra alios episcopos hereticos, et ita si aliis episcopis hereticis non licet communicare scienter modo predicto (ex quo nulli heretico licet communicare scienter modo predicto) etiam pape heretico non licet communicare scienter modo predicto. | Master: That it is not permissible to communicate knowingly in the aforesaid manner with a heretic pope is proved thus. No one is permitted to communicate in the aforesaid manner with a heretic, therefore neither is it permissible to communicate in the aforesaid manner with a heretic pope. The consequence is not only clear from the rule of logic that says that from the superior with distribution to the inferior the inference holds, but it is also clear from the fact that a heretic pope enjoys no special privilege over other heretical bishops, and so if it is not permissible to communicate knowingly in the aforesaid manner with other heretical bishops (from the fact that no one is permitted to communicate knowingly in the aforesaid manner with a heretic), it is also not permissible to communicate knowingly in the aforesaid manner with a heretic pope. |
| Antecedens autem auctoritatibus et exemplis ostenditur. In concilio enim Martini pape, ut legitur 1 q. 1 c. Non liceat, sic scribitur: “neque liceat aut cum hereticis aut scismaticis orare. “ | The antecedent is shown by authorities and examples. For in the Council of pope Martin, as is read in 1 q. 1 c. Non liceat, it is written: “Nor is it permitted to pray either with heretics or schismatics.” |
| Item, in concilio Cartaginensi quarto, ut habetur 24 q.3 c. Clericus, legitur: “cum eis “, scilicet cum hereticis et schismaticis, “neque orandum est neque psallendum.” | Likewise, in the Fourth Council of Carthage, as is found in 24 q.3 c. Clericus, it is read: “With them”, namely with heretics and schismatics, “it is not permitted to pray or sing psalms.” |
| Item, Innocentius papa, ut habetur 1 q. 1 c. Constat, ait: “constat multos vim passos esse, atque invitos attractos, repugnantesque ab hereticis ordinatos; sed huiusmodi aliquis, si post talem ordinationem non interfuit, cum illi conficerent sacramenta, si communioni eorum participatus non est, si statim discedentibus illis pessimo conciliabulo eorum abrenunciavit et ad ecclesiam rediit, iste talis potest habere colorem aliquem excusationis. Ceterum, qui post mensem aut amplius redierunt, cum se considerarent ab hereticis ordinatos, certe quamvis nichil ab eis acceperunt, rei sunt usurpate dignitatis.” Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod non licet ab hereticis ordinari, nec communicare eis cum conficiunt sacramenta, nec ab eis aliquam suscipere dignitatem. | Likewise, pope Innocent, as found in 1 q. 1 c. Constat, says: “It is certain that many have suffered violence, and have been drawn against their will, and, resisting, have been ordained by heretics; but such a person, if after such an ordination he did not attend when they performed the sacraments, if he did not partake of their communion, if immediately after their departure he renounced their most wicked conventicle and returned to the Church, such a person may have some color of excuse. Moreover, those who returned after a month or more, since they considered themselves to have been ordained by the heretics, though they received nothing from them, are certainly guilty of usurping a dignity.” From these words it is gathered that it is not permissible to be ordained by heretics, nor to communicate with them when they perform the sacraments, nor to receive any dignity from them. |
| Item, hoc Leo papa, ut legitur capitulo sequenti, testari videtur, dicens: “omnis cuiuslibet ordinis clericus, qui catholicam deserens unitatem, heretice vel schismatice coniunctionis contagione se maculaverit, si ad ecclesiam redierit cum legitima satisfactione et erroris sui dampnatione, hoc in magno beneficio habeat, si, adempta spe omnis promotionis, in quo invenitur ordine permaneat.” Ex quibus colligitur quod nullus valet communicare hereticis nisi peccati maculam contrahendo. | Likewise, pope Leo, as we read in the following chapter [1 q. 1 c. 112], seems to testify to this, saying: “Every cleric of any order who, abandoning Catholic unity, has stained himself with the contagion of heretical or schismatic union, if he returns to the Church with lawful satisfaction and condemnation of his error, will have this as a great benefit if, deprived of all hope of promotion, he remains in the order in which he is found.” From this it is concluded that no one can communicate with heretics without contracting the stain of sin. |
| Quod etiam non liceat modo predicto communicare hereticis probatur exemplis. Primo quidem exemplo Herminigildi regis, qui etiam pro morte vitanda ab Arriano episcopo communionem accipere recusavit. De quo beatus Gregorius, ut habetur 24 q. 1 capitulo ultimo, narrat in hec verba: “superveniente autem festivitatis paschalis die, intempeste noctis silencio ad eum perfidus pater Arrianum episcopum misit, ut de eius manu sacrilege consecrationis communionem perciperet, atque per hoc ad patris gratiam redire mereretur. Sed vir Deo deditus Arriano episcopi venienti exprobravit ut debuit, eiusque a se perfidiam dignis increpacionibus repulit, quia etsi exterius iacebat ligatus, apud se tamen in magno mentis culmine stabat securus. Ad se itaque reverso episcopo Arriano pater infremuit, statimque suos apparitores misit, qui constantissimum confessorem Dei illic, ubi iacebat, occiderent. Quod et factum est.” | That it is also not permissible to communicate with heretics in the aforementioned way is proved also by examples. First, indeed, by the example of King Herminigild, who refused to receive communion from an Arian bishop even in order to avoid death, of whom blessed Gregory, as is stated in 24 q. 1, the last chapter, he narrates in these words: “But when the day of the Easter festival arrived, in the dead of night, the treacherous father sent the Arian bishop to him, so that he might sacrilegiously receive the communion of consecration from his hand, and thereby merit a return to the grace of his father. But the man devoted to God rebuked the Arian bishop when he came, as was right, and repelled his treachery with deserved rebukes, because although he lay bound outwardly, yet within himself he stood secure in a great height of mind. So when the Arian bishop returned to him, the father roared, and immediately sent his attendants to kill the most steadfast confessor of God there where he lay. Which was done.” |
| Aliud exemplum ponitur de Bonifacio martire, de quo dictum est supra, qui, licet corporaliter communicaret hereticis, eis tamen quantum ad divina vel illa que spectabant ad religionem christianam communicare nolebat. Unde, sicut habetur 11 q. 3 c. Antecessor, de seipso ait: “corporaliter autem omnino ab eis”, scilicet hereticis, “abstinere non potui. Dum enim venissem ad principem Francorum cogente ecclesiarum necessitate, non tales ibi repperi quales volui, sed tamen in sancta communione corporis Christi illis non communicavi.” | Another example is given of the martyr Boniface, of whom we have spoken above, who, although he communicated bodily with heretics, nevertheless did not wish to communicate with them as to divine things or things that pertained to the Christian religion. Hence, as is stated in 11 q. 3 c. Antecessor, he says of himself: “But bodily I could not abstain altogether from them,” namely from heretics. For when I came to the ruler of the Franks, compelled by the necessity of the churches, I did not find such there as I wished, but nevertheless I did not communicate with them in the holy communion of the body of Christ.” |
| Ex quibus auctoritatibus et exemplis aliisque innumeris videtur aperte probatum quod nulli licet heretico communicare quantum ad illa que spectant ad religionem christianam, excepta susceptione baptismi in casu. Quamvis in necessitate liceat cum hereticis corporaliter conversari, a quibus tamen, ut docet Augustinus, est spiritualiter recedendum. Spiritualiter autem ab eis recedere est iniquitati eorum in nullo favere, neque facto neque verbo neque scripto pretendere quod pro catholicis sint habendi. | From these texts and examples, and countless others, it seems clearly proved that no one is permitted to communicate with a heretic as to things that pertain to the Christian religion (except for the reception of baptism on occasion), although in necessity it is permissible to keep company bodily with heretics, from whom, however, as Augustine teaches, one must spiritually withdraw. But to withdraw spiritually from them is to favor their iniquity in no way, and not to assert, either in deed or in word or in writing, that they should be considered Catholics. |
| Discipulus: Ostendisti uno modo quod nulli licet catholico communicare scienter pape heretico quantum ad ea que ad religionem christianam spectare noscuntur. Nunc proba idem aliis modis, si quos alios cogitasti. | Student: You have shown in one way that no Catholic is permitted to communicate knowingly with a heretic pope as to things that are known to pertain to the Christian religion. Now prove the same in other ways, if you have thought of any others. |
| Magister: Hoc secundo probatur sic. Nulli excommunicato communicare licet quantum ad ecclesiastica sacramenta et ea que ad officium ecclesiasticum et iurisdictionem ecclesiasticam pertinere noscuntur, quia omnis excommunicatus omnibus huiusmodi actibus legitimis est privatus. Papa autem hereticus est excommunicatus excommunicationi maiori et papatu privatus, sicut in precedentibus, ut nonnullis apparet, est demonstrative probatum. Ergo nulli catholico licet predicto modo scienter communicare pape heretico. | Master: This is proved in a second way thus. No excommunicated person is permitted to communicate as to ecclesiastical sacraments and things that are known to pertain to ecclesiastical office and jurisdiction, because every excommunicated person is deprived of all such lawful acts. But a heretic pope is excommunicated by a major excommunication and is deprived of the papacy, as in the preceding pages (as it seems to some) is demonstratively proved. Therefore no Catholic is permitted to communicate knowingly in the aforesaid way with a heretic pope. |
| Discipulus: Licet supra libro sexto capitulis 72, 75, et 81, rationibus et exemplis ostenderis quomodo probatur quod papa eo ipso quod sit hereticus est papatu privatus et excommunicatus absque congregatione novi concilii generalis, tamen peto ut dicas nunc an hoc tenentes in iure canonico se fundare nitantur. | Student: Although above in Book VI, Chapters 72, 75, and 81, you have shown by arguments and examples how it is proved that the pope, by the very fact that he is a heretic, is deprived of the papacy and excommunicated without the convening of a new general council, yet I ask you to say now whether those who hold this try to base themselves on canon law. |
| Magister: Isti fundant se in decretis summorum pontificum. Ut tamen mentem eorum, quam aliqualiter explicavi supra libro sexto capitulo 75, perfecte intelligas, ac per hoc etiam, quamvis esset falsa, tradetur via ad intelligendum decreta summorum pontificum que sum allegaturus, debes scire quod de heresi pape, sicut sepe tactum est, distinguunt, quia aut tenet heresim dampnatam explicite aut dampnatam implicite. Si tenet pertinaciter heresim dampnatam explicite et est notorium, non est necessarium generale concilium congregari, sed quilibet hoc sciens eum pro dampnato et excommunicato debet habere. Quod etiam quilibet sciens, ne fides catholica subvertatur, tunc quando fuerit opportunum nescientibus revelare tenetur. Aliter enim se minime curare de fide probabit aperte. Si autem heresis pape fuerit solummodo dampnata implicite, quamvis papa pertinax in heresi tali in rei veritate sit dampnatus et excommunicatus et papatu privatus, non est tamen a catholicis ante dampnationem explicitam heresis sue pro dampnato et excommunicato habendus, sed tollerandus est quamdiu vixerit quousque per generale concilium condempnetur. | Master: These people base themselves on the decrees of the supreme pontiffs. However, so that you may perfectly understand their mind, which I have somewhat explained above in Book VI, Chapter 75, and thereby also, even if it were false, be given a way to understand the decrees of the supreme pontiffs which I am about to allege, you must know that concerning heresy the pope, as has often been touched upon, they distinguish between a pope who holds either a heresy explicitly condemned, or a heresy condemned implicitly. If he pertinaciously holds a heresy that has been explicitly condemned and is notorious, it is not necessary for a general council to be convened, but anyone who knows this should consider him to be condemned and excommunicated. This also every one knowing it is bound to reveal it to those who do not know, when it is opportune, lest the Catholic faith be subverted. Anyone who dose not do that will prove openly that he cares not at all about the faith. But if the pope’s heresy has been condemned only implicitly, although the pope who persists in such a heresy has in truth been condemned and excommunicated and deprived of the papacy, he is nevertheless not to be considered by Catholics as condemned and excommunicated before the explicit condemnation of his heresy, but he should be tolerated as long as he lives until he is condemned by a general council. |
| Discipulus: Occasione istorum verborum due michi interrogationes occurrunt. Quarum prima est an papa propter diffinitionem sollempnem vel alio modo manifeste ostendens se pertinaciter adherere heresi dampnate duntaxat implicite, si postea, generali concilio congregato, eadem heresis fuerit explicite condempnata, sit papa pro excessu preterito deponendus, vel fuisse depositus declarandus, etiam si voluerit concilio generali assentire, vel, eo generali concilio nullatenus resistente, sed suam heresim revocante, sit papa verus et catholicus reputandus. | Student: Prompted by these words, two questions occur to me. The first is whether a pope, if he has solemnly defined or in some other way clearly shown that he pertinaciously adheres to a heresy condemned only implicitly, if later, when a general council is convened, the same heresy has been condemned explicitly, should he be deposed for the past excess, or be declared to have been deposed, even if he is willing to assent to the general council, or, if he does not resist that general council in any way but retracts his heresy, should he be considered a true and Catholic pope? |
| Secunda autem est an papa pertinaciter tenens heresim dampnatam duntaxat implicite, et postea ante omnem accusationem vel impugnationem, seu etiam post impugnationem, ad catholicam rediens veritatem, debeat seipsum depositum reputare, licet omnes catholici habeant eum pro vero papa. Ad istas duas interrogationes sine magna discussione respondeas. | The second is whether a pope who pertinaciously holds a heresy condemned only implicitly, and afterwards, before any accusation or attack, or even after the attack, returns to Catholic truth, should he consider himself deposed, though all Catholics consider him to be the true pope. Answer these two questions without much discussion. |
| Magister: Ad primam respondetur quod papa, si in concilio generali legitime convincatur pertinaciter adhesisse cuicunque heresi latenti qualitercunque scripture divine vel doctrine universalis ecclesie obvianti, etiam si de ea nunquam antea mentio expressa fuisset, quantumcunque in generali concilio paratus sit corrigi, pro deposito est habendus nec potest licite papali fungi officio nisi in summum pontificem noviter eligatur. Cuius ratio assignatur. Quia omnis hereticus, sive occultus sive manifestus, sive pro heresi dampnata explicite sive pro heresi dampnata implicite, est dampnatus, privatus, et excommunicatus. Cum ergo papa talis fuerit ante concilium hereticus, licet hoc non constiterit ecclesie, tunc fuit papatu privatus, licet non haberetur pro privato. Ergo postquam constat ecclesie quod fuit hereticus, ecclesia debet eum fuisse depositum reputare. | Master: To the first, the answer made is that if a pope is lawfully convicted in a general council of having pertinaciously adhered to any hidden heresy, in whatever way contrary to divine scripture or the doctrine of the universal Church, even if it had never been mentioned before, however much he may be prepared to be corrected in a general council, he should be considered deposed and he cannot permissibly exercise the papal office (unless he is newly elected to be supreme pontiff). The reason for this is given. Because every heretic, whether hidden or manifest, whether for a heresy condemned explicitly or for a heresy condemned implicitly, is condemned, deprived, and excommunicated. Therefore, since such a pope was a heretic before the council, although this was not ascertained by the Church, then he was deprived of the papacy, although he was not considered a private person. Therefore, after it is established by the Church that he was a heretic, the Church should consider him to have been deposed. |
| Discipulus: Ista responsio videtur omnino falsa, quia secundum iura, que sepe prius tacta sunt, errans contra fidem qui paratus est corrigi non est hereticus reputandus. Si ergo papa in concilio generali paratus est corrigi, non est hereticus reputandus, et per consequens pro dampnato minime est habendus. | Student: This answer seems entirely false, because according to the laws, which have often been touched upon before, someone erring against the faith who is ready to be corrected should not be considered a heretic. Therefore, if the pope is ready to be corrected in a general council, he should not be considered a heretic, and consequently he should not be considered condemned. |
| Magister: Ista instantia frivola videtur omnino. Nam licet secundum iura et testimonia sanctorum errans qui paratus est corrigi tunc non sit inter hereticos computandus, multi tamen errantes contra fidem possunt esse parati corrigi, qui prius parati corrigi non fuerunt, sed extiterunt penitus pertinaces. Et ideo potest contingere quod aliquis primo est hereticus, quia tunc non est paratus corrigi, et tamen cum ceperit esse corrigibilis, non est hereticus reputandus. Sic esset de papa, quia, si primo quemcunque errorem quantumcunque latenter Scripture Divine vel doctrine universalis ecclesie adversantem, et ideo non explicite sed implicite tantummodo condempnatum, sollempniter diffiniret esse tenendum, tunc esset pertinax et hereticus iudicandus. Si tamen postea in concilio generali vel alias paratus esset corrigi, tunc non esset hereticus, sed prius fuisset hereticus. Non ergo per hoc quod errans contra fidem paratus est corrigi potest ostendi quod prius non fuit hereticus, sed per hoc declaratur quod non est tunc hereticus quando paratus est corrigi. | Master: This objection seems entirely frivolous. For although according to the laws and testimonies of the saints. Someone erring against the faith who is ready to be corrected is not at that time to be counted among heretics, yet many erring against the faith can be ready to be corrected who were not ready to be corrected before, but were completely pertinacious. And therefore it can happen that someone is at first a heretic, because he is not then ready to be corrected, and yet when he has begun to be correctable, he should not be considered a heretic. So it would be with the pope, because if he were first to solemnly define as being to be held any error, however latently opposed to Divine Scripture or the doctrine of the universal church, and therefore not explicitly but only implicitly condemned, then he should be judged pertinacious and a heretic. If, however, he were later prepared to be corrected, in a general council or elsewhere, then he would not be a heretic, but he would have been a heretic before. Therefore, it cannot be shown by the fact that someone erring against the faith is prepared to be corrected that he was not a heretic before, but by this it is declared that he is not a heretic at the time when he is prepared to be corrected. |
| Discipulus: Dic ad secundam interrogationem. | Student: Tell me about the second question. |
| Magister: Ad secundam consimiliter respondetur quod papa pertinaciter tenens errorem contra fidem dampnatum duntaxat implicite, si postea (sive accusatur sive diffametur sive in nullo penitus diffametur) cognoscat errorem suum et sciat se errori contra fidem pertinaciter adhesisse, debet seipsum depositum reputare et renuntiare papatui, quia debet scire se fuisse a iure divino depositum, licet ecclesia universalis, errans quantum ad id quod est facti et in facto consistit, reputaverit eum verum papam, quemadmodum ecclesia universalis erravit quantum ad id quod consistebat in facto quando habuit mulierem pro vero papa. | Master: To the second it is answered similarly, that a pope who pertinaciously holds an error against the faith condemned only implicitly, if later (whether he is accused or defamed or defamed in no way at all) recognizes his error and knows that he has pertinaciously adhered to an error against the faith, he should consider himself deposed and renounce the papacy, because he should know that he has been deposed by divine law, although the universal Church, erring as to what is fact and consists in fact, has considered him a true pope, just as the universal Church erred as to what consisted in fact when it regarded a woman as a true pope. |
| Discipulus: Nunc allega illa decreta in quibus fundant se dicentes quod ad deponendum papam pertinaciter asserentem ac tenentem heresim dampnatam explicite non est necesse generale concilium congregari. | Student: Now bring forward the decrees on which they base themselves saying that to depose a pope who pertinaciously asserts and holds an explicitly condemned heresy it is not necessary to convene a general council. |
| Magister: Ad hoc principaliter tria decreta, que ponuntur 24 q. 1, allegantur. Ait enim Gelasius papa, ut habetur ibidem capitulo 1: “Achatius non est inventor factus novi erroris, sed veteris imitator, atque ideo non erat necessarium, ut adversus eum nova scita prodirent, sed antiqua tantummodo renovarentur.” Et infra: “Quicunque enim in heresim semel dampnatam labitur, eius dampnatione seipsum involvit.” Ex quibus clare colligitur, ut videtur, quod si papa erroris veteris imitator in heresim, scilicet semel dampnatam, labitur, eadem dampnatione involvitur, nec est necesse quod contra eum prodeant “nova scita”, id est, nova statuta. Et per consequens non est necesse contra eum generale concilium noviter congregari, quia, ut dicit glossa ibidem: “hic est casus in quo papa papam potest ligare, in quo papa in canonem late sententie incidit.” Pro illo autem casu in quo quis incidit in canonem late sententie, et pro quo ecclesia scit distincte, et etiam specialem esse sententiam promulgatam, non est necesse generale concilium noviter congregari. | Master: To this end, three decrees are principally alleged, which are set out in 24 q. 1. For pope Gelasius says, as is found there is chapter 1: “Achatius was not the inventor of a new error, but an imitator of an old one, and therefore it was not necessary that new ordinances should be brought forth against him, but only old things should be renewed.” And below: “For whoever falls into a heresy once condemned, involves himself in its condemnation.” From which it is clearly gathered, as it seems, that if a pope, an imitator of an old error, falls into a heresy, namely one once condemned, he is involved in the same condemnation, nor is it necessary that “new ordinances”, that is, new statutes, “should be brought forth against him.” And consequently it is not necessary that a general council be convened anew against him, because, as the gloss says in the same place: “This is a case in which a pope can bind a pope, in which a pope falls into the canon of sentence passed.” But for a case in which someone falls into a canon of sentence passed, and for which the Church knows distinctly that a special sentence has been promulgated, it is not necessary that a general council be convened anew. |
| Discipulus: Secundum istam auctoritatem non videtur quod sit necesse pro papa qui incidit in heresim dampnatam duntaxat implicite noviter concilium convocari, quia pro dampnato non est necesse concilium convocari. Papa autem, si incidit in heresim dampnatam implicite, est dampnatus, quia, ut dicit Gelasius: “quicunque enim in heresim semel dampnatam labitur, eius dampnatione seipsum involvit.” Non autem distinguit inter heresim dampnatam explicite et heresim dampnatam implicite. Ergo nec nos debemus distinguere. Et per consequens, si papa incidit in heresim dampnatam implicite, dampnatus est. Ergo pro eius dampnatione facienda non est necesse generale concilium congregari. | Student: According to this authority, it does not seem necessary to convene a new council for a pope who falls into a heresy condemned only implicitly, because it is not necessary to convene a council for a condemned person. However, if the pope falls into a heresy condemned implicitly, he is condemned, because, as Gelasius says: “For whoever falls into a heresy once condemned, involves himself in its condemnation.” But he does not distinguish between a heresy condemned explicitly and a heresy condemned implicitly. Therefore, neither should we distinguish. And consequently, if the pope falls into a heresy condemned implicitly, he is condemned. Therefore, it is not necessary to convene a general council to make his condemnation. |
| Magister: Ad hoc respondetur, sicut tactum est, quod pro dampnato quem constat ecclesie esse dampnatum non est necesse concilium convocari, sed pro dampnato quem non constat ecclesie esse dampnatum necesse est in casu concilium convocari ad inquirendum et declarandum eum esse dampnatum. Sic est de papa, si labitur pertinaciter manifeste in heresim dampnatam tantummodo implicite, quem viri periti in Divinis Scripturis cum instantia magna asserunt hereticum et heresim pertinaciter affirmare, quia oportet convenire concilium generale non ad deponendum papam sed ad declarandum et pronuntiandum papam esse dampnatum. Quando autem constat ecclesie papam esse dampnatum, quod accidit si papa incidit in heresim dampnatam explicite, non est necesse congregari concilium nec ad deponendum papam hereticum nec ad declarandum eum esse dampnatum. | Master: The answer made to this is, as has been touched upon, that for a condemned person of whom it is clear to the Church that he has been condemned it is not necessary to convene a council, but for a condemned person of whom it is not clear to the Church that he has been condemned, it is necessary on occasion that a council be convened to investigate and declare that he has been condemned. Thus it is with the pope, if he manifestly falls pertinaciously into a heresy condemned only implicitly, whom men learned in the Divine Scriptures assert with great insistence to be a heretic and to persevere in affirming heresy, because it is necessary for a general council to meet not to depose the pope but to declare and pronounce that the pope is condemned. But when it is clear to the Church that the pope is condemned, which happens if the pope falls into a heresy condemned explicitly, it is not necessary for a council to meet either to depose the pope as a heretic or to declare that he is condemned. |
| Discipulus: Aliud decretum allega. | Student: Allege another decree. |
| Magister: Aliud decretum est eiusdem, qui, ut legitur ibidem capitulo Maiores, ait: “Maiores nostri divina inspiratione cernentes necessario precaverunt, ut quod contra unamquamque heresim coacta semel sinodus pro fidei communione et veritate catholica atque apostolica promulgasset non sinerent novis posthec retractationibus mutilari.” Et infra: “sed, auctore cuiuslibet insanie, ac pariter errore dampnato, sufficere iudicarunt, ut quisquis huius erroris aliquando communicator existeret, principali sententia dampnationis eius esset obstrictus. Sic Sabellium dampnavit sinodus, nec fuit necesse, ut eius sectatores postea dampnarentur singulas viritim synodos celebrari; sed pro tenore constitutionis antique, cunctos qui vel pravitatis illius vel communionis extitere participes, universalis ecclesia duxit esse refutandos. Sic Arrium, Eunomium, Macedonium, Nestorium, sinodus semel gesta condempnans, ulterius ad nova concilia venire non sinit.“ Ex quibus colligitur quod si papa vel quicunque alius pertinaciter adherere presumpserit errori dampnato, eadem dampnatione involvitur, nec est necesse concilium noviter convocari. | Master: Another decree is of the same [Gelasius]. As we read in the same place [24 q. 1], c. Maiores, he says: “Our elders, deciding by divine inspiration, have taken the necessary precautions so as not to allow what a synod, assembled against every heresy, had once promulgated for [the benefit of] the communion of faith and Catholic and Apostolic truth to be mutilated in future by renewed discussions, lest occasion be given the wicked to push back against things that had been healthfully decided.” And below: “Once the author of any insanity, and likewise his error, has been condemned, they judged it to be enough that whoever should at any time share in this error would be bound by the original sentence of its condemnation. Thus the synod condemned Sabellius, nor was it necessary for singular synods to be held individually afterwards to condemn his followers; but according to the tenor of the ancient constitution, all who were either participants in that wickedness or in communion, the universal Church held should be refuted. Thus once a synod was held condemning Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Nestorius, it [the Church] does not further permit them to come to new councils.” From which it is concluded that if the pope or anyone else pertinaciously presumes to adhere to a condemned error, he is involved in the same condemnation, and it is not necessary to convene a new council. |
| Quod Felix papa, ut ibidem dicitur, aperte testari videtur, dicens: “Achatius non fuit novi, vel proprii, inventor erroris, ut in eum nova scita prodirent, sed alieno facinori sua communione se miscuit. Itaque necesse est, ut in illam recideret iusta lance sententiam, quam cum suis successoribus per convenientiam sinodalem susceperat auctor erroris.” | Pope Felix, as is said in the same place [24 q. 1 c.3], seems to testify this openly, saying: “Achatius was not the inventor of a new, or of his own, error, so that new ordinances should be brought against him, but by his participation he emboiled himself in another’s crime. Therefore it is necessary, the scales being just, that there should fall on him the sentence that the author of the error, with his successors, had received by agreement of the synod.” |
| Si igitur papa labitur in dampnatum errorem, non est necesse contra eum noviter generale concilium congregari, quod intelligendum est de omni errore dampnato explicite, qualis est omnis error Scripture Divine vel doctrine universalis ecclesie patenter omnibus intelligentibus contradicens pariter et adversans. Unde si papa sollempniter diffiniret Abraham non habuisse plures uxores, aut Pharaonem non fuisse regem Egypti, vel Ioab non fuisse filium Sarme [?Sarvia? 2 Kings 17:25], aut aliquid huiusmodi quod ad salutem videtur impertinens, esset hereticus manifestus, nec esset necesse contra eum generale concilium congregare, sed statim quilibet sciens eum diffinisse sollempniter vel alio modo pertinaciter tenuisse aliquod predictorum vel aliquid consimile deberet eum pro deposito et pro dampnato habere. | Therefore, if the pope slips into a condemned error, it is not necessary that a new general council be convened against him, which should be understood of every error condemned explicitly, such as is every error that, to all who understand it, openly contradicts and opposes Divine Scripture or the doctrine of the universal Church. Hence, if the pope were to solemnly define that Abraham did not have several wives, or that Pharaoh was not king of Egypt, or that Joab was not the son of Sarvia, or anything of the kind that seems [even if it seems] irrelevant to salvation, he would be a manifest heretic, and it would not be necessary to convene a general council against him, but anyone knowing that he had solemnly defined, or in some other way pertinaciously held, any of the aforementioned, or anything similar, should immediately consider him as deposed and as condemned. |
| Discipulus: Adducas alia motiva ad probandum quod non licet communicare pape heretico modo preexposito in principio huius capituli. | Student: Bring forward other arguments to prove that it is not permissible to communicate with a heretic pope in the manner previously explained at the beginning of this chapter. |
| Magister: Hoc probatur tertio sic. Illi qui nichil habet potestatis aut iuris non licet communicare modo illo. Papa hereticus nichil habet potestatis aut iuris, teste Cypriano, qui, ut legitur 24 q. 1 c. Didicimus, ait: “ didicimus omnes omnino hereticos et schismaticos nil habere potestatis ac iuris. “ Ergo pape heretico predicto modo communicare non licet. | Master: This is proved third as follows. With someone who has no power or right it is not permitted to communicate in that manner. A heretic pope has no power or right, according to Cyprian, who, as is read in 24 q. 1 c. Didicimus, says: “We have learned that all heretics and schismatics have nothing of power or right.” Therefore it is not permissible to communicate with a heretic pope in the aforesaid manner. |
| Quarto probatur specialiter quod non licet verbo, scripto, vel facto, asserere eum esse verum papam, quia nulli licet mentiri, neque verbo, neque scripto, neque facto. Sed qui credit eum hereticum et tamen asserit eum esse verum papam, mentitur, cum non sit verus papa sed depositus tam a iure divino quam a iure humano, scilicet a conciliis generalibus, sicut probatum est prius, quibus subest papa in causa heresis, prout superius est ostensum. Ergo nulli scienti papam esse hereticum licet papam vocare nisi ratione alicuius adiectionis vel usitati modi loquendi, ut per talem appellationem sane intelligentibus non intelligitur esse verus papa. Licet enim eum vocare papam hereticum, papam hereticorum, papam talium vel talium, qui sibi favent et habent eum pro papa. Si etiam quis confirmando se modo loquendi aliorum vocaret eum papam sine adiectione, non esset forte peccatum mortale. | Fourth, it is proved specifically that it is not permissible to assert by word, writing, or deed that he is the true pope, because no one is permitted to lie, neither by word, nor by writing, nor by deed. But whoever believes him to be a heretic and yet asserts that he is a true pope, lies, since he is not a true pope but has been deposed both by divine law and by human law (namely by general councils, as was proved before, to which the pope is subject in a case of heresy, as was shown above). Therefore, no one who knows that the pope is a heretic is permitted to call him pope. (Except by reason of some addition or customary manner of speaking, so that by such an appellation it is not understood, by those who truly understand it, that he is the true pope. For it is permitted to call him “a heretic pope”, “a pope of heretics”, “the pope of such and such” who favor him and regard him as pope. If also someone, conforming to the manner of speaking of others, were to call him pope without an addition, it would perhaps not be a mortal sin.) |
| Capitulum 61 | Chapter 61 |
| Discipulus: In precedenti capitulo dixi michi visum fuisse quattuor esse probanda circa assertionem in principio eiusdem capituli recitatam. Disseruisti de primo, nunc autem breviter de tribus sequentibus investiga. | Student: In the previous chapter I said that it seemed to me that there were four things to be proved concerning the assertion recited at the beginning of that chapter. You have discussed the first, but now briefly investigate the three that follow. |
| Magister: Primum illorum trium est quod communicantes predicto modo pape heretico sunt fautores heretici et heretice pravitatis. Quod videtur sic posse probari. Non minus sunt communicantes predicto modo pape heretico fautores eius et sue heretice pravitatis, quam illi qui sibi non resistunt, cum possint. Sed qui pape heretico non resistunt, cum possint, sunt fautores heretici et heretice pravitatis, quemadmodum errare monstratur qui alios, cum potest, non revocat ab errore (Extra, De hereticis, Qui alios.) Ergo communicantes pape heretico sunt fautores heretici et heretice pravitatis. | Master: The first of these three is that those who communicate in the aforesaid way with a heretic pope are supporters of a heretic and of heretical wickedness. This seems provable as follows. Those who communicate in the aforesaid way with a heretic pope are no less supporters of him and his heretical wickedness than those who do not resist him when they can. But those who do not resist a heretic pope when they can are supporters of a heretic and of heretical wickedness, just as it is shown that someone is in error who does not recall others from error when he can (Extra, De hereticis, Qui alios.) Therefore those who communicate with a heretic pope are supporters of a heretic and of heretical wickedness. |
| Discipulus: Istud argumentum procedit de illis ad quos spectat pape heretico resistere et pro viribus obviare. Non autem spectat ad omnes pape heretico resistere. Et ideo multi possunt absque fautoria hereticorum et heretice pravitatis non resistere, sed communicare eidem. | Student: This argument succeeds concerning people to whom it pertains to resist a heretic pope and to oppose him with all their power. But it does not pertain to everyone to resist a heretic pope. And therefore many can, without supporting heretics and heretical wickedness, not resist, and can communicate with him. |
| Magister: Istam responsionem nonnulli sicut insanissimam detestantur, affirmantes aperte quod dicere quod possit esse aliquis catholicus ad quem non pertineat pro loco et tempore, si convenienter potest, pape heretico obviare satagenti fidem corrumpere orthodoxam, sapit heresim manifestam. Quia ex hoc sequitur evidenter quod aliquis catholicus zelum fidei non tenetur habere, et quod ad aliquem catholicum defensio fidei modo sibi congruenti, quando potest, minime spectat, quod infidelitatem sapere arbitrantur. | Master: Some detest this response as most insane, openly affirming that to say that there can be some Catholic to whom it does not pertain (for place and time, if he can do so suitably) to oppose a heretic pope who is trying to corrupt the orthodox faith, smacks of manifest heresy. Because it clearly follows from this that some Catholic is not bound to have zeal for the faith, and that defending the faith in a manner suitable to him, when he can, is of no concern to some Catholic, which they think smacks of unbelief. |
| Si enim quilibet modo sibi congruenti, quando potest, socium, patriam, prelatum, dominum temporalem, parentes, consanguineos, benefactores et amicos, pauperes, pupillos, viduas, et alias miserabiles personas, ac res temporales communes et proximorum suorum, quando viderit periculum iniquum et evidens imminere, tenetur, quantum sibi licet pro gradu suo et officio, defensare, sapitque heresim manifestam dicere quod talis defensio ad quemcunque non pertinet Christianum, quia hoc non est aliud quam dicere quod possit esse aliquis Christianus qui proximos suos non teneatur diligere, qui indigentibus et in periculis constitutis (cum non apparet alius qui velit et possit subvenire) non debet subvenire, cum potest, qui proximis prodesse, cum potest, minime teneatur, qui ad opera misericordie, quando potest, nullatenus teneatur, que omnia et consimilia Scripturis Divinis et bonis moribus aperte repugnant. Multo magis debet quilibet modo sibi congruenti, cum potest, fidem catholicam defensare, eo quod fides catholica, sine qua non est salus, est universis mortalibus quantum ad vitam temporalem et cunctis rebus temporalibus, preferenda, estque magis quam vita corporalis aliena vel propria defendenda. Non autem fides defenditur nisi pape heretico cupienti ipsam destruere resistatur. Ergo quilibet catholicus, cum potest, tenetur pape heretico pro posse resistere, debitis tamen circumstantiis observatis, quia ad hunc actum obligamur precepto affirmativo, quod non obligat pro semper. | For if everyone (in a way suitable to him, when he can), is bound (when he sees an unjust and evident danger threatening) to defend (as far as he is permitted according to his rank and office), his fellow, country, prelate, temporal lord, parents, relatives, benefactors and friends, the poor, orphans, widows, and other miserable persons, the common temporal goods and the temporal goods of his neighbors, and it smacks of manifest heresy to say that such defense does not pertain to some Christian -- because this is nothing other than to say that there can be some Christian who is not bound to love his neighbors, who should not help those in need and in danger when he can, who is not bound at all to benefit his neighbors when he can, who is not bound at all to perform works of mercy when he can, all of which and the like are clearly repugnant to the Divine Scriptures and good morals – then much more should everyone defend the Catholic faith (in a way suitable to him, when he can), because the Catholic faith, without which there is no salvation, should be preferred to all mortals as regards temporal life and to all temporal things and should be defended more than the bodily life of others or of one's self. But faith is not defended unless one resists a heretic pope who desires to destroy it. Therefore every Catholic, when he can, is bound to resist the heretic pope with all his power (but with due observance of the circumstances, because we are bound to this act by an affirmative precept, which does not oblige for always). |
| Quamvis autem ad omnes spectet resistere pape heretico, non tamen ad omnes spectat eodem modo resistere. Sed ad prelatos, doctores, et officium predicationis habentes spectat resistere eius errores publice reprobando, et auditores in veritate catholica instruendo, et efficaciter confirmando. Ad prelatos autem specialiter spectat sequaces pape heretici, ne doctrinam eius erroneam teneant, doceant, vel divulgent, aut asserant, prohibere, et penis debitis cohercere. Ad reges autem et principes et potestates publicas, si a catholicis fuerint requisiti, vel prelati in pugnando pravitatem hereticam fuerint dampnabiliter negligentes, spectat per temporalem potentiam papam hereticum et sequaces eius, ne corrumpant catholicos, impedire, ipsos, si expediens fuerit, captivando et quousque rite fuerit ordinatum quid sit de eis agendum in firma custodia, ne inficere valeant orthodoxos et simplices, detinendo. Ad omnes autem simplices et alios quoscunque spectat impugnantes papam hereticum et sequaces eiusdem tueri et defendere, ac omnibus prelatis, regibus et principibus, et aliis publicis potestatibus, in hiis que rite agunt ad cohertionem pape heretici obedire et assistere toto corde. Ad cunctos autem scientes papam esse hereticum spectat ei in hiis que ad religionem pertinent christianam nullatenus communicare. Ad hoc enim nos obligat preceptum negativum, quod non solum semper sed etiam pro semper obligat. | But although it pertains to all to resist a heretic pope, it does not pertain to all to resist in the same way. It pertains to prelates, teachers, and those who have the office of preaching, to resist his errors by publicly reproving them, and instructing and efficaciously confirming their hearers in Catholic truth. It pertains especially to prelates to prohibit the followers of the heretic pope from holding, teaching, disseminating, or asserting his erroneous doctrine, and to coerce them with due penalties. To kings and rulers and public powers, if they have been called on by Catholics, or if prelates have been blameably negligent in combating heretical wickedness, it pertains by temporal power to prevent the heretic pope and his followers from corrupting Catholics, by capturing them, if expedient, and detaining them in firm custody until it has been duly ordered what should be done with them, lest they be able to infect the orthodox and simple. To all simple people and all others it pertains to protect and defend those who attack the heretic pope and his followers, and to obey and assist with all their hearts all prelates, kings and rulers and other public powers in things they rightly do to coerce the heretic pope. To all who know that the pope is a heretic, it pertains not to communicate with him in any way in things that pertain to the Christian religion; for to this we are bound by a negative precept, which binds us not only always but also for always. |
| Discipulus: Breviter proba tertium et quartum que posita sunt in capitulo precedenti. | Student: Briefly prove the third and fourth points set forth in the preceding chapter. |
| Magister: Tertium sic probatur. Qui negat Christum aut fidem christianam metu mortis aut gravium tormentorum, non est hereticus reputandus. Ergo a simili qui communicat pape heretico in hiis que ad religionem christianam vel papale spectant officium metu mortis aut graviorum tormentorum, non est fautor heretici aut pravitatis heretice reputandus. | Master: The third is proved thus. Someone who denies Christ or the Christian faith for fear of death or grave torments should not be considered a heretic. Therefore, similarly, someone who communicates with a heretic pope in things that pertain to the Christian religion or papal office for fear of death or grave torments should not be considered a heretic or a supporter of heretical wickedness. |
| Quartum, scilicet quod communicantes predicto modo pape heretico etiam metu mortis vel gravium tormentorum peccant mortaliter, probatur sic. Quod est in detrimentum fidei christiane est peccatum mortale. Communicare autem pape heretico modo predicto est in detrimentum fidei Christiane, ergo est peccatum mortale. | The fourth, namely, that those who communicate in the aforesaid manner with a heretic pope even for fear of death or grave torments, sin mortally, is proved thus. That which is to the detriment of the Christian faith is a mortal sin. But to communicate with a heretic pope in the aforesaid manner is to the detriment of the Christian faith, therefore it is a mortal sin. |
| Capitulum 62 | Chapter 62 |
| Discipulus: Tractavimus de communicantibus scienter pape heretico. Nunc videamus de communicantibus eidem ignoranter, et primo de laborantibus ignorantia crassa et supina, et tamen communicantibus pape heretico et sequacibus eius, an scilicet sint censendi fautores heretici et heretice pravitatis. | Student: We have dealt with those who communicate with a heretic pope knowingly. Now let us see about those who communicate with him ignorantly, and first of those who labour under gross and supine ignorance and yet communicate with a heretic pope and his followers -- namely whether they should be considered supporters of heresy and heretical wickedness. |
| Magister: De ignorantibus ignorantia crassa et supina, et tamen communicantibus pape heretico et sequacibus eius, dicitur sicut de communicantibus eidem scienter, quod ignorantia talis non excusat cum ipsa ignorantia sit dampnabilis. | Master: Of those who are ignorant by gross and supine ignorance and yet communicate with a heretic pope and his followers, it is said as of those who communicate with him knowingly, because such ignorance does not excuse, since the ignorance itself is condemnable. |
| Discipulus: Supra multa dicta sunt de ignorantia ista, ideo nunc succincte dic qui communicantes pape heretico ignoranter sunt censendi laborare ignorantia crassa et supina. | Student: Much has been said above [1 Dial. 7.18] about this ignorance, therefore now tell me briefly who, communicating with a heretic pope unknowingly, should be considered to labour under gross and supine ignorance. |
| Magister: Ex precedentibus poteris hoc aperte colligere, quod illi qui nolunt de heresibus pape heretici informari, sed informare eos volentes persequuntur et molestant, et qui contempnunt scire papam esse hereticum, et qui facile possent scire, sunt ignorantes ignorantia crassa et supina. | Master: From the foregoing you will be able to clearly gather that those who do not wish to be informed about the heresies of a heretic pope, but persecute and molest those who wish to inform them, and who despise knowing that the pope is a heretic, and who could easily know, are ignorant by gross and supine ignorance. |
| Discipulus: Dic de communicantibus pape heretico qui ignorant ignorantia invincibili et probabili. | Student: Tell me about those who communicate with a heretic pope who are ignorant with invincible and probable ignorance. |
| Magister: De illis dicitur quod non peccant mortaliter nec sunt fautores hereticorum, quia ignorantia talis eos excusat. | Master: It is said of them that they do not sin mortally nor are they supporters of heretics, because such ignorance excuses them. |
| Discipulus: Qui sunt censendi laborare ignorantia probabili? | Student: Who should be considered to labour under probable ignorance? |
| Magister: Illi qui nescirent papam hereticum de heresi diffamari, et qui non essent capaces informationis qua ostenditur papa esse hereticus, vel non possent faciliter neque per se neque per alios scire papam esse hereticum, laborarent ignorantia probabili et, si communicarent eidem, excusarentur a peccato mortali. | Master: Those who did not know that a heretic pope was being defamed for heresy, and who were not capable of the information by which the pope was shown to be a heretic, or could not easily know either themselves or through others that the pope was a heretic, would labour under probable ignorance and, if they communicated with him, would be excused from mortal sin. |
| Capitulum 63 | Chapter 63 |
| Discipulus: De istis haberem querere multa, sed ea ad tractatum De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam reservo. Nunc autem dic breviter de obedientibus pape heretico, an scilicet sint fautores heretici et heretice pravitatis. | Student: I would have much to inquire about these, but I reserve those things for the treatise “On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith”. Now, tell me briefly about those who obey a heretic pope, namely, whether they are supporters of a heretic and of heretical wickedness. |
| Magister: Respondetur quod obedire pape heretico contingit dupliciter. Uno modo in puris temporalibus et corporalibus, alio modo in spiritualibus vel in hiis que ad papatus spectant officium. Item, contingit obedire pape heretico scienter et ignoranter. | Master: The answer made is that obeying a heretic pope happens in two ways. In one way in purely temporal and corporal matters, in another way in spiritual matters or in those that pertain to the office of the papacy. Likewise, to obey a heretic pope can happen knowingly and unknowingly. |
| Qui enim obediret pape heretico in temporalibus vel in puris corporalibus, et talis obedientia non esset in nocumentum ecclesie vel alterius persone, nec esset in scandalum, sed esset in salvationem corporalem obedientis vel ad redimentum vexationem eius, non peccaret mortaliter. Si autem talis obedientia esset in nocumentum ecclesie, vel alterius persone, vel in scandalum, obediens peccaret mortaliter, quia nullus propter mandatum vel preceptum heretici, presertim qui non est dominus in temporalibus eius cui precipit, debet aliquid facere in nocumentum vel scandalum alterius cuiuscunque. | If anyone were to obey a heretical pope in temporal or purely corporal matters, and such obedience was not to the harm of the church or another person, nor was it a scandal, but was for the bodily salvation of the person obeying or to buy off his suffering, he would not sin mortally. But if such obedience were to harm the Church, or another person, or cause scandal, the person obeying would sin mortally, because no one, because of the command or precept of a heretic, especially of one who is not the lord in the temporals of the one to whom he gives the precept, should do anything to the harm or scandal of any other person whatsoever. |
| Qui autem scienter obediret pape heretico in spiritualibus, puta recipiendo ab eo ecclesiasticum beneficium, vel ordines, aut aliquid consimile, peccaret mortaliter et esset fautor heretici et heretice pravitatis. | But whoever knowingly obeyed a heretic pope in spiritual matters, for example by receiving from him an ecclesiastical benefice, or orders, or anything similar, would sin mortally and would be a supporter of a heretic and of heretical depravity. |
| De obedientibus pape heretico ignoranter qui laborarent ignorantia crassa et supina, dicitur sicut de obedientibus scienter, quia talis ignorantia non excusat. De ignorantibus ignorantia probabili, dicitur quod non peccant mortaliter, quia ignorantia eos excusat. | About those who obey a heretic pope ignorantly who labor under gross and supine ignorance, it is said as of those who obey knowingly, because such ignorance does not excuse. About those who are ignorant with probable ignorance, it is said that they do not sin mortally, because ignorance excuses them. |
| Capitulum 64 | Chapter 64 |
| Discipulus: Circa interrogationem propositam supra capitulo 59o huius septimi, audivi diversas sententias, pro quibus fortiter allegasti. De allegationibus vero pro secunda sententia tecum post completionem huius operis conferam diligenter. Nunc autem peto ut quomodo respondetur ad allegationes pro prima sententia, supra eodem capitulo 59 adductas, non differas indagare. | Student: Regarding the question proposed above in Book VII Chapter 59, I have heard various opinions, for which you have argued strongly. As for the arguments in favor of the second opinion, I will discuss them with you carefully after the completion of this work. Now, however, I ask that you do not delay in investigating how the allegations in support of the first opinion, advanced above in the same Chapter 59, are answered. |
| Magister: Ad primam illarum dupliciter respondetur. Uno modo, quod sacerdotes veteris legis ad quos Christus misit leprosos ut communicarent eis in hiis que spectabant ad sacerdotale officium non erant heretici, quod duobus modis dicitur. Uno modo, quod ideo non erant heretici quia incarnatio Christi nondum fuerat divulgata, et ideo licet explicite in Christum non crederent, non erant heretici iudicandi. Aliter dicitur, quod licet quedam sacerdotes illius temporis fuerint heretici, non quia non credebant explicite in Christum, sed quia predicationi Christi pertinaciter resistebant, tamen preter illos sacerdotes hereticos fuerunt quidam alii qui Christo pertinaciter non resistebant, quorum quidam in Christum explicite non credebant, nec etiam ei pertinaciter resistebant. Quidam etiam forte explicite credebant in Christum, et erant forte occulti discipuli propter metum Iudeorum. Unde et de sacerdotibus legitur Act. 6 quod “multa etiam turba sacerdotum obediebat fidei”, quod contingit ante mortem beati Stephani. Et ita non est improbabile dicere quod aliqui sacerdotes qui manifeste obedierunt fidei cito post mortem Christi, crediderunt in Christum ante mortem eius, licet occulte. Erant ergo aliqui sacerdotes qui non fuerunt heretici, vel quia Christo nullatenus pertinaciter resistebant, vel quia explicite credebant in eum, ad quos potuit Christus leprosos transmittere ut communicarent eis in hiis que ad sacerdotale spectabant officium, licet non miserit eos ad sacerdotes qui fuerunt pravitate heretica irretiti. | Master: An answer is made to the first of these in two ways. [1] In one way, that the priests of the Old Law to whom Christ sent lepers to communicate with them in things that pertained to the priestly office were not heretics, which is said in two ways. [a] In one way, that they were not heretics because the incarnation of Christ had not yet been made public, and therefore, although they did not explicitly believe in Christ, they were not to be judged heretics. [b] In another way, it is said that although some priests of that time were heretics (not because they did not explicitly believe in Christ, but because they pertinaciously resisted the preaching of Christ), nevertheless besides those heretical priests there were some others who did not pertinaciously resist Christ, some of whom did not explicitly believe in Christ, nor did they pertinaciously resist him. Some perhaps also explicitly believed in Christ, and were perhaps secret disciples because of the fear of the Jews. Hence, concerning the priests, we read in Acts 6 that “a great multitude of priests also obeyed the faith,” which occurs before the death of blessed Stephen. And so it is not improbable to say that some priests who manifestly obeyed the faith soon after the death of Christ believed in Christ before his death, albeit secretly. There were therefore some priests who were not heretics, either because they did not in any way pertinaciously resist Christ, or because they explicitly believed in him, to whom Christ could send lepers to communicate with them in things that pertained to the priestly office, although he did not send them to priests who were ensnared by heretical wickedness. |
| Aliter respondetur, quod sicut pape heretico licet communicare ignoranter dummodo ignorantia non sit crassa et supina, ita tempore Christi fidelibus licuit communicare ignoranter sacerdotibus hereticis. Illi ergo leprosi quos Christus misit ad sacerdotes hereticos, quia ignorabant eos esse hereticos, et non laborabant ignorantia crassa et supina, licite potuerunt communicare eisdem. | [2] In another way it is answered that just as it is permissible to communicate with a heretic pope ignorantly, provided the ignorance is not gross and supine, so in the time of Christ it was permissible for the faithful to communicate ignorantly with heretical priests. Therefore those lepers whom Christ sent to heretical priests, because they did not know that they were heretics and did not suffer from gross and supine ignorance, could permissibly communicate with them. |
| Discipulus: Contra istam reponsionem michi occurrit duplex obiectio. Prima est, quod Christus scivit sacerdotes esse hereticos, ergo non debuit mittere leprosos ad ipsos. Secunda est, quod ex quo Christus scivit sacerdotes esse hereticos, hoc debuit declarare leprosis. | Student: Against this answer I have two objections. The first is that Christ knew that the priests were heretics, therefore he should not have sent the lepers to them. The second is that since Christ knew that the priests were heretics, he should have declared this to the lepers. |
| Magister: Ad primam istarum respondetur quod, quamvis Christus sciverit sacerdotes esse hereticos, tamen potuit mittere leprosos ignorantes ad ipsos, quia illis licuit, stante ignorantia qua laborabant, communicare eisdem. | Master: To the first the answer made is that, although Christ knew that the priests were heretics, he could nevertheless have sent ignorant lepers to them, because while the ignorance under which they labored persisted, it was permissible for them to communicate with the priests. |
| Ad secundam respondetur quod Christus non omnia omni tempore omnibus revelavit, nec revelare nisi quando voluit tenebatur. Et ideo quemadmodum non revelavit Apostolis nequitiam Iude, ita non revelavit leprosis perfidiam sacerdotum, et ideo licuit eis communicare eisdem. | To the second the answer made is that Christ did not reveal everything to everyone at all times, nor was he bound to reveal except when he wished. And therefore, just as he did not reveal the wickedness of Judas to the Apostles, so he did not reveal the faithlessness of the priests to the lepers, and therefore it was permissible for them to communicate with the priests. |
| Discipulus: Quamvis licuisset leprosis communicare sacerdotibus hereticis ignoranter, non tamen licuit Christo precipere vel consulere leprosis communicare eisdem. Quia cui non licet communicare alteri, non licet eidem dare consilium alii ut eidem communicet, sicut cui non licet communicare excommunicato, ei non licet dare consilium alii ut excommunicato communicet. Si ergo Christo non licuit communicare sacerdotibus hereticis, non licuit Christo dare consilium leprosis ut eisdem sacerdotibus communicarent. | Student: Although it was permissible for the lepers to communicate with heretical priests ignorantly, it was not permissible for Christ to command or advise lepers to communicate with them, because someone who is not permitted to communicate with another is not permitted to advise someone else to communicate with that person, just as someone who is not permitted to communicate with an excommunicated person is not permitted to advise another to communicate with him. If therefore it was not permissible for Christ to communicate with heretical priests, it was not permissible for Christ to advise the lepers to communicate with those priests. |
| Magister: Respondetur quod ista instantia fundatur in medio falso, hoc scilicet: “cui non licet communicare alteri, ei non licet dare consilium alii ut eidem communicet.” Exemplum habetur expressum in iure 11 q. 3 c. Quoniam multis. Ex quo capitulo expresse colligitur quod multis non licet communicare quibusdam excommunicatis quibus tamen licet consulere et dicere uxoribus excommunicatorum, filiis suis, et aliis quibusdam personis enumeratis ibidem, quod excommunicatis communicent. Sic, si tu scis papam esse hereticum manifestum et quod probari potest esse hereticus, tibi non licet communicare pape heretico. Tibi tamen licet consulere credenti papam non esse hereticum et qui non laborat ignorantia crassa et supina ut eidem communicet. | Master: The answer made is that this objection is based on a false premise, namely: “someone who is not permitted to communicate with another is not permitted to advise someone else to communicate with that person.” An example is given in law at 11 q. 3 c. Quoniam multis. From that chapter it is expressly gathered that many are not permitted to communicate with certain excommunicated persons, who are nevertheless permitted to advise and tell the wives of the excommunicated persons, their children, and certain other persons listed there, that they should communicate with the excommunicated persons. Thus, if you know that the pope is a manifest heretic and that it can be proved that he is a heretic, you are not permitted to communicate with a heretic pope, yet you are permitted to advise someone who believes that the pope is not a heretic and who does not suffer from gross and supine ignorance to communicate with him. |
| Discipulus: Dic quomodo respondetur ad auctoritates Augustini quibus videtur ostendi quod licet communicare hereticis in hiis que ad divinum spectant officium. | Student: Tell me how one responds to the texts of Augustine which seem to show that it is permissible to communicate with heretics in things that pertain to the divine office. |
| Magister: Ad istas auctoritates dupliciter respondetur. Primo quod Augustinus in omnibus illis auctoritatibus non loquitur de malis qui erant heretici, sed de aliis malis aliis criminibus irretitis, quibus licuit quantum ad sacramenta veteris legis communicare, et a quibus recedendum est non corporaliter sed spiritualiter. | Master: There are two answers made to these texts. First, that in all those texts Augustine does not speak of bad people who were heretics, but of other bad people entangled in other crimes, with whom it was permissible to communicate as regards the sacraments of the Old Law, and from whom one must depart not bodily but spiritually. |
| Aliter dicitur, quod quamvis non licuerit in veteri lege communicare hereticis et idolatris in perfidia sua manentibus, licuit tamen communicare eisdem correctis et ostendentibus se correctos. Illi autem heretici et idolatre, eo ipso quod templum Dei ad orandum Deum et sacrificandum Deo et cetera faciendum que per legem Dei precipiebantur, intrabant, ostendebant se facto correctos. Et ideo illo tempore licuit communicare eis, quia pro tempore illo non debuerunt heretici reputari. | In another way it is said that, although it was not permissible in the Old Law for heretics and idolaters to communicate while they remained in their faithlessness, it was nevertheless permissible to communicate wich those who were corrected and showed that they had been corrected. Those heretics and idolaters, by the very fact that they entered the temple of God to pray to God and sacrifice to God and do the other things commanded by the law of God, showed that they had been corrected. And therefore at that time it was permissible to communicate with them, because at that time they should not have been considered heretics. |
| Discipulus: Secundum istam responsionem liceret in divinis hereticis communicare, quia ostenderent se correctos. | Student: According to this answer, it would be permissible to communicate in divine matters with heretics, because they would show that they had been corrected. |
| Magister: Respondetur quod alius modus recipiendi hereticos revertentes ad fidem ordinatus est inter Christianos quam fuerit inter Iudeos. Nam inter Iudeos forte, ad hoc quod reciperentur, non aliud requirebatur quando de eis non poterat fieri iustitia nisi quod verbo vel facto protestarentur se esse veros Dei cultores. Ad hoc autem quod heretici Christiani revertentes ad fidem recipiantur ad communionem quo ad ecclesiastica sacramenta hoc non sufficit, sed requiritur quod in speciali abnegent errorem quem tenuerunt, et quod a vinculo excommunicationis quo tenebantur per ecclesiam absolvantur. Si autem fuit prelatus, puta papa vel episcopus, aut alia preditus prelatura, ad officium prelationis eius absque nova electione nequaquam recipi debet, quia omnis hereticus tam iure divino quam humano privatus est omni ecclesiastica dignitate. | Master: The answer made is that a different way of receiving heretics returning to the faith has been ordained among Christians than had been among the Jews. For among Jews, perhaps, in order for them to be received, nothing else was required, when justice could not be done concerning them, except that they should proclaim by word or deed that they were true worshippers of God. But for Christian heretics returning to the faith to be received into communion regarding the sacraments of the church, this is not sufficient, but it is required that they specifically deny the error they held, and that they be absolved by the Church from the bond of excommunication by which they were held. But if he was a prelate, for example a pope or bishop, or someone possessed of another prelature, he should by no means be received to the office of his prelature without a new election, because every heretic is deprived of all ecclesiastical dignity by both divine and human law. |
| Aliter dicitur quod in vetere lege non erat licitum interesse officio hereticorum. Licitum tamen erat permittere heretico officio et sacrificio fidelium interesse. Et ideo quamvis in nova lege esset licitum sustinere hereticos audire divinum officium a catholicis (nisi in contrarium esset per ecclesiam ordinatum), nullo tamen modo licet catholicis officio hereticorum interesse. Et ita missa pape heretici a nullo catholico debet audiri, et eadem ratione in alio officio divino sibi communicare non licet. | In another way it is said that in the Old Law it was not permissible to be present at an office [i.e. religious ritual] of heretics. However, it was permissible to allow a heretic to be present at an office and sacrifice of the faithful. And therefore, although in the New Law it would be licit to allow heretics to hear the divine office from Catholics (unless the contrary was ordained by the Church), nevertheless it is in no way permissible for Catholics to be present at an office of heretics. And thus a mass of a heretic pope must not be heard by any Catholic, and by the same reason it is not permissible to communicate with him in another divine office. |
| Discipulus: Dic quomodo ad secundam rationem principalem respondetur. | Student: Tell me how answer made to the second main argument. |
| Magister: Respondetur quod sicut minora mala sepe permittenda sunt propter maiora vitanda, sic propter maiora mala vitanda fas est permissionem minorum malorum procurare et etiam impetrare, quia licet ipsa que permittuntur sint mala et illicita, ipsa tamen permissio esset licita. Et ideo permissionem malorum licet petere et eciam impetrare, licet commissio mali sit nullatenus impetranda. Et ideo beatus Iohannes papa potuit licite impetrare quod heretici permitterentur in ecclesiis catholicorum ritus suos celebrare propter vitandam extinctionem Italie, que erat maius malum quam quod heretici in ecclesiis permitterentur. Cum ergo dicitur quod beatus Iohannes impetravit vel procuravit ut ecclesie hereticis redderentur, dicitur quod ibi verbum “reddendi” accipitur pro verbo “permittendi”, quia eo ipso quod ecclesie permittebantur hereticis, ipsi erant parati eas accipere. Et ideo pro vitanda extinctione Italie gladio materiali, non fuit necesse plus impetrare quam quod ecclesie permitterentur hereticis. Et ideo beatus Iohannes solam permissionem huius impetravit. Hoc autem fuit multo minus quam in divinis communicare hereticis, sicut minus est permittere malum quam committere malum. | Master: The answer made is that just as often lesser evils should be permitted in order to avoid greater evils, so to avoid greater evils it is right to procure and even ask for lesser evils, because although the things permitted are evil and illicit, nevertheless the permission itself would be licit. And therefore it is licit to seek and even ask for permission of bad things, although the commission of bad things is by no means to be asked for. And therefore blessed pope John could permissibly ask that heretics be permitted to celebrate their rites in Catholic churches, in order to avoid the extinction of Italy, which was a greater evil than that heretics be permitted in churches. When therefore it is said that blessed John asked for or procured that churches be returned to heretics, it is said that there the word “to return” is taken for the word “to permit”, because by the very fact that churches were permitted to heretics, they were ready to accept them. And therefore, in order to avoid the extinction of Italy by the material sword, it was not necessary to obtain more than that the churches should be permitted to heretics. And therefore blessed John asked for only this permission. But this was much less than communicating in divine things with heretics, just as it is less to permit evil than to commit evil. |
| Ad tertiam rationem respondetur quod non semper licet fidelibus alicui in aliquo officio communicare quem debent in eodem officio tollerare, quia sepe ideo tollerant quia prohibere non possunt, et ideo tollerantia talis est minime arguenda. Communicatio tamen cum eis esset omnino reprehensibilis iudicanda. Concedendum est ergo cum Augustino quod tollerandi sunt mali pro pace quando pax absque omni fructu spirituali penitus turbaretur. Non tamen pro pace communicandum est malis in hiis que sunt contra Deum, quemadmodum ritus Iudeorum licite tollerantur, celebrare tamen cum eis ritus eorum catholicis minime licet. Sic etiam sancti viri tolleraverunt idolatriam paganorum, quibus tamen in idolatria nullatenus communicare debebant. | To the third argument the answer made is that it is not always permissible for the faithful to communicate with someone in some office whom they should tolerate in that office, because they often tolerate it because they cannot forbid it, and therefore such tolerance should not be blamed. However, communication with them would be judged to be entirely reprehensible. It must therefore be conceded with Augustine that bad people should be tolerated for the sake of peace when peace would be completely disturbed without any spiritual fruit. However, one should not communicate with bad people for the sake of peace in things that are against God, just as the rites of the Jews are permissibly tolerated, yet Catholics are not at all permitted to celebrate their rites with them. Thus also holy men tolerated the idolatry of the pagans, with whom, however, they should not in any way communicate in idolatry. |
| Ad quartam rationem respondetur quod Iudas non legitur fuisse hereticus, sed proditor. Unde etiam post proditionem dixit: “peccavi tradens sanguinem iustum.” Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Iudas post proditionem de Christo, quem iustum putavit, non erronee sensit, et ita non erat hereticus, vel si fuit hereticus non fuit hereticus manifestus et publicus, sed occultus. Hereticus autem occultus sive fuerit papa sive alius non est in publico devitandus. | The answer made to the fourth argument is that Judas is not read to have been a heretic, but a traitor. Hence also after the betrayal he said: “I have sinned by betraying righteous blood.” From these words it is gathered that after the betrayal Judas did not think of Christ erroneously (he thought him “righteous”), and so he was not a heretic. Or, if he was a heretic, he was not a manifest and public heretic, but a hidden one; but a hidden heretic, whether he was a pope or another, should not be avoided in public. |
Go to 1 Dial. 7 Chapter
65