|
|
Capitulum 65
|
Chapter 65
|
|
Discipulus: Quamvis
adhuc de fautoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis
essent investiganda quamplura, de quibus, applicando ad
determinatas personas, in tractatu De gestis circa fidem
altercantium orthodoxam sollicite indagabo, tamen illis
obmissis transeo ad defensores hereticorum et heretice
pravitatis, de quibus in primis peto ut narres michi qui
defensores hereticorum et heretice pravitatis sunt
censendi.
|
Student: Although many matters
pertaining to abettors of heretics and of heretical
wickedness would still require to be investigated, (and
I shall scrupulously proceed to do so, with reference to
specific persons, in the treatise On the deeds of those
disputing about orthodox faith), nevertheless, putting
these matters aside, I now focus attention on defenders
of heretics and of heretical wickedness, and as to these
I request first of all that you would explain to me who
are to be identified as defenders of heretics and of
heretical wickedness.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod cum
defendere rem aliquam sit ab impugnatione tueri vel rei
impugnate contra impugnantem opem ferre, impugnatio
autem tripliciter fieri potest, scilicet verbo, scripto,
et facto, multipliciter contingit defendere hereticos et
hereticam pravitatem, secundum quod heretici et heretica
pravitas possunt multipliciter impugnari. Hereticus enim
impugnari potest facto alicuius qui conatur hereticum
captivare, aut detinere, aut iudici presentare, vel
trahere ad iudicium ut de eo fiat iustitie complementum.
Potest etiam impugnari verbo et hoc multipliciter, vel
in iudicio cum rite et debite accusatur, vel extra
iudicium, cum eius perfidia per predicatores et
doctores, prelatos aut alios non ignaros, nescientibus
ut caveant nunciatur. Scripto etiam impugnari potest, in
iudicio cum contra eum scribitur, vel extra iudicium cum
eius perfidia rationibus et auctoritatibus demonstratur,
et absentibus per epistolas intimatur. Heretica autem
pravitas verbo et scripto poterit impugnari. Verbo
quidem, cum in sermonibus aut lectionibus vel secretis
colloquiis reprobatur. Scripto vero, cum ad reprobandam
hereticam pravitatem scripta catholica componuntur.
|
Master: The answer is that since to
defend some thing is to protect it from attack or to
render assistance against an attacker thereof, while an
attack may be undertaken in three ways, namely,
verbally, in writing, or by deed, one may defend
heretics and heretical wickedness in many ways, just as
heretics and heretical wickedness may be attacked in
many ways. For a heretic may be attacked by the action
of someone who attempts to capture him, or to arrest
him, or to bring him before a judge, or to haul him off
to judgement so that justice might take its final course
concerning him. [=execution GK] A heretic may also be
attacked verbally, and this in many ways, either when he
is duly and properly accused in court, or outside of the
courtroom when preachers and doctors, prelates, or
others in the know, reveal his treachery to the
uninformed so that the latter may take precautions. A
heretic may also be attacked in writing: in court when
one writes against him, or outside of the courtroom when
his treachery is demonstrated by reasons and
authorities, and the absent informed of it by letters.
Heretical wickedness, for its part, may be attacked
verbally and in writing. Verbally: when it is castigated
in sermons or lectures or in secret discussions; and in
writing, when catholic works are composed to condemn
heretical wickedness.
|
|
Ex hiis colligitur quod contingit hereticos et
pravitatem hereticam multipliciter defendere, et quot
modis contingit hereticos et pravitatem hereticam
impugnare, tot modis et forte pluribus defendi possent.
Contingit igitur defendere hereticos facto, impediendo
videlicet ne capiantur vel detineantur ut de eis fiat
iustitie complementum. Contingit etiam eos defendere
verbo in iudicio et extra iudicium, allegando quod non
sunt heretici reputandi. Scripto etiam contingit eos
defendere, libros et epistolas componendo ad ostendendum
et nuntiandum quod non sunt inter hereticos computandi.
Pravitatem etiam hereticam contingit tripliciter
defendere, scilicet facto, verbo, et scripto. Facto
quidem dupliciter ad presens. Uno modo, ipsos
impugnatores ab impugnatione prohibendo. Alio modo,
impugnationes et allegationes eorum scriptas destruendo,
sive comburendo sive alio modo, vel malitiose detinendo
et impediendo ne ad notitiam perveniant aliorum. Verbo
etiam contingit pravitatem hereticam defendere,
allegando quod non sit inter hereses computanda, et
eodem modo contingit scripto heresim defendere.
|
One gathers from these options that heretics and
heretical wickedness may be defended in many ways, and
that by whatever methods one might attack heretics and
heretical wickedness, the same methods (and possibly
more) would be available for purposes of defense.
Therefore, one may defend heretics by deed, namely, by
preventing their capture, or by preventing their being
arrested, so that they not suffer justice taking its
final course. One may also defend them verbally in
court, or outside of the courtroom, by maintaining that
they are not to be considered heretics. One may also
defend them in writing, by composing books and letters
to prove and to proclaim that they must not be numbered
among the heretics. One may likewise defend heretical
wickedness in three ways, namely, by deed, verbally, and
in writing. And as to action two methods might be
mentioned at present. One would be to forbid its
opponents to attack it. Another method would consist in
destroying their written oppositions and allegations,
either by having these burned or through some other
means, or by maliciously confiscating them and
preventing them from coming to the notice of others. One
may also defend heretical wickedness verbally, by
contending that it ought not to be numbered among the
heresies; and one may similarly defend heresy in
writing.
|
|
Discipulus: Secundum predicta de
defensoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis essent
quamplurima indaganda, sed abbreviationis causa multa
dimittam. Aliqua tamen queram. Porro quia dubito, quod
si unquam aliquis papa erit hereticus, perniciosior et
periculosior erit omnibus aliis hereticis qui fuerunt
vel erunt preter Antichristum magnum, si tamen idem
Antichristus non erit papa, interrogationes quas faciam
de defensoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis ad
defensores pape heretici et sequacium eius suarumque
heresum applicabo. In primis itaque dic qua pena sint
plectendi qui de facto impediunt ne de persona pape
heretici fiat iustitie complementum, se de eius
erroribus defendendis nullatenus intromittendo.
|
Student: According to the
aforementioned there would be a large number of issues
needing to be investigated concerning defenders of
heretics and of heretical wickedness, but I shall put
aside many for the sake of brevity. Some, however, I
shall pursue. Furthermore, since I consider it arguable
that if some pope were ever to become a heretic, he
would be more harmful and more dangerous than all the
other heretics past and future except for the Great
Antichrist (assuming, that is, that this Antichrist
would not be the pope himself), [cf. 1 Dial. 6.19] I
shall apply any future questions concerning the
defenders of heretics and of heretical wickedness to the
defenders of a heretic pope and of his followers, as
well as of his heresies. Tell me at the outset what
penalty should be inflicted on those who actively
prevent justice taking its final course with respect to
the person of a heretic pope, but do not involve
themselves in the defense of his errors.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod tales
impedientes et pape heretico impedienti opem ferentes ne
de ipso fiat iustitie complementum, aut sciunt papam
esse hereticum, aut ignorant, et si ignorant, aut
laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, quia nolunt aut
contempnunt aut negligunt scire papam esse hereticum,
vel laborant ignorantia probabili. Si sciunt papam esse
hereticum vel ignorant et laborant ignorantia crassa et
supina, et tamen eidem opem ferunt ne fiat de eo
iustitie complementum et se de eius erroribus nullatenus
intromittunt, imo asserunt forte manifeste eius errores
esse contrarios catholice veritati, sunt defensores
heretici, licet non sunt directe defensores nec
approbatores heretice pravitatis. Et ideo penam
hereticorum nequaquam incurrunt, sed in sententiam
incidunt excommunicationis et carere debent
ecclesiastica sepultura (Extra, De hereticis,
Sicut, et Extra, De sententia
excommunicationis, Noverit). Alie etiam
pene eorum, si in excommunicatione per annum persistunt,
taxantur Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus
1. Quedam etiam pene eorum speciales taxantur Extra, De
hereticis, Si adversus. Si autem
ignorant papam esse hereticum, et laborant ignorantia
probabili, nullam penam incurrunt.
|
Master: The answer is that such
obstructionists, who assist a heretic and obstructionist
pope in avoiding the final course of justice as to his
person, either know that the pope is a heretic, or they
do not know it. If they do not know, then, either their
ignorance is grossly passive (for they do not want to
know, or scorn to know, or neglect to know that the pope
is a heretic), or it is justifiable. If they know that
the pope is a heretic, or are ignorant of this due to
grossly passive ignorance, and yet help him to avoid the
final course of justice while not involving themselves
in a defense of his errors, perhaps even asserting
openly that his errors are contrary to catholic truth,
then they are defenders of a heretic, even if they are
not directly defenders of, or assenters to, heretical
wickedness. And therefore, in no way do they incur the
punishment of heretics, but they rather lapse into a
sentence of excommunication, and cannot have the benefit
of a legitimate church burial (Extra, De hereticis,
Sicut, [cols. 779-780] and Extra, De
sententia excommunicationis, Noverit).
[col. 910] And other punishments await them (mentioned
in Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus 1)
[cols. 787-789] if they remain excommunicated for an
entire year. Some of their further punishments are
mentioned in Extra, De hereticis, Si
adversus. [cols. 783-784] But if they do not know
that the pope is a heretic, and their ignorance is
justifiable, they incur no punishment.
|
|
Discipulus: Nunquid scientes papam
esse hereticum vel etiam ignorantes, sed laborantes
ignorantia crassa et supina, ad quos spectat et qui
possunt facere de papa heretico iustitie complementum,
si negligunt, debent inter defensores pape heretici
computari.
|
Student: Must those who know that
the pope is a heretic (or even those who are ignorant of
this, but whose ignorance is grossly passive), and who
have authority and power to inflict terminal justice
upon a heretic pope, be classified among defenders of a
heretic pope if they neglect the performance of their
function.
|
|
Magister: Una est opinio quod sunt
defensores pape heretici et penam defensorum incurrunt,
quemadmodum illi ad quos spectat ex officio defendere
clericum verberatum sunt fautores eiusdem violentie et
eandem penam incurrunt, si possunt defendere et non
faciunt (Extra, De sententia excommunicationis,
Quante). Alia est opinio quod tales non sunt
defensores pape heretici, quia defensio aliquem actum
exteriorem importat. Tales autem nullum actum exteriorem
ad dictam defensionem pertinentem exercent.
|
Master: One opinion holds that they
are defenders of a heretic pope, and incur the
punishment of defenders, just as those who have the
official function of defending a battered clerk are
considered abettors of the violence he suffers, and
incur the same punishment as the batterers, if they can
defend the clerk yet fail to do so (Extra, De
sententia Excommunicationis, Quante).
[col. 909] There is another opinion that such are not
defenders of a heretic pope, because a defense implies
some overt action. Such people, however, do not perform
any overt action relevant to the stated defense.
|
|
Discipulus: Quid sentitur de illis
qui defendunt papam hereticum verbo vel scripto,
asserendo et dicendo quod non est hereticus reputandus.
|
Student: What is the feeling
concerning those who defend a heretic pope verbally or
in writing, asserting and stating that he is not to be
reputed a heretic.
|
|
Magister: Hoc potest multis modis
contingere. Uno modo, verbo vel scripto asserendo et
affirmando quod errores ei impositos (quos in rei
veritate pertinaciter tenet) non tenet nec dicit, neque
asserendo neque opinando neque recitando; alio modo,
quod errores dicit et tenet tantummodo opinando et eos
nullatenus pertinaciter asserendo; alio modo, quod
errores impositi pape non sunt inter hereses computandi.
Si primo modo, distinguitur, quia aut sciunt se dicere
falsum aut nesciunt se dicere falsum, et tunc vel
laborant ignorantia crassa et supina, vel probabili. Si
sciunt se dicere falsum, non tantum crimen incurrunt
mendacii, sed etiam scienter defensores pape heretici
sunt censendi et penam defensorum incurrunt. Si autem
nesciunt se dicere falsum, et laborant ignorantia crassa
et supina ( quia nolunt scire vel contempnunt aut
negligunt scire), quamvis secundum aliquos a crimine
mendacii valeant excusari, tamen a crimine defensionis
pape heretici minime excusantur, et ideo in penam
incidunt defensorum. Si vero nesciunt se dicere falsum
et laborant ignorantia probabili, nec crimen mendacii
nec crimen defensionis hereticorum committunt, quia ab
utroque crimine per ignorantiam probabilem excusantur.
Consimiliter distinguitur de asserentibus papam dicere
errores impositos tantummodo opinando vel tantummodo
recitando. Quia si sciunt vel credunt se dicere falsum,
crimen mendacii et etiam crimen defensionis heretici
manifeste comittunt. Si vero nesciunt et laborant
ignorantia crassa et supina, sunt defensionis heretici
crimine involuti. Si autem laborant ignorantia
probabili, de utroque crimine excusantur. Si autem
dicunt quod errores impositi pape non sunt inter hereses
computandi, non solum sunt censendi defensores heretici,
sed etiam sunt defensores heretice pravitatis, quod
verum est si errores pape heretici sunt explicite
condempnati, et taliter defendentes papam hereticum
pertinaciter tenent quod errores impositi non debent
inter hereses reputari.
|
Master: There are many ways in
which this can happen. One way is to maintain and to
confirm verbally or in writing that the heretic pope
does not hold nor utter, either as an assertion, or as
an opinion, or as a mere recited statement, the errors
which are imputed to him, errors which in reality he
holds with pertinacity. Another way is to claim that he
holds and utters these errors merely as opinions, and
that he does not assert them with pertinacity. Yet
another way is to suggest that the errors imputed to the
pope are not to be classified among the heresies. If one
follows the first option, a distinction is in order. For
either the defenders know that they are lying, or they
do not know that they are lying, and in the latter
eventuality their ignorance is either grossly passive,
or justifiable. If they know that they are lying, they
not only commit the crime of mendacity, but are also to
be reckoned conscious defenders of a heretic pope, and
incur the penalty due to such defenders. If, however,
they do not know that they are lying, ands their
ignorance is grossly passive (because they do not want
to know, or scorn to know, or neglect to know), then,
although according to some they might be excused of the
crime of mendacity, they nevertheless are hardly excused
of the crime of defending a heretic pope, and therefore
they lapse into the penalty due to such defenders. If,
on the other hand, they do not know that they are lying,
and their ignorance is justifiable, then they commit
neither the crime of mendacity nor the crime of
defending heretics, since their justifiable ignorance
excuses them of both crimes. There is a similar
distinction with respect to those who assert that a pope
is stating the errors imputed to him merely as opinions
or recitations. For if they know or believe that they
are lying, then they manifestly commit the crime of
mendacity, and also the crime of defending a heretic.
If, on the other hand, they do not know that they are
lying, and their ignorance is grossly passive, then they
are involved in the crime of defending a heretic. But if
their ignorance is justifiable, they are excused of both
crimes. And if they say that the errors imputed to the
pope are not to be classified among the heresies, then
they must not only be reckoned defenders of heretics,
but also defenders of heretical wickedness. This is true
if the errors of a heretic pope are errors explicitly
condemned, and if those who defend a heretic pope in
this way pertinaciously hold that the imputed errors
must not be numbered among the heresies.
|
|
Capitulum 66
|
Chapter 66
|
|
Discipulus: Si pro singulis
assertionibus supra scriptis satageres allegare, timeo
quod prolixitatem fastidiosam legentibus generares. Ideo
ad defensores heretice pravitatis accedo, de quibus peto
ut dicas qua pena sunt plectendi qui sunt pravitatis
heretice defensores, sive defendant pravitatem hereticam
prohibendo impugnatores pravitatis eiusdem ne eam
impugnent, eis scilicet pro impugnatione pravitatis
heretice qua papa macularetur hereticus persecutionem et
molestiam inferendo, sive allegationes eorum catholicas
contra errores pape heretici comburendo aut quovis modo
impediendo malitiose ne ad notitiam perveniant aliorum.
|
Student: Were you to provide
arguments in support of each and every aforewritten
assertion, I fear that you would create for readers a
boring prolongation of the discussion. I therefore turn
to defenders of heretical wickedness. Concerning these,
I request that you state what punishment should be the
lot of those who are defenders of heretical wickedness,
whether they defend heretical wickedness by prohibiting
opponents of this wickedness from attacking it (namely
by inflicting persecution and harm upon them for
attacking the heretical wickedness staining a heretic
pope), or by incinerating the scripts of their catholic
allegations against the errors of a heretic pope, or by
maliciously preventing these scripts (by whatever means)
from coming to the notice of others.
|
|
Magister: Istis modis videtur
quibusdam quod infectus heretica pravitate defenditur,
de qua defensione nonnulli tenent quod huiusmodi pape
heretici defensores non minus peccant quam papa
hereticus, nec minori pena sunt plectendi, imo dicunt
quod sunt heretici reputandi. Quia, sicut contingit
facto mentiri secundum Ambrosium, ut habetur 22 q.
ultima cap. Cavete, ita contingit facto heresi
assentire et eam asserere, et per consequens ex factis
absque verbis potest quis ostendi esse hereticus
manifestus. Predicti ergo defensores heretice pravitatis
heretici sunt censendi et pena hereticorum sunt
plectendi, quod multis modis videtur posse probari. Hec
enim Urbanus papa, ut legitur 24 q. 3 cap. Qui
aliorum, sentire videtur, dicens: "qui aliorum
errorum defendit multo est dampnabilior illis, qui
errant, quia non solum ille errat, sed etiam aliis
offendicula preparat erroris et confirmat. Unde quia
magister erroris est, non tantum hereticus,
sed etiam heresiarcha dicendus est". Ex quibus verbis
colligitur quod defensores errorum sunt heretici
reputandi et dampnabiliores errantibus. Ergo et pari
pena sunt plectendi.
|
Master: It appears to certain
thinkers that these are indeed the methods whereby a
person infected by heretical wickedness is defended.
Some hold as to this defense that such defenders of a
heretic pope sin no less than the heretic pope himself,
nor ought they to suffer a lesser punishment. In fact,
they say that such defenders are to be considered
heretics. Because, just as it is possible to lie by deed
according to Ambrose (we have this in 22 q. ultima c. Cavete),
[22 q. 5 c. 20, col. 888] so is it possible to consent
to heresy and to assert it by one's action.
Consequently, someone may be shown to be an obvious
heretic by his acts, without reference to words.
Therefore the aforesaid defenders of heretical
wickedness are to be viewed as heretics, and are to
suffer the punishment of heretics, a contention
apparently capable of being proved in many ways. For
Pope Urban seemingly feels as much when he states (as we
read in 24 q. 3. c. Qui aliorum): "he who
defends the error of others is to be condemned much more
than they who err, for he is not only himself in error,
but also prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of
errors for others. Hence, being a teacher of error, he
is not only a heretic, but must also be labeled a
heresiarch". [col. 999] One gathers from these words
that defenders of errors are to be reckoned heretics,
and are to be condemned more than those who err.
Therefore an equal punishment is also to be inflicted
upon them.
|
|
Discipulus: Ista auctoritas non
videtur ad propositum, quia loquitur de defendentibus
errores allegando pro eis sive verbo sive scripto, quod
patet per hoc quod dicit quod "aliis offendicula erroris
preparat et confirmat", et per hoc quod dicit "magister
erroris est". Ista enim ad allegandum pro erroribus
pertinere videntur, et nequaquam spectant ad illos qui
impugnatores errorum impediunt, persequuntur, et
molestant, et qui impugnationes destruunt vel impediunt
ne inter catholicos publicentur.
|
Student: This authority seems to be
irrelevant, for it speaks of those who defend errors by
arguing in their favour either verbally or in writing.
This is clear enough, since the authority states that he
"prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of error for
others", and also by the fact that it states that he "is
a teacher of error". These descriptions seem to pertain
to arguments in favour of errors, and do not apply to
those who impede, persecute, or do harm to individuals
opposing the errors, nor to those who destroy critical
scripts or prevent them from being published among
catholics.
|
|
Magister: Dicitur quod instantia
tua nulla est, quia licet auctoritas Urbani predicta de
allegantibus ex pertinacia pro erroribus aliorum verbo
vel scripto debeat intelligi, debet nichilominus
intelligi etiam de defensoribus facto aliorum errores,
eo quod defensores facto errorum modis prescriptis
gravius peccare videntur quam solummodo pro erroribus
allegantes. Defendentes enim facto modis prescriptis
errores pape heretici tam in Deum quam in proximum
directe peccare dinoscuntur. Quia et veritatem
catholicam manifestari impediunt, et ipsis
impugnatoribus pravitatis heretice graviter iniuriantur
dum eorum personis molestiam inferunt, et in eorum
infamiam aliquid ludibrium circa catholicas allegationes
exercent. Qui autem pro erroribus aliorum solum verbo
vel scripto pertinaciter allegare presumunt, in Deum
tantummodo peccare videntur. Et ideo si defensores
allegando solummodo pro erroribus sunt dampnabiliores
illis qui errant, multo magis illi qui in favorem et
defensionem errorum impugnatores errorum crudeliter
persequuntur, et infamia eorum allegationes catholicas
irreverenter et probrose tractant, sunt dampnabiliores
hiis qui errant si solummodo stant in errore et nichil
plus faciunt. Cum vero dicitur quod Urbanus loquitur de
illo qui aliis offendicula erroris preparat et
confirmat, et de illo qui est magister erroris, que duo
non conveniunt nisi allegantibus pro errore, respondetur
quod utrumque istorum potest aliquo modo persequentibus
impugnatores errorum et destruentibus impugnationes
errorum competere. Nam talis potest dici aliis
offendicula erroris quodammodo preparare et confirmare
in quantum removet prohibentia erroris, nam et removens
prohibentia aliquando causa vocatur. Potest etiam dici
quodammodo magister erroris in quantum facto docet et
monstrat quod errores sunt tenendi.
|
Master: The response is that your
point is worthless. For although the aforesaid authority
of Urban must be understood of those who argue
pertinaciously, verbally or in writing, in support of
the errors of others, it must nonetheless also be
understood of those who defend the errors of others by
deed, in that those who defend the errors of others by
deed in the ways described appear to be committing a
more serious sin than those who merely argue in support
of these errors. Indeed, those who defend by action (in
the ways described) the errors of a heretic pope, are
known to be sinning directly against both God and their
neighbour. For they prevent the manifestation of
catholic truth, and also do serious injury to the very
opponents of heretical wickedness, in that they inflict
harm upon their persons, and besmirch their reputation
by dealing outrageously with their catholic allegations.
On the other hand, those who presume to argue
pertinaciously in support of the errors of others merely
verbally or in writing, only appear to be committing a
sin against God. And therefore, if those who defend by
merely arguing in support of errors are more to be
condemned than those who err, then all the more those
who, in order to support and defend errors, cruelly
persecute the opponents of errors and besmirch the
latter's reputation by dealing outrageously and
abusively with their catholic arguments, should receive
a greater condemnation than those who err (if they only
adopt the error and do nothing else besides). When one
states, however, that Urban is speaking of someone who
prepares and confirms stumbling blocks of error for
others, and of someone who is a master of error (two
characteristics which only apply to individuals who
argue in support of error), the answer is that both of
these characteristics may in some manner be applicable
to those who persecute the opponents of errors, and to
those who destroy the scripted allegations against
errors. For such an individual may be said to prepare
stumbling blocks of error to others in some fashion, and
to confirm these in so far as he removes the factors
which prohibit error. Indeed, sometimes one who removes
prohibitions may be called the cause of what ensues. He
may also in some sense be termed a master of errors to
the extent that he in fact teaches and demonstrates that
errors are to be professed.
|
|
Discipulus: Alias allegationes ad
eandem adducas assertionem.
|
Student: Bring forth other
arguments in support of the main contention.
|
|
Magister: Hoc Isidorus, ut habetur
11 q. 3 cap. Qui consentit peccantibus,
testari videtur, dicens: "qui consentit peccantibus, et
defendit alium delinquentem, maledictus erit apud Deum
et homines, et corripietur increpatione severissima.
Hinc etiam quidam sanctissimus pater ait: 'si quis
peccantem defendit, acrius quam ille, qui peccavit,
coherceatur' ". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod qui
papam hereticum, pro crimine heresis persequendo
impugnatores et impugnationes, defendit, acrius quam
papa hereticus coherceri debet.
|
Master: Isidore appears to witness
in its favour when he states (we have it in 11 q. 3 c. Qui
consentit peccantibus): "he who gives his
consent to sinners, and defends another who is
committing a crime, will be cursed before God and men,
and subjected to the most severe reprobation. This is
where a most holy father says: 'if someone defends a
sinner he will be punished more forcefully than the one
who commits the sin' [St Basil, Regulae breviores,
regula 7]". [col. 671] One gathers from these words that
he who defends a heretic pope by persecuting his
opponents and their arguments by imputing the crime of
heresy to them, must be punished more forcefully than
the heretic pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Ista auctoritas non
loquitur nisi de defensore delinquentis, non de
defensore pravitatis heretice, et ita ad propositum non
esse videtur.
|
Student: This authority only speaks
of one who defends a criminal, and not of a defender of
heretical wickedness, and thus it seems irrelevant to
the contention.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod cum
loquitur de defendente delinquentem in genere, debet
etiam intelligi de defendente heresim quam tenet papa,
quia maius vel non minus peccatum est defendere
iniquitatem, cum ille qui facit, si non esset iniquitas,
defendi deberet.
|
Master: The answer is that when it
speaks generally of someone who defends a criminal, it
must also be understood of someone who defends the
heresy held by the pope, for it is a greater or no
lesser a sin to defend iniquity, when he who commits it
would require to be defended if there were no iniquity
involved.
|
|
Discipulus: Potestne probari aliter
quod huiusmodi defensores heresum quibus papa hereticus
irretitur sunt pena hereticorum plectendi.
|
Student: May it be proved otherwise
that such defenders of heresies in which a heretic pope
is involved must suffer the punishment of heretics.
|
|
Magister: Hoc videtur sic posse
probari. Consentientes eadem pena qua agentes sunt
plectendi, quod videtur de consentientibus consensu
defensionis vel etiam auctoritatis potissime debere
intelligi. Quod glossa Extra, De officio et
potestate iudicis delegati, cap. 1,
testari videtur, dicens: "in quarto casu auctoritatis,
sive defensionis, magis peccat consentiens defendendo,
et auctoritatem prestando, quam faciens, et magis
puniendus est, 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum, et 11
q. 3 c. Qui consentit". Ergo defendentes modis
prescriptis hereticam pravitatem pena hereticorum sunt
plectendi.
|
Master: It seems that one may prove
this as follows. Those who consent are to suffer the
same penalty as those who commit the act, a point which
appears above all as needing to be understood of those
who consent by providing defense or even by providing
authority. This seems attested by the gloss to Extra, De
officio et potestate iudicis delegati, c. 1 [c. Quia
quaesitum, col. 158] which states: "in the fourth
instance of authority or defense, he who consents by
defending and by providing authority commits a greater
sin than the doer of the act, and must receive a greater
punishment, 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum, and 11 q.
3 c. Qui consentit". [s.v. pari pena, col.
327] Therefore those who defend heretical wickedness in
the ways described must suffer the penalty of heretics.
|
|
Discipulus: Audivi quorundam
sententiam de hiis que factis defendunt hereticam
pravitatem. Nunc dic de illis qui verbo vel scripto
defendunt doctrinam erroneam pape heretici.
|
Student: I have listened to the
opinion of some concerning those who defend heretical
wickedness by their actions. Now speak of those who
defend the erroneous doctrine of a heretic pope verbally
or in writing.
|
|
Magister: De hiis breviter dicitur
quod, si doctrina pape erronea est talis quod veritatem
contrariam illi qui doctrinam pape erroneam solis
allegationibus verbo vel scripto nituntur defendere
credere tenentur explicite, tales defensores sunt inter
hereticos computandi, quia omnis qui negat veritatem
quam credere tenetur explicite est inter hereticos
numerandus, et pena hereticorum plectendus. Si vero
doctrina pape erronea sit talis quod allegantes pro ea
non tenentur credere explicite contrariam veritatem, qui
eam defendunt solummodo allegando verbis vel scriptis
non sunt heretici iudicandi, nec pena hereticorum
plectendi, nisi quomodocunque appareat quod suis
allegationibus pertinaciter innituntur. Qualiter autem
convinci valeant de pertinacia, ex hiis que tractata
sunt supra, libro quarto, debet posse patere.
|
Master: One briefly states about
these individuals that, if the erroneous doctrine of the
pope is such, that they who attempt to defend the pope's
erroneous doctrine only by spoken or written arguments
are bound to believe it explicitly, then these defenders
are to be numbered among the heretics, because everyone
who denies a truth which he is bound to believe
explicitly is to be numbered among the heretics, and
must suffer the penalty of heretics. If, however, the
erroneous doctrine of the pope is such that those who
argue in support of it are not bound to explicitly
believe the contrary truth, then they who merely defend
it by spoken or written arguments are not to be adjudged
heretics, nor must they suffer the punishment of
heretics, unless it somehow appears that they are
pertinaciously attached to their arguments. And the
manner whereby they may be convicted of pertinacity
should be clear from the points we treated earlier in
Book Four.
|
|
Discipulus: Ex hac sententia michi
sequi videtur quod aliqui allegantes verbo vel scripto
pro doctrina pape erronea sunt censendi heretici, et
aliqui a pravitate heretica sunt immunes.
|
Student: It seems to me that it
follows from this proposition that some of those who
argue verbally or in writing on behalf of the erroneous
doctrine of the pope are to be reckoned heretics, while
others remain free of heretical wickedness.
|
|
Magister: Conceditur quod hoc
potest contingere secundum quod potest accidere quod
aliqui tenentur credere explicite veritatem contrariam
doctrine pape erronee et aliqui eam credere explicite
non tenentur, et secundum quod aliqui possunt suis
allegationibus pertinaciter adherere et aliqui possunt
eis nequaquam pertinaciter adherere. Unde ad
cognoscendum qui allegantes verbo vel scripto pro
doctrina pape heretici sint heretici reputandi et qui
non sint inter hereticos numerandi, oportet
diligentissime considerare qui tenentur credere
explicite veritatem contrariam, et qui ad hoc minime
sunt astricti, et qui sunt pertinaces, et qui de
pertinacia convinci non possunt.
|
Master: It is conceded that this
may be the case. For it may happen that some are bound
to explicitly believe a truth which contradicts the
pope's erroneous doctrine, and others are not bound to
believe this truth explicitly. And some may adhere to
their arguments with pertinacity while others may not.
That is why, in order to know who among those arguing
verbally or in writing in favour of the heretic pope's
doctrine are to be reputed heretics and who are not to
be numbered among the heretics, it is expedient to
examine with utmost attention who are bound to believe
the contrary truth explicitly, and who are not bound to
do this, and which of them are pertinacious, and which
cannot be convicted of pertinacity.
|
|
Discipulus: Nunquid illi qui
allegarent pro doctrina hereticali pape heretici et non
tenerentur explicite credere veritatem contrariam nec de
pertinacia convinci valerent, deberent defensores
pravitatis heretice nuncupari.
|
Student: Must we reckon as
defenders of heretical wickedness those who would argue
in support of the heretic pope's heretical doctrine if
they are not bound to explicitly believe the contrary
doctrine and cannot be convicted of pertinacity.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod secundum
quod nomen defensoris heretice pravitatis in iure
accipitur, non deberent defensores pravitatis heretice
appellari, quia nomen defensoris sic acceptum semper
pertinaciam coincludit.
|
Master: The answer is that on the
precise legal interpretation of the expression "defender
of heretical wickedness", they ought not to be so
called, because the term "defender" in its legal
acception always involves evidence of pertinacity.
|
|
Discipulus: Si predicta de
defensoribus continent veritatem, aperta est distinctio
inter defensores hereticorum et defensores heretice
pravitatis. Sed an ista distinctio ex canonicis
sanctionibus accipi possit, ignoro. Unde quid de hoc
posset dici expone.
|
Student: If these statements about
defenders are true, there exists an obvious distinction
between defenders of heretics and defenders of heretical
wickedness. But I do not know whether it is possible to
derive this distinction from canonical decisions. Hence,
do explain what might be said concerning this point.
|
|
Magister: Quod ista distinctio ex
canonicis statutis possit accipi videtur tali modo posse
probari. In quibusdam statutis canonicis defensores ab
hereticis distinguuntur. In quibusdam vero defensores
heretici appellantur. Ergo videtur quod vocabulum
'defensorum' vel 'defendendi' accipiatur predicto modo
equivoce. Antecedens quoad utramque partem probatur, et
primo quidem ad primam partem sic probatur. Innocentius
tertius in concilio generali, ut legitur Extra, De
hereticis, cap. Excommunicamus 1, sic
ait: "credentes preterea, receptatores, defensores et
fautores hereticorum excommunicationi decrevimus
subiacere, firmiter statuentes, ut, postquam quilibet
talium fuerit excommunicatione notatus, si satisfacere
contempserit infra annum, ex tunc ipso iure sit factus
infamis, nec ad publica officia seu consilia, nec ad
eligendos aliquos ad huiusmodi, nec ad testimonium
admittatur. Sit etiam intestabilis, etc." Ex quibus
verbis colligitur quod plures penas quas constat
hereticos incurrere ipso facto et statim, defensores
hereticorum non incurrunt, nisi satisfacere
contempserint infra annum. Nam bona defensorum
hereticorum, si satisfecerint infra annum postquam
fuerint excommunicatione notati, sunt minime confiscanda
infra annum, ut ex verbis Innocentii allegatis et ex
sequentibus colligi videtur aperte. Bona vero
hereticorum confiscanda sunt vel confiscari possunt
etiam si infra annum ad fidei redierint veritatem, teste
eodem Innocentio tertio, qui, ut legitur Extra, De
hereticis, cap. Vergentis, ait: "in
terris vero temporali nostre iurisdictioni subiectis,
bona hereticorum statuimus publicari, et in aliis idem
precipimus fieri per potestates et principes seculares,
quos ad id exequendum, si forte negligentes extiterint,
per censuram ecclesiasticam appellatione remota compelli
volumus et mandamus. Nec ad eos bona eorum ulterius
revertantur, nisi eis, ad cor revertentibus et
abnegantibus hereticorum consortium, misereri aliquis
voluerit". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod, ut dicit
glossa super verbo 'misereri', hereticis ad cor
revertentibus et satisfacientibus sive infra annum sive
post annum: "de sola ergo misericordia restituantur
bona". Defensoribus autem non sunt infra annum bona
auferenda. Ergo defensores de quibus fit mentio in
constitutione predicta Excommunicamus non sunt
heretici nec fautores heretice pravitatis reputandi, sed
defensores hereticorum tantummodo sunt censendi. Qui,
sicut habetur Extra, De hereticis, Sicut
ait, et cap. Si adversus, et Extra, De
sententia excommunicationis, cap. Noverit,
ab hereticis distinguuntur.
|
Master: The possibility of deriving
this distinction from canonical statutes may apparently
be proved in the following manner. In some canonical
statutes defenders are distinguished from heretics,
while in others defenders are called heretics. Therefore
it seems that the term "defenders" or "defending" has an
equivocal contextual meaning. We now prove the premises
of this syllogism as to both of its parts. And initially
we prove the first part as follows. Innocent III speaks
thus in a general council (as we read in Extra, De
hereticis, c. Excommunicamus 1): "as
to believers, receivers, defenders, and abettors of
heretics, we decreed that they were subject to
excommunication, and we firmly ordered that after any of
them has been declared excommunicated, if he scorns to
offer appropriate satisfaction within one year, from
that moment he should by force of law be deemed to have
been disgraced, and is not to be permitted to exercise
public offices, nor to offer counsel as to such, nor to
elect others to such offices, nor to testify in court.
He will also not be allowed to have a legal will, etc."
[col. 788] One gathers from these words that defenders
of heretics do not incur penalties which heretics suffer
instantly and immediately, unless they fail to offer due
satisfaction within one year. For the properties of
defenders of heretics, as appears to be clearly inferred
from the cited words of Innocent as well as from other
words which follow, are not to be confiscated for a
whole year, if they offer appropriate satisfaction
within one year after having been declared
excommunicated. While the properties of heretics can or
must be confiscated even if they return to the truth of
faith within one year, witness the same Innocent III,
who states, as we read in Extra, De hereticis,
c. Vergentis: "but in lands subject to our
temporal jurisdiction, we proclaim that the properties
of heretics be confiscated. And in other lands we order
that the same be decreed by secular princes and
authorities. Should these authorities happen to be
negligent in the matter, we desire and command that they
be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without
provision for an appeal, to carry these provisions
through. Nor should their properties revert to heretics
in the future, unless someone voluntarily takes pity
upon them when they experience a change of heart and
reject the company of heretics". [col. 783] We gather
from these words that, as states the gloss on the word
"misereri": "it is therefore solely from compassion that
properties are returned" [col. 1675] to heretics who
experience a change of heart, and give appropriate
satisfaction either within a year or subsequently. In
contrast, defenders are not to lose their properties
within that first year. Therefore the defenders who are
mentioned in the aforesaid constitution Excommunicamus
are neither to be reputed heretics nor abettors of
heretical wickedness, but are only to be labeled
defenders of heretical wickedness. And these are
distinguished from heretics, as we discover in Extra, De
hereticis, Sicut ait, [col. 779] and in
c. Si adversus, [col. 784] and in Extra, De
sententia excomunicationis, c. Noverit.
[col. 910]
|
|
Secunda vero pars antecedentis rationis predicte,
scilicet quod quandoque defensores 'heretici'
appellantur, probatur. Nam sicut allegatum est supra (24
q. 3 Qui aliorum), defensores errorum
alienorum probantur esse non solum heretici sed
heresiarche, quia in hoc quod defendunt aliorum errores
sunt magistri errorum. Item, quod aliqui defensores sint
heretici reputandi testatur Innocentius (Extra, De
verborum significatione, cap. Super
quibusdam), dicens: "tua devotio postulavit a
nobis qui sint dicendi heretici manifesti. Super quo
diximus tibi respondendum, illos in hoc casu
intelligendos esse manifestos hereticos, qui contra
fidem catholicam publice predicant, aut profitentur, seu
defendunt errorem". Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi
quod defensores errorum sunt inter hereticos computandi.
Quod secundum quosdam intelligendum est sive facto sive
verbo sive scripto defendant errores, quod secundum eos
iuxta modum preexpositum continet veritatem.
|
We now prove the second part of the aforestated
reason's premisses, namely, that sometimes defenders are
called heretics. For as was argued above (with reference
to 24 q. 3 c. Qui aliorum), those who defend
the errors of others are proved to be not only heretics,
but heresiarchs, because the fact that they defend the
errors of others makes them masters of errors. Again:
Innocent attests that some defenders are to be reputed
heretics when he states in Extra, De verborum
significatione, c. Super quibusdam :
"your faithfulness requested us to explain which persons
must be called manifest heretics. On this we must offer
the following reply to you. They should be understood to
be manifest heretics in your context, who publicly
preach against the catholic faith, or who profess or
defend error". [col. 923] We understand from these words
that defenders of errors are to be numbered among the
heretics. According to some, this must be understood to
be the case regardless of whether they defend errors by
deed, verbally, or in writing, and these interpreters
claim that the proposition is true within the explained
context.
|
|
Capitulum 67
|
Chapter 67
|
|
Discipulus: De
defensoribus hereticorum et heretice pravitatis usque ad
tractatum De dogmatibus Iohannis 22-i et tractatum De
gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam, nolo plura
inquirere. Ideo ad receptatores pertranseo, de quibus
dic in primis quomodo a credentibus, fautoribus, et
defensoribus distinguuntur.
|
Student: I do
not wish to inquire any further about defenders of
heretics and of heretical wickedness until the treatise
On the doctrines of John XXII, and the treatise On the
deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith. Therefore
I now move on to the issue of receivers of heretics,
concerning which do explain initially how they are
distinguished from believers, abettors, and defenders.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod
receptator et credens hereticis duo disparata videntur,
quia licet receptator possit esse credens, tamen potest
etiam contingere quod non sit credens, quia qui scienter
est receptator hereticorum non est credens, quia non
credit eos esse catholicos quos reputat hereticos, nec
credit erroribus eorumdem. Receptator vero hereticorum
videtur esse fautor eorumdem, quia qui recipit
hereticos, eis quodammodo favet, cum etiam non impugnare
hereticos quando quis debet eos impugnare sit eis
favere. Omnis igitur receptator hereticorum est fautor
eorum sed non econverso. Multi enim sunt fautores
hereticorum qui tamen non sunt receptatores eorum.
Receptator autem et defensor hereticorum sicut duo
disparata videntur. Nam potest quis esse defensor
hereticorum quamvis non sit receptator eorum quia in
eius dominio non morantur. Potest etiam quis esse
receptator hereticorum quamvis non sit defensor, quia
scilicet eos a nulla impugnatione intendit defendere.
|
Master: The answer is that a
receiver of heretics and a believer of heretics appear
to be two different things. For although a receiver
might be a believer, it may nevertheless happen that a
receiver is not a believer. One who is a knowing
receiver of heretics is not a believer, since he does
not believe that those whom he reputes to be heretics
are catholics, nor does he believe their errors. A
receiver of heretics, however, appears to be their
abettor, because he who receives heretics favours them
in some fashion: even not to oppose heretics when
someone is obligated to oppose them is to show them
favour. Therefore every receiver of heretics is an
abettor of heretics, but the reverse relationship does
not hold, for there are many abettors of heretics who
nevertheless are not receivers of heretics. Furthermore,
a receiver of heretics and a defender of heretics appear
to be different things. For someone may be a defender of
heretics although he is not a receiver of heretics,
since they do not reside in his dominion. And someone
may be a receiver of heretics although he is not their
defender, namely, because he has no intention of
defending them from any attack.
|
|
Discipulus: Qui sunt receptatores
hereticorum.
|
Student: Who are receivers of
heretics.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod nomen
'receptatorum', secundum quod in iure accipitur, sonat
in malum. Et ideo isti sunt receptatores hereticorum
qui, cum possent hereticos de terra sua aut dominio
expellere, eos scienter vel ignoranter (ita tamen quod
laborant ignorantia crassa et supina) permittunt in
terra sua aut dominio absque custodia libere commorari.
De istis loquitur glossa Extra, De hereticis,
Excommunicamus 1, super verbo 'receptatores',
dicens: "sine quibus heretici manere diu non possunt".
|
Master: The answer is that the term
"receiver" as it is used in the law denotes something
bad. And therefore, they are receivers of heretics who,
having the power to expel heretics from their land or
dominion, knowingly or unknowingly (but in the latter
case with grossly passive ignorance) allow them to
reside freely in their land or dominion without putting
them under guard. It is of them that the gloss on the
word "receptatores" in Extra, De hereticis, Excommunicamus
1 speaks, stating that "without such, heretics cannot
remain secure for long". [col. 1683]
|
|
Discipulus: Secundum predicta, si
papa hereticus manens in dominio alicuius regis vel
principis aut alicuius alterius, tanta fulciretur
potentia quod dominus temporalis non posset eum
expellere, nec quomodolibet detinere, talis dominus non
esset censendus receptator hereticorum.
|
Student: According to the
aforesaid, if a heretic pope, residing in the dominion
of some king or prince or someone else, wielded such
power that the temporal lord was unable to expel him or
in any way place him under restraint, such a lord would
not be considered a receiver of heretics.
|
|
Magister: Hic respondetur quod
talem dominum temporalem impotentia excusaret.
|
Master: The answer is that in this
case such a temporal lord would be excused for lack of
temporal power.
|
|
Discipulus: Potestne aliquid aliud
excusare dominum temporalem, si non expellit papam
hereticum vel eius sequaces de suo dominio vel de terra
sibi subiecta.
|
Student: Might there be any other
excuse for a temporal lord who does not expel a heretic
pope or his followers from his dominion or from a land
subject to him.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod timor
probabilis turbationis fidelium absque fructu spirituali
potest excusare dominum temporalem.
|
Master: The answer is that probable
fear of a disturbance of the faithful without spiritual
gain might excuse a temporal lord.
|
|
Discipulus: Nunquid tenetur dominus
temporalis expellere papam hereticum de suo dominio, si
tantam habet potentiam temporalem, et non timet
probabiliter turbationem fidelium absque fructu
spirituali, quamvis dominus temporalis non fuerit per
prelatos ecclesie requisitus.
|
Student: If he has sufficient
temporal power and has no probable cause to fear a
disturbance of the faithful without spiritual gain, is a
temporal lord obligated to expel a heretical pope from
his dominion, even if the temporal lord has not been
requested to do so by prelates of the church.
|
|
Magister: De hoc tractatum est
supra, libro sexto cap. 99 et ultimo, ubi ostensum est
quod, deficiente ecclesiastica potestate, sive per
impotentiam, sive per malitiam, sive per dampnabilem
negligentiam, laici debent hereticos cohercere.
|
Master: We have dealt with this
issue earlier, in the 99th and in the last chapters of
Book Six, where we demonstrated that when ecclesiastical
power fails, whether by impotence, or by malice, or by
culpable negligence, laymen have the duty to forcibly
repress heretics.
|
|
Discipulus: Quid faciet dominus
temporalis si scit papam hereticum manere in suo
dominio, et non potest eum artare.
|
Student: What should a temporal
lord do if he knows that the heretic pope resides in his
dominion, and he lacks power to place the pope under
arrest.
|
|
Magister: Requiret auxilium aliorum
catholicorum. Si autem alii nolunt auxiliari ei,
excusatus est.
|
Master: Let him request the
assistance of other catholics. If, however, others do
not want to help him, he is excused.
|
|
Discipulus: Quid faciet populus ubi
moratur papa hereticus, si dominus temporalis, quamvis
possit, nolit papam hereticum cohercere.
|
Student: What should the common
people of the territory where the heretic pope resides
do, if the temporal lord refuses to use force against
this heretic pope even when he can.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod populus,
non obstante quod dominus temporalis sit receptator pape
heretici, si potest absque dispendio spirituali, debet
papam cohercere, ubi sciret papam esse hereticum, puta
si papa aliquid assereret contra veritatem apud omnes
catholicos divulgatam, utpote si diceret Christum falsum
prophetam, vel fidem christianam esse falsam vel fictam,
aut quod anime reproborum in
inferno minime cruciantur, vel aliquid huiusmodi, quod
apud omnes catholicos tanquam catholicum divulgatum
existit, nec esset necesse quod populus in hoc casu
consuleret sapientes, nisi forte ad sciendum quomodo
deberet procedere contra papam hereticum. Non enim
populus propter persuasiones, allegationes, vel verba
quorumcunque sapientum vel insipientum deberet
quoquomodo in dubium revocare an papa esset in tali casu
hereticus reputandus, et tanquam hereticus evitandus ac
etiam puniendus. Imo quicunque sapientes, clerici vel
laici, qui dicerent papam in tali casu non debere a
populo reputari hereticus, essent a populo heretici
iudicandi.
|
Master: The answer is that the
populace, regardless of the fact that its temporal lord
is a receiver of the heretic pope, is obligated to use
force against the pope (if this can be done without
spiritual detriment) where it knows that the pope is a
heretic, for instance if the pope made some assertion
against a truth disseminated among all catholics, e.g.,
if he stated that Christ was a false prophet, or that
the Christian faith was false or fictitious, or that the
souls of the damned do not suffer the torture of hell,
[an allusion to the Visio beatifica
controversy] or something of this sort, which is
disseminated among all catholics as catholic doctrine.
Nor would it be necessary in this case for the populace
to consult experts, except perhaps to be informed of the
manner in which it should proceed against the heretic
pope. For the populace must in no way doubt that in such
a situation the pope must be considered a heretic, and
must be avoided and even punished as a heretic,
regardless of the convictions, arguments, or words
uttered by any, be they expert or ignorant. Indeed any
experts, clerks or laymen, who would state that in such
a situation the pope ought not to be considered a
heretic by the people, would themselves have to be
adjudged heretics by the people.
|
|
Discipulus: Quomodo potest populus
absque auctoritate domini temporalis aliquid contra
papam hereticum attemptare, cum populus nullam habeat
iurisdictionem omnino, sed in dominum suum omnem
iurisdictionem transtulerit.
|
Student: How can the people attempt
any action against the heretic pope without the
authority of the temporal lord. After all, the populace
has no jurisdiction whatsoever, but has transferred all
jurisdiction to its lord.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis
populus in imperatorem vel regem iurisdictionem
transtulerit, iurisdictionem tamen quam habet in favorem
fidei quando papa est hereticus, et manet cum eis et
prelati ac dominus temporalis nolunt vel non possunt
papam cohercere, a se transferre non potest, nec tali
iurisdictioni renuntiare potest, quia illa iurisdictio
concessa est populo in favorem fidei christiane.
|
Master: The answer is that although
the populace has transferred jurisdiction to the emperor
or to the king, it nevertheless cannot transfer from
itself the jurisdiction which it possesses in favour of
the faith when the pope is a heretic, and the prelates
and temporal lord with whom the heretic resides either
do not want to, or cannot, use force against him. Nor
can the people renounce such jurisdiction, because this
jurisdiction has been granted to the people in support
of the Christian faith.
|
|
Discipulus: Quo iure habet populus
iurisdictionem huiusmodi super papam hereticum. Non iure
divino, quia de hoc in iure divino nulla fit mentio. Nec
etiam iure humano, quia etiam in iure humano de hoc
nulla fit mentio. Nec iure naturali, quia a iure
naturali nulla est iurisdictio penitus, eo quod ex iure
naturali nullus habet super alium potestatem. Natura
enim omnes fecit equales.
|
Student: By what right do the
people possess such jurisdiction over a heretic pope.
Not by divine right, since there is no mention of it in
divine law. Nor by human right, because there is no
mention of this in human law either. Nor by natural
right, because no jurisdiction whatever exists by
natural law, in that no one has power over another by
natural right, for nature has made all humans equal.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis
in iure divino nulla fiat mentio vocalis de
iurisdictione huiusmodi, sententialiter tamen hoc ex
iure divino et naturali ac humano simul colligitur. Nam
ex iure divino concluditur quod papa factus hereticus
est papatu privatus. Ex iure autem humano habetur quod
pape heretico non est communicandum modo predicto, quod
etiam corporaliter servari debet quando absque
perniciosa turbatione fidelium servari potest, eo quod
nulli heretico est communicandum modo predicto. Item, ex
iure humano habetur quod si papa vel dominus temporalis
alicuius populi fiat hereticus, totus populus a
iurisdictione tam pape quam domini temporalis
absolvitur, teste Gregorio nono qui, ut habetur Extra, De
hereticis, cap. ultimo, ait: "absolutos se
noverint a debito fidelitatis hominii et totius
obsequii, quicunque lapsis manifeste in heresim aliquo
pacto, quacunque firmitate vallato, tenebantur
astricti". Ex iure autem naturali, non quidem quod
fuisset tempore nature institute, sed quod est pro
tempore nature lapse, habetur quod populus propter
perfidiam alicuius qui non est superior eo, locum aut
patriam relinquere non tenetur. Ex quibus concluditur
quod si papa fiat hereticus, et dominus temporalis
faverit eidem, populus iurisdictionem saltem aliqualem
obtinet super papam hereticum, quia ex quo papa
hereticus est iure divino papatu privatus, non est
superior populo ubi moratur. Iure autem humano populus
pape heretico communicare non debet, ergo debet papam
hereticum devitare. Iure autem naturali non tenetur
propter papam hereticum patriam aut locum deserere vel
relinquere. Ergo potest papam hereticum, ne eidem
communicet, de loco suo expellere vel eum in custodia
detinere.
|
Master: The answer is that although
no verbal mention of such a jurisdiction is made in
divine law, one nevertheless may deduce its existence in
substance from a convergence of divine, natural, and
human law. One concludes indeed from divine law that a
pope who has become a heretic is deprived of the papacy.
And one holds from human law that there is to be no
communication as described with a heretic pope, a duty
which must also be observed with respect to physical
contact, when this can be done without harmful
disturbance to the faithful, because there is to be no
contact of the type described with any heretic. Again,
we have it from human law that if the pope or the
temporal lord of some people becomes a heretic, the
entire populace is released from the jurisdiction of
both the pope and of the temporal lord, witness Gregory
IX, who states (as we discover in Extra, De
hereticis, c. ultimo) : "Let any know who were
duty bound by any agreement, however strongly confirmed,
to individuals obviously fallen into heresy, that they
are released from the debt of human obedience and from
any respectful deference whatever". [c. 16, cols.
789-790] While from natural law (indeed not the natural
law which would have regulated our deeds had our
original nature developed historically, but the natural
law which exists for the period of fallen human nature)
we deduce that the populace is not obligated to abandon
its place of residence or its homeland because of the
faithlessness of someone who is not the people's
superior. From these various points, one concludes that
if the pope becomes a heretic, and the temporal lord
favours him, the populace obtains at least a certain
jurisdiction over the heretic pope, because, based on
the fact that a heretic pope is deprived of the papacy
by divine law, he is not the superior of the people in
his area of residence. And by human law the populace
must not communicate with the heretic pope, therefore it
must avoid contacting the heretic pope. Finally, by
natural law a populace is not bound to desert or to
abandon its country or territory because of a heretical
pope. Therefore the populace is entitled to expel the
pope from its territory, or to place him under
detention, so as to avoid having to communicate with
him.
|
|
Discipulus: Ista ratio non procedit
nisi papa hereticus se ingereret communioni populi, ergo
si non ingerit se communioni populi, populus nullam
iurisdictionem habet super eum.
|
Student: This reason carries weight
only if a heretic pope involves himself in active
communion with the populace. Therefore if he does not
seek such active contact, the populace possesses no
jurisdiction over him.
|
|
Magister: Dicitur quod sufficit
quod per rationem predictam probaretur populum in aliquo
casu iurisdictionem aliquam (extendendo nomen
iurisdictionis ad quamcunque potestatem expellendi vel
etiam aliquem detinendi) super papam hereticum obtinere,
quia dicitur quod ex tali iurisdictione populi super
papam hereticum multiplicem contingit inferre.
|
Master: The response is that it
suffices to prove by means of the stated reason that the
populace occasionally obtains a certain jurisdiction
over a heretic pope, stretching the term "jurisdiction"
to include any power to expel or even to detain someone,
because the contention is that from such a jurisdiction
of the people over a heretic pope a broader one may be
inferred.
|
|
Discipulus: Causa brevitatis, nolo
quod ex iurisdictione predicta aliqua alia inferantur,
sed dic secundum predictam opinionem, si papa hereticus
voluerit recedere, an populus debeat eum dimittere
liberum abire, an eum tenetur in firma custodia
detinere.
|
Student: For the sake of brevity, I
do not wish any other matters to be inferred from the
jurisdiction being discussed. But answer the following
on the basis of the stated opinion: if the heretic pope
should decide to leave, must the populace allow him to
depart in freedom, or is it bound to detain him in firm
custody.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod populus
tenetur eum in firma custodia detinere, cuius ratio
assignatur talis. Non minus debet unaqueque persona et
multitudo fidelium esse sollicita de salute spirituali
proximorum quam corporali, secundum quod ex verbis beati
Augustini que ponuntur 23 q. 4 cap. Ipsa pietas,
que allegata sunt supra, colligitur evidenter. Sed si
esset aliquis in populo qui, vallatus complicibus,
eundem populum et omnem alium catholicum corporaliter
conaretur extinguere, populus non deberet liberum abire
dimittere, sed ne alios populos christianos occideret,
detinere. Ergo si papa hereticus omnes catholicos
spiritualiter per pravitatem hereticam conatur necare,
populus cum quo moratur, non solum proprio periculo sed
etiam periculo aliorum fidelium precavendo, ipsum
detinere tenetur.
|
Master: The answer is that the
populace is bound to detain him in firm custody, and the
following reason is advanced to explain this. Each and
every person and multitude of believers must be no less
concerned about the spiritual salvation of their
neighbours than about their physical salvation, a
conviction evidently gathered from the words of blessed
Augustine in 23 q. 4 c. Ipsa pietas, which
were earlier advanced in argument. [cols. 909-910. Cf. 1
Dial. 6.44, 50] But if there was someone within the
people who, with the help of accomplices, were to
attempt to physically exterminate this same people and
every other catholic people, the people would be
obligated not to allow him to withdraw in freedom, but
rather to detain him lest he slay the other Christian
peoples. Therefore, if a heretic pope is attempting to
spiritually destroy all catholics through heretical
wickedness, the populace with which he is residing is
obligated to detain him, not only to prevent peril to
itself, but also to prevent peril to the other faithful.
|
|
Discipulus: Nunquid si populus
permittit papam hereticum libere secum commorari, et
suos dogmatizare errores, debet receptator hereticorum
censeri, si potest papam hereticum detinere.
|
Student: If the populace allows the
heretic pope to freely reside in its midst, and to
propound his errors, must it be considered a receiver of
heretics, assuming that it has the power to detain the
heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod sic.
Quia ex quo spectat ad populum detinere papam hereticum
quando dominus temporalis et prelati circa cohertionem
pape heretici sunt dampnabiliter negligentes, si populus
eum non detinet debet receptator pape heretici reputari.
|
Master: The answer is affirmative.
Since it is up to the people to detain a heretic pope
when the temporal lord and the prelates are culpably
negligent with respect to the use of force against a
heretic pope, if the populace does not detain him it
must be considered to be a receiver of the heretic pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Nunquid quilibet de
populo tali debet dici receptator pape heretici.
|
Student: Must any member of such a
people be called a receiver of the heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod omnes
qui dampnabiliter negligunt papam hereticum detinere,
vel qui tali negligentie consentiunt, sunt receptatores
pape heretici. Si vero sunt aliqui in populo qui ad
detentionem pape heretici alios exhortantur quantum
licet eis pro gradu suo, paratique essent una cum aliis
papam hereticum detinere, aut talem exhortationem metu
mortis vel gravium tormentorum omittunt, dolentes quod
papa hereticus minime detinetur, non sunt inter
receptatores pape heretice computandi.
|
Master: The answer is that all
those are receivers of the heretic pope who are culpably
negligent in the matter of his detention, or who consent
to such negligence. If, on the other hand, there are
some members of the people who, to the extent that their
status allows, exhort others to detain the heretic pope,
and would be prepared to collaborate with others in the
matter of detaining the heretic pope, or if their
omission of such exhortation is due to fear of death or
of severe torments, and they grieve at the fact that the
heretic pope is not being detained, then they are not to
be numbered among the receivers of the heretic pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Nunquid tales qui
parati essent papam hereticum detinere tenentur
recedere, ne communicent pape heretico.
|
Student: Are those who would be
prepared to detain the heretic pope obligated to leave,
so as not to communicate with the heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod si tales
remanere in populo minime possunt nisi communicent pape
heretico propter potentiam pape heretici et suorum,
communicare possunt corporaliter pape heretico, scilicet
loquendo, comedendo, bibendo, et corporaliter insimul
conversando, nec ad vitandam talem communionem cum
notabili dampno suo tenentur recedere. Sed antequam
communicent pape heretico aliter quam corporaliter
tantum, puta in officio divino, vel in hiis que ad
papatus spectant officium, maxime quantum ad ea que
ordinis sunt, aut facto vel verbo protestando eum esse
papam, debent de loco illo recedere, quia taliter
communicare pape heretico nullus potest absque peccato
mortali. Quilibet autem ante debet omnia mala tolerare
quam peccare mortaliter.
|
Master: The answer is that if, due
to the power of the heretic pope and of his supporters,
such individuals could not remain members of the people
unless they communicated with the heretic pope, they may
physically communicate with him, namely, speak, eat,
drink, and converse with him in mutual contact, and they
are not obligated to leave with deleterious effects to
themselves in order to avoid this kind of communication.
But they must withdraw from this territory sooner than
communicate with the heretic pope otherwise than
physically, for instance, by going to mass with him, or
having dealings with him pertinent to the papal office,
most of all as to issues relating to spiritual order, or
by acknowledging him to be pope by word or deed; for no
one may communicate with a heretic pope in this manner
without committing a mortal sin, and everyone ought
rather to undergo all possible pains than to sin
mortally.
|
|
Discipulus: Prima pars istius
sententie decretali Innocentie 3ii, que ponitur Extra, De
his que vi metusve causa fiunt,
cap. Sacris, repugnare videtur. Ait enim:
"distinguimus autem utrum is, qui communicat
excommunicatis invitus, sit per coactionem astrictus aut
per metum inductus. In primo siquidem casu talem non
credimus excommunicatione teneri, cum magis pati, quam
agere convincatur. In secundo vero licet metus attenuet
culpam, quia tamen non eam prorsus excludit, cum pro
nullo metu debeat quis mortale peccatum incurrere, talem
excommunicationis labe credimus inquinari". Ex quibus
verbis colligitur, ut videtur, quod nullus metus etiam
mortis excusat corporaliter communicantem excommunicato
a peccato mortali. Cum ergo papa hereticus sit
excommunicatus quia incidit in canonem sententie
promulgate, ut notat glossa 24 q. 1 cap. Achatius
sicut allegatum est supra, quicunque communicat pape
heretico, etiam corporaliter tantummodo,
excommunicationis sententia inquinatur.
|
Student: The first part of this
opinion seems to contradict the decretal of Innocent III
found in Extra, De his que vi metusve causa fiunt,
c. Sacris. For he states: "we should
distinguish whether he who unwillingly communicates with
excommunicated persons does this under pressure of
force, or motivated by fear. In the first situation, at
any rate, we do not believe the individual in question
to be obligated by the excommunication, since he is
clearly more a victim than an actor. But in the second
case, although fear diminishes guilt, it does not
entirely exclude it, because no one must commit a mortal
sin however strong the fear, and therefore we believe
such an individual to be polluted with the stain of
excommunication". [col. 220] We gather from these words,
it would appear, that no fear, not even fear of death,
excuses from the commission of a mortal sin someone who
physically communicates with an excommunicated person.
Therefore, since a heretic pope is excommunicated
because he falls under the sanction of a promulgated
judgement, as notes the gloss to 24 q. 1 c. Achatius,
[s.v. in heresim, col. 1382] earlier adduced in
argument, [cf. 1 Dial. 6.19] whoever communicates with a
heretic pope, even if merely physically, is polluted by
a judgement of excommunication.
|
|
Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod
Innocentius 3us in decretali predicta de
excommunicatione corporali nullam facit penitus
mentionem, et ideo pro morte vitanda licitum est
cuicunque excommunicato communicare corporaliter. Nec
potest ecclesia de plenitudine potestatis artare
quemcunque contra suam voluntatem in tali casu
excommunicatum vitare. Et ideo Innocentius loquitur de
communione non corporali sed de aliqua alia, puta in
crimine vel alio modo, que absque constitutione humana
noscitur interdicta.
|
Master: The answer to this is that
Innocent III makes no mention whatever of physical
excommunication in the aforesaid decretal, and therefore
one is permitted to communicate physically with any
excommunicated individual in order to avoid death. Nor
can the church use its plenitude of power in this case
to force anyone against his will into avoiding an
excommunicated individual. And therefore Innocent is not
speaking of a physical communication but of a different
kind of communication, for instance in crime, or in some
other fashion which is known to be forbidden
independently of human law.
|
|
Discipulus: Circa
dictam responsionem due difficultates michi occurrunt.
Prima est, quia videtur quod ecclesia, que etiam summum
pontificem comprehendit, penes quam plenitudo residet
potestatis, potest precipere cuilibet catholico ut nullo
metu mortis vel perditionis rerum excommunicato
communicet. Aliter enim plenitudinem potestatis
nequaquam haberet. Si autem ecclesia potest hoc
precipere, alius obedire tenetur. Secunda est, quia si
ecclesia non potest aliquem obligare sub pena
excommunicationis ut nec etiam metu mortis corporaliter
communicet excommunicato, videtur etiam per eandem
rationem quod per eandem penam non potest obligare
fideles ne aliter quam corporaliter excommunicato
communicent.
|
Student: I have two difficulties
with respect to this answer. The first is this. It
appears that the church (which also includes the supreme
pontiff), in whose competence plenitude of power
resides, may command to any catholic not to communicate
with an excommunicated person even if threatened by
death or loss of property. For otherwise the church
would not possess plenitude of power. And if the church
may command this, then one is bound to obey. The second
difficulty is this. If the church cannot obligate
someone under penalty of excommunication to refrain from
physical communication with an excommunicated person
even if threatened by death, it appears (for the same
reason) that the church cannot obligate the faithful by
the same penalty not to communicate with excommunicated
persons otherwise than physically.
|
|
Magister: Ad primam respondetur
quod ecclesia non potest aliquem obligare sub pena
excommunicationis ut nullo metu mortis vel perditionis
rerum communicet excommunicato, cuius ratio assignatur
talis. Ad illa que supererogationis sunt vel excessive
gravia dinoscuntur, ad que quis nec iure divino nec iure
naturali nec spontanea voluntate noscitur obligari, non
potest ecclesia de plenitudine potestatis fideles
artare. Hec enim est causa quare ecclesia non potest
christianos ad votum continentie vel virginitatis
artare, quia, ut lex sacra dicit: "castitas que suaderi
potest, imperari non potest". Similiter ecclesia non
potest cogere christianos religionem mendicantium vel
monachorum intrare, quia hoc supererogationis est, et
causa quare ad ea que supererogationis sunt non potest
ecclesia christianos compellere, est quia talia
excessive sunt gravia, ad que christiani lege divina vel
iure naturali minime obligantur. Quare ad ea prelati
christianos obligare non debent, ne sint de numero
illorum de quibus dicit Christus Matthei 23: "alligant
autem onera gravia et importabilia et imponunt in
humeros hominum: digito autem suo nolunt ea movere". Ad
ea igitur que sunt excessive difficilia et gravia non
potest ecclesia regulariter obligare fideles, licet ex
causa et pro culpa ad talia possit aliquos obligare,
quemadmodum aliquibus pro culpa precedenti matrimonium
interdicit, et aliquos in monasteria etiam invitos
statuit retrudendos. Cum igitur mortem suscipere et res
suas amittere et gravia tormenta subire, et talia
consimilia, sint inter excessive gravia computanda,
ecclesia per nullam constitutionem potest regulariter
christianos in aliquo casu, in quo ad huiusmodi nec per
legem divinam nec per legem nature nec per voluntatem
spontaneam obligantur, astringere. Ad non communicandum
autem corporaliter excommunicato, christiani nullo
predictorum modorum tenentur vel artantur, quia si ad
hoc aliquo predictorum modorum essent astricti, etiam de
dispensatione pape non possent aliqui communicare
excommunicatis, quod constat esse falsum. Ergo ecclesia
regulariter per aliquam constitutionem generalem sub
pena excommunicationis non potest quemlibet obligare ut
nec metu mortis vel amissionis rerum corporaliter
communicet excommunicatis.
|
Master: The answer to the first
difficulty is that the church cannot obligate someone
under penalty of excommunication to refrain from
communicating with an excommunicated person even if
threatened by death or loss of property, and this for
the following reason. The church cannot from plenitude
of power force the faithful to perform acts of
supererogation, or such as are known to be excessively
burdensome, acts one is known not to be obligated to
perform either by divine law, or by natural law, or by
one's free will. This is indeed the reason why the
church cannot force Christians to vow chastity or
virginity, because, as the sacred law states: "chastity
may be advocated, but cannot be ordered". [32 q. 1 c.
13, col. 1119] Similarly, the church cannot force
Christians to enter a religious Order of mendicants, or
monks, because this is a supererogatory matter. And the
reason why the church cannot compel Christians to
perform acts of supererogation is because such acts are
exceedingly burdensome, and Christians are not obligated
to perform them by divine law or by natural law.
Therefore, prelates must not obligate Christians to
perform such acts, lest the prelates be numbered among
those of whom Christ states in Matthew 23: "for they
bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay
them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not
move them with one of their fingers". [Matthew 23:4]
Therefore the church cannot, as a rule, obligate the
faithful to perform acts which are excessively difficult
and onerous, although it may obligate some to such
performance for cause and fault. For instance, it
forbids matrimony to some on the basis of a prior
misdeed, and it commands that individuals be locked up
in monasteries even against their will. Therefore since
death, loss of property, harsh torture, and the like are
numbered among excessively onerous experiences, the
church cannot, as a rule, constrain Christians by any
legislation to perform or accept such specifics where
Christians are not obligated to do so by divine law, by
natural law, or by their own free will. And indeed
Christians are neither bound nor forced by any of the
stated sources to refrain from physical communication
with an excommunicated person, for if they were bound to
avoid this by any of the stated sources, then none could
communicate with excommunicated individuals even by
papal dispensation, a fact evidently false. Therefore as
a rule the church cannot obligate anyone by some general
statute, under penalty of excommunication, to refrain
from physical communication with excommunicated
individuals, even if threatened by death or loss of
property.
|
|
Cum vero dicis quod ecclesia non haberet tunc
plenitudinem potestatis, respondent quidam quod summe
necessarium esset hiis diebus, quod per sapientes
iuramentis et horribilibus comminationibus per reges ad
veritatem dicendam artatos, declararetur que spectant ad
plenitudinem potestatis quam ecclesia noscitur obtinere.
Dicunt enim quod aliqui literati, ut beneficia
ecclesiastica consequantur, ita ampliant plenitudinem
potestatis ecclesie, quod omnem iurisdictionem laicalem,
imo omne dominium et proprietatem laicorum in
quibuscunque rebus temporalibus manifeste evacuant. Quod
tamen scripture divine aperte repugnat, cum etiam
infideles secundum scripturam sacram rerum temporalium
habeant dominium et proprietatem, nec tempore
apostolorum licuit ecclesie dominos infideles rebus
temporalibus spoliare.
|
And when you say that in that case the church would
not have plenitude of power, some thinkers respond that
it would be of the highest necessity in these times of
ours that kings pressure wise men by oaths and dreadful
threats to declare the truth as to matters relevant to
the plenitude of power which the church is known to
possess. For these thinkers claim that some of the
learned, in order to obtain ecclesiastical benefices,
magnify the church's plenitude of power to such an
extent that they obviously eliminate every lay
jurisdiction, indeed every lordship and property of
laymen in any temporal goods whatsoever. And this
clearly clashes with Holy Writ, since according to
Sacred Scripture even non-believers possess lordship and
property of temporal goods, nor was it permitted to the
church in the age of the apostles to strip non-believing
lords of their temporal possessions.
|
|
Discipulus: Quomodo evacuant aliqui
omnem proprietatem et dominium laicorum.
|
Student: In what way do some of the
learned eliminate every property and lordship of laymen.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod sunt
quidam dicentes quod omne illud spectat ad plenitudinem
potestatis ecclesie quod non obviat legi divini neque
legi nature, et in omnibus casibus omnes christiani
summo pontifici obedire tenentur. Quare cum non habere
dominium et proprietatem temporalium neque legi divine
neque legi nature repugnet, in hoc tenentur omnes laici
summo pontifici obedire. Quare summus pontifex potest ad
libitum de temporalibus laicorum disponere, et per
consequens non sunt censendi ad laicorum proprietatem et
dominium pertinere.
|
Master: The answer is that there
are some who say that everything which does not
contradict divine law or natural law pertains to the
plenitude of power of the church, and in all such cases
all Christians are obligated to obey the supreme
pontiff. Therefore since to lack lordship and property
of temporals contradicts neither divine law nor the law
of nature, all laymen are bound to obey the supreme
pontiff in this. Therefore the supreme pontiff may
dispose arbitrarily of the temporals of laymen, and
consequently these temporals are not reckoned as
pertinent to the property and lordship of laymen.
|
|
Discipulus: De
hac materia te exquisite interrogabo in tractatu De
dogmatibus Iohannis 22i, quare nunc tantummodo dic cur,
non obstante plenitudine potestatis ecclesie, ecclesia
non potest obligare christianos ut etiam pro morte
vitanda non communicent corporaliter excommunicatis.
|
Student: I
shall question you abundantly on this issue in the
treatise On the doctrines of John XXII, therefore at
present explain only why the church, notwithstanding the
plenitude of ecclesiastical power, cannot obligate
Christians to refrain from physically communicating with
excommunicated persons even in order to avoid death.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur breviter a
nonnullis quod hoc ad plenitudinem potestatis ecclesie
minime spectat, quia sicut plenitudo potestatis ecclesie
ad res laicorum, ut libere faciat de eis quicquid sibi
placuerit, minime se extendit, ita etiam plenitudo
potestatis ecclesie ad illa que supererogationis et
gravia sunt nullatenus se extendit, ut, scilicet, illa
valeat imperare, licet suadere possit.
|
Master: Some briefly respond that
this is not relevant to the church's plenitude of power,
because just as the church's plenitude of power does not
extend itself to the properties of laymen, so that it
might freely and arbitrarily dispose of such, neither
does the church's plenitude of power extend itself to
onerous and supererogatory matters, namely, so that it
might command their performance, although it may counsel
this.
|
|
Discipulus: Hoc quod plenitudo
potestatis ecclesie ad gravia se minime extendit
Capitulum Karoli quod ponitur dis. 19 cap. In
memoriam adversari videtur. Ibi enim sic
legitur: "licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta sede
imponatur iugum, tamen feramus et pia devotione
toleremus". Quibus verbis manifeste asseritur quod ad
gravia potestas summi pontificis se extendit, cum 'vix
ferenda' sint inter gravia computanda.
|
Student: The claim that the
church's plenitude of power does not extend itself to
onerous matters appears to negate the Capitulary of
Charles [Charlemagne] which is found in dis. 19 c. In
memoriam. For in that context we read as follows:
"even if a hardly bearable yoke is imposed by this holy
see, we shall nevertheless bear it, and tolerate it with
pious devotion". [cols. 60-61] These words clearly
assert that the power of the supreme pontiff extends
itself to onerous matters, since matters "hardly
bearable" must be numbered among such.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod Karolus
loquitur de hiis que spectant ad officium summi
pontificis. De aliis autem nequaquam intelligit. Unde si
papa preciperet regi vel comiti quod daret nepoti suo
aliquam civitatem vel castrum, imo duos florenos, sibi
nullatenus obedire esset astrictus. Multo fortius si
tale quid preciperet pauperi, non teneretur sibi parere.
|
Master: The answer is that Charles
is speaking of such matters as pertain to the office of
the supreme pontiff, and does not understand this
comment as relevant to other matters. Hence, were the
pope to order a king or a count to grant the pope's
nephew a certain city or fortress, nay, even two
florins, the king or the count would in no way be
obligated to obey him. All the more if the pope were to
command something similar to a poor person would the
latter not be bound to obey him.
|
|
Discipulus: Dic quomodo respondetur
ad secundam difficultatem quam tetigi supra.
|
Student: Explain how one responds
to the second difficulty I raised earlier.
|
|
Magister: Ad illam respondetur per
predicta, quia ubi aliquid a lege divina vel iure
naturali noscitur esse prohibitum, ibi potest ecclesia
gravissimam penam transgredientibus infligere, et ad
servandum preceptum legis divine et legis nature
catholicos obligare. Ubi autem non est nisi preceptum
humanum, nisi ex causa rationabili non voluntaria, non
potest ad servandum idem preceptum catholicos sub gravi
artare pena quin saltem pro morte vitanda posset quis
tale preceptum pretergredi. In tali enim casu epyeykes
interpretatur legem humanam non esse servandam in illo
intellectu quem verba prima facie sonare videntur. Sic,
sicut allegatum est supra, Bonifatius martyr iuramentuum
suum quod prestitit de non communicando hereticis
interpretatus fuit, quam interpretationem Zacharias
summus pontifex approbavit. Cum igitur communicare
corporaliter excommunicatis non est prohibitum a lege
divina neque a lege nature, per nullum preceptum humanum
possunt regulariter christiani constringi quin pro morte
vitanda possint communicare excommunicatis, licet ex
causa et pro culpa aliqui, et pro aliquo tempore omnes,
possint astringi ne cum aliquo excommunicato communicent
etiam pro morte vitanda. Unde et tale quid posset
accidere circa papam hereticum, quod omnes christiani
possent astringi ne communicarent eidem etiam pro morte
vitanda, sed hoc non est regulare de omnibus christianis
omni tempore respectu omnium excommunicatorum. Sed
communicare excommunicato aliter quam corporaliter, puta
in crimine, vel in hiis que ad ecclesiasticum officium
pertinent, quo excommunicatus fungi non potest, est
prohibitum a lege divina. Ideo ibi potest ecclesia
addicere penam excommunicationis, ut nullus christianus
taliter communicet excommunicato etiam pro morte
vitanda.
|
Master: The answer flows from the
points just made. For where something is known to be
forbidden by divine law or by natural law, there the
church is empowered to inflict the heaviest of penalties
on delinquents, and to obligate catholics to observe the
commandments of divine law and of natural law. But where
there exists only a human legal provision, the church,
except for some reasonable and involuntary cause, cannot
force catholics to observe this provision under threat
of severe penalty, since someone might bypass the
church's command at the very least in order to avoid
death. For in such a situation, a reasonable person
[epyeikes: cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
V.10] interprets the human law as not to be observed in
the sense which its wording initially seems to convey.
Just so, as was argued earlier, [cf. 1 Dial. 7.58] did
Boniface the martyr interpret his professed oath that he
would not communicate with heretics; and the supreme
pontiff Zachary approved this interpretation. Therefore,
since physical communication with excommunicated persons
is forbidden neither by divine law nor by the law of
nature, Christians may not, as a rule, be constrained by
any human precept so as to be prevented from
communicating with excommunicated persons in order to
avoid death; although for cause and fault some
individuals, and at certain times all individuals, may
be forcibly ordered not to communicate with some
excommunicated person even in order to avoid death. And
something of the sort may possibly happen with respect
to a heretic pope. All Christians may well be
constrained not to communicate with him even in order to
avoid death. However, this is not an operative rule for
all Christians at all times and with respect to all
excommunicated persons. But it is forbidden by divine
law to communicate with an excommunicated person
otherwise than physically, for instance to communicate
with him in a crime, or in those issues which pertain to
an ecclesiastical office which the excommunicated person
cannot exercise. Therefore in this case the church may
legally assign a penalty of excommunication, so that no
Christian communicate in this way with an excommunicated
person even on order to avoid death.
|
|
Capitulum 68
|
Chapter 68
|
|
Discipulus: Aliqua
que in precedenti capitulo recitasti aliquibus forsitan
videbuntur obscura, que in tractatu De gestis circa
fidem altercantium orthodoxam te faciam explicare. Ideo,
illis omissis, dic qua pena receptatores pape heretici
et sequacium eius sunt plectendi.
|
Student: Some
of the things which you have recited in the preceding
chapter will perhaps appear obscure to a few, and I
shall endeavour to have you explain them in the treatise
On the deeds of those disputing about orthodox faith.
Therefore, omitting them for the moment, explain the
punishment which receivers of a heretic pope and of his
followers ought to suffer.
|
|
Magister: Circa hoc possunt esse
opiniones contrarie. Una, quod pena hereticorum sunt
plectendi quia heretici sunt censendi. Hec videtur esse
opinio glosse Extra, De hereticis, cap. Excommunicamus
1 # Credentes, que super verbo 'receptatores'
ait: "sine quibus heretici manere diu non possunt, arg.
ff. De offic. presid. lege Congruit,
ff. De receptatoribus lib. 1. Unde merito isti
sunt puniendi: imo gravius delinquunt, qui aliorum
errores defendunt, et acrius puniri debent, 24 q. 3 c. Qui
aliorum. Et ideo simili pena cum hereticis
puniuntur, 11. q. 3 c. Qui consentit". Ex
quibus verbis datur intelligi quod receptatores
hereticorum gravius delinquunt quam heretici et simili
pena puniendi sunt.
|
Master: There may be contrary
opinions concerning this issue. One opinion is that they
must suffer the punishment of heretics because they are
to be reckoned heretics. This appears to be the opinion
of the gloss on the word "receptatores" in Extra, De
hereticis, c. Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes,
which states: "without such, heretics cannot remain
secure for long, ff. De offic. presid. lege Congruit,
ff. De receptatoribus lib. 1. Hence, such
individuals deserve to be punished: indeed the crime of
those who defend the error of others is more serious,
and they must be punished more harshly, 24 q. 3. Qui
aliorum. And therefore they receive a penalty
similar to that of heretics, 11 q. 3 c. Qui consentit".
[col. 1683] We are given to understand from these words
that the receivers of heretics commit a more serious
crime than the heretics, and must suffer a similar
punishment.
|
|
Alia est opinio quod illi qui solummodo sunt
receptatores hereticorum et non approbant errores eorum,
licet timore vel cupiditate tracti aut ex aliqua causa
mala eos nolunt de terra sua fugare nec etiam detinere,
non sunt heretici reputandi, nec sunt quoad omnia pena
hereticorum plectendi, quia legitime sanctiones inter
hereticos et receptatores hereticorum expresse
distinguunt, et taxantes penam receptatorum hereticorum
moderatiorem penam infligunt, sicut patet Extra, De
hereticis, Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes.
Hoc etiam ex eodem capitulo # Moveantur
colligitur evidenter, ubi sic legitur: "si vero dominus
temporalis, requisitus et monitus ab ecclesia, suam
terram purgare neglexerit ab heretica feditate, per
metropolitanum et ceteros conprovinciales episcopos
excommunicationis vinculo innodetur, et, si satisfacere
contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo
pontifici, ut ex tunc ipse vasallos ab eius fidelitate
denunciet absolutos, et terram exponat catholicis
occupandam, qui eam, exterminatis hereticis, absque ulla
contradictione possideant". Ex quibus verbis datur
intelligi quod dominus temporalis, licet sit receptator
hereticorum, utpote quia quamvis requisitus et monitus
ab ecclesia terram suam non purgat ab heretica
pravitate, non est statim ab omni pena hereticorum
plectendus, quia bona sua sunt statim minime publicanda,
nec terra sua est ab aliis catholicis occupanda, quam
tamen penam heretici ipso facto incurrunt, quia
hereticus etiam occultus de iure nichil possidet (dis. 8
Quo iure).
|
There is another opinion, that those who are merely
receivers of heretics and do not approve of their errors
(even if, motivated by fear or cupidity or by some other
wicked reason, they refuse to expel the heretics from
their land or even to place them under arrest), are not
to be reckoned heretics, nor suffer in all respects the
punishment of heretics, because legitimate legal rules
expressly distinguish the status of heretics from that
of receivers of heretics, and inflict a lesser
punishment on receivers of heretics when assigning
penalties. This is made clear in Extra, De
hereticis, Excommunicamus 1, # Credentes.
[col. 788] This is also evidently gathered from the
section Moveantur in the same chapter, where
we read as follows: "if, however, the temporal lord,
asked and warned by the church, should neglect to
cleanse his land of heretical filth, he shall be
involved in a bond of excommunication by the
metropolitan and the other bishops of the province, and,
should he scorn to give satisfaction within a year,
notification of this shall be made to the supreme
pontiff, so that he might as of that moment proclaim
that the lord's vassals are released from fidelity to
him, and explain that the lord's land is there for
catholics to occupy, who, having exterminated the
heretics, may possess it without any impediment". [col.
788] We are given to understand from these words that a
temporal lord, even if he is a receiver of heretics (for
instance, because although asked and warned by the
church he does not cleanse his land of heretical
wickedness), is not to suffer immediately every
punishment due to heretics, since his properties are not
to be immediately confiscated, nor is his land to be
occupied by other catholics, a punishment, on the other
hand, which heretics incur ipso facto; for a heretic,
even if occult, legally possesses nothing (dis. 8, Quo
iure). [col. 12-13. Cf. gloss s.v. nam iure
divino, col. 22]
|
|
Discipulus: Ista secunda opinio
magis videtur michi consona statutis sanctorum patrum,
ideo quomodo ad glossam que videtur esse in contrarium
respondetur declara.
|
Student: This second opinion
appears to me to be more in tune with the statutes of
the holy fathers, therefore declare how one responds to
the gloss which seems to contradict it.
|
|
Magister: Dupliciter respondetur.
Uno modo, quod glossa non est autentica, et aperte
veritati repugnat, ideo est neganda. Nec videtur
inconveniens negare glossas decretorum, cum etiam ipse
textus decretorum aperte negetur eo quod in textu
assertiones erronee inserantur. Sicut patet 23 q. 4 # Sed
obiicitur, ubi narrat Gratianus, quod tempore
Achab missi fuerunt duo quinquagenarii ad Helyam qui
dicerent: "homo Dei, rex Israel vocat te". Quod tamen
est heresis explicite condempnata, quia contraria
veritas est explicite approbata, videlicet, quod hoc
accidit tempore Ochozie, mortuo rege Achab, quia in
scriptura divina invenitur expresse, et ipse Gratianus,
si dicto illo pertinaciter adhesisset, fuisset hereticus
manifestus. Si ideo non fuit hereticus, hoc accidit quia
ex sola ignorantia absque omni pertinacia dixit
predictam heresim opinando, quod sibi ex hoc contingit
quod memoriam libri Regum tunc actualiter non habebat.
Unde super verbo 'Achab' dicit glossa: "confundit
historiam, non enim Achab misit illos quinquagenarios
sed rex Ochozias, nec etiam illud contingit tempore
Achab, sed illud contingit sub Ochozia". Et ita patet
quod etiam glossa negat textum libri decretorum. Glossa
etiam in pluribus locis reprobat Gratianum, sicut patet
11 q. 3 # Evidenter itaque, et 2 q. 3 # 1, et
in aliis locis pluribus. Et ideo dicunt quod multo
fortius licet negare glossas que, ut dicunt, nonnunquam
divine scripture repugnant. Interdum etiam canonicas
sanctiones allegant inepte, quod, ut dicunt, ex hoc
accidit quod glossatores in scripturis sacris et
scientiis philosophicis nequaquam periti fuerunt, et
ideo quamplura capitula iuris canonici ex scripturis
divinis et originalibus sanctorum accepta nequaquam
profunde et perfecte intelligere potuerunt.
|
Master: The answer is twofold. One
approach is to state that the gloss is not authentic,
and that it openly contradicts the truth, therefore it
must be rejected. Nor does it seem inconvenient to
negate the glosses of canon law, since the very text of
such law may be openly denied when erroneous assertions
are included therein. This is clear from 23 q. 4 # Sed
obicitur, [Gratian, dictum post c. 29,
col. 913] where Gratian tells the story that in the time
of Achab, two fifty-year old men were sent to the
prophet Elias with this message: "man of God, the king
of Israel summons thee". [2 Kings 1:9] The story,
however, is an explicitly condemned heresy, because the
contrary truth is explicitly approved, namely, that this
event occurred in the time of Ochozias, after the death
of king Achab, for this is explicitly found in Holy
Writ, and Gratian himself, had he pertinaciously clung
to his statement, would have been a manifest heretic. If
therefore he was not a heretic, this happened because he
stated the mentioned heresy as an opinion, out of sheer
ignorance and without any pertinacity, something he
became involved in because at that moment he did not
actually remember the exact words of the Book of Kings.
Whence the gloss states on the word "Achab": "he
[Gratian] confuses historical events, for it is not
Achab who sent these fifty-year-old men, but king
Ochozias, nor did this event occur in the time of Achab,
but all this happened under Ochozias". [col. 1316] And
so it is clear that even a gloss negates the text of the
canon law book. The gloss texts also criticize Gratian
in many contexts, which is clear in 11 q. 3 # Evidenter
itaque, [Gratian, dictum post c. 24,
col. 651. Cf. gloss s.v. ab ingressu, and s.v. Item
Gregorius, col. 932] and in 2 q. 3 # 1, [Gratian, dictum
ante c. 1, col. 451. Cf gloss s.v. quia autem est
notandum, col. 632] and in many other places. And
therefore these thinkers say that one is permitted even
more to negate glosses which, as they say, are sometimes
inconsistent with Divine Scripture. Glosses occasionally
even cite canonical decisions in argument incompetently,
which, they say, is due to the fact that the authors of
these glosses were not learned in the Sacred Scriptures
and in the philosophical sciences, and therefore could
not understand deeply and perfectly many chapters of
canon law which were borrowed from the Divine Scriptures
and from the writings of saints.
|
|
Aliter dicitur quod glossa predicta non dicit
receptatores hereticorum gravius delinquere quam
hereticos et consimiliter puniendos, sed transeundo de
receptatoribus hereticorum ad defensores hereticorum,
dicit defensores hereticorum gravius puniendos et
gravius delinquere, quod bene intellectum de
defensoribus hereticorum continet veritatem.
|
Another approach is to say that the gloss in question
does not state that receivers of heretics commit a more
serious crime than the heretics and must receive a
similar punishment, but, making a transition from
receivers of heretics to defenders of heretics, the
gloss states that defenders of heretics are to be
punished more severely and commit a more serious crime,
and this, well understood, is indeed true with respect
to defenders of heretics.
|
|
Capitulum 69
|
Chapter 69
|
|
Discipulus: Post inquisitionem
distinctam licet propter amplitudinem materie brevem de
credentibus, fautoribus, defensoribus, et receptatoribus
hereticorum, peto ut absque probationibus magnis, causa
prolixitatis vitande, dicas secundum aliquam opinionem
an omnes credentes, et similiter omnes fautores, et
omnes defensores, et omnes receptatores pape heretice et
aliorum hereticorum sint equaliter reprehensibiles
iudicandi.
|
Student: After this specific
investigation concerning believers, abettors, defenders,
and receivers of heretics, brief though it was due to
the abundance of the material, I ask that you examine by
reference to some opinion, but without major probative
arguments so as to avoid unwelcome length in the
presentation, whether all believers, and similarly all
abettors, and all defenders, and all receivers of a
heretic pope and of other heretics, are to be judged
equally reprehensible.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod aliquos
esse magis vel minus aut equaliter reprehensibiles
iudicandos dupliciter potest intelligi, scilicet,
secundum iudicium divinum, et humanum. Secundum iudicium
divinum, illi sunt magis reprehensibiles iudicandi qui
ex maiori contemptu Dei vel ex maiori negligentia
peccant in aliquo predictorum. Hoc autem est notum soli
Deo.
|
Master: The answer is that there
are two ways of understanding that some are to be judged
as more, or less, or equally reprehensible, namely, by
reference to divine judgement, and by reference to human
judgement. According to divine judgement, they are to be
judged more reprehensible who sin in one of the
mentioned situations with greater contempt of God or
with greater negligence. However, this is known only to
God.
|
|
Discipulus: Non intendebam querere
nisi qui essent reprehensibiles iudicandi secundum
humanum iudicium, et hoc non simpliciter, sed quoad
aliquid et quoad quid. Nolo enim intricatas et secundum
aliquos fantasticas questiones in hoc opere pertractari.
|
Student: I did not intend to
inquire about any save those who would be judged
reprehensible according to human judgement, and
furthermore, not in some absolute fashion, but by
reference to specific circumstances and events. For I
don't want involved (and according to some, fantastic)
questions to be analyzed in this work.
|
|
Magister: Ad intentionem tuam
dicunt nonnulli quod, secundum humanum iudicium,
credentium hereticis et heretice pravitati gravius
peccant literati quam illiterati, quia literati, ceteris
paribus, possunt facilius cognoscere veritatem. Item,
inter literatos gravius peccant, ceteris paribus,
theologi quam alii, et inter theologos gravius peccant
illi qui magis nutriti fuerunt in contraria veritate. Si
enim aliquis papa vel alius dogmatizaret et asserere
conaretur errores quorundam magistrorum Parisiensium a
summis pontificibus condempnatos, qui statum
mendicantium, scilicet Predicatorum et Minorum, erronee
dampnaverunt, inter omnes credentes erroribus illis pape
vel alterius, Predicatores et Minores gravius delinquere
noscerentur. Quia quanto magis aliquis cognoscit vel
habet cognoscere veritatem, tanto magis peccat si
veritatem negat eandem. Cum ergo ad Predicatores et
Minores specialissime spectat cognoscere veritatem
status sui, magisque quam alii sint in notitia status
sui nutriti, si, cupientes pape placere vel ex alia
causa credent erroribus quibus status dampnatur eorum,
magis quam alii, ceteris paribus, peccare noscuntur. Et
si illi errores in fidem impingunt, non solummodo
ordinum suorum sed etiam proditores christianitatis sunt
censendi, nec unquam christianitas poterit de eis
confidere tempore temptationis. Si enim ille est
proditor veritatis qui non libere pronuntiat veritatem
quam pronuntiare oportet (11 q. 3 Nolite),
multo fortius ille est proditor veritatis qui credit
errori quem antea reputavit errorem. In casu ergo
predicto et in omni consimili Predicatores et Minores
ultra omnes peccarent huiusmodi credendo erroribus.
Inter ipsos autem gravius peccarent literatiores, sive
essent magistri sive discipuli. Sepe enim hiis diebus
discipuli superant magistros in veritatis cognitione.
Nam quia acceptatores personarum ad magisterium
ambitiosos exaltant, plures magistri istis temporibus
rursum indigent ut doceantur que sunt elementa exordii
sermonum Dei, et facti sunt quibus lacte opus sit, non
solido cibo, et ideo literatiores, sive sint discipuli
sive magistri, gravius peccant credentes erroribus.
|
Master: Focusing on your intention,
one responds that there are a few thinkers who say that,
according to human judgement, of those who believe
heretics and heretical wickedness, the learned sin more
seriously than the unlearned, because the learned, other
things being equal, may come to know the truth more
easily. Again: among the learned, other things being
equal, the theologians sin more seriously than do the
others, and among the theologians, they sin more
seriously who were more comprehensively educated in the
contrary truth. For if some pope, or someone else, were
to officially teach and attempt to assert the errors of
certain Parisian masters condemned by supreme pontiffs,
masters who had erroneously criticized the status of
mendicants, namely that of the Preachers [Dominicans]
and of the Minors [Franciscans], it is these very
Preachers and Minors who would be known to have
committed the more serious offence among all the
believers of such errors of the pope or of someone else.
For to the extent that someone has or is in a position
to have a greater knowledge of some truth, to that
extent does he commit a more serious sin if he denies
that truth. Therefore, since it pertains most
specifically to Preachers and to Minors to know the
truth of their status, and since they were more
intensely educated than others in the knowledge of their
status, if, desiring to please the pope or for some
other reason, they believe the errors by which their
status is criticized, they are known, other things being
equal, to be committing a greater sin than others. And
if these errors impact on the faith, they must be
understood to have not only betrayed their Orders, but
Christendom as well, nor may Christendom ever have
confidence in them in a time of temptation. For if he is
a traitor to the truth who does not freely profess a
truth which needs to be proclaimed (11 q. 3 Nolite),
[cols. 649-650] all the more strongly is someone a
traitor to the truth who believes an error which he
previously considered to be such. Therefore in the case
just mentioned, and in any similar cases, Preachers and
Minors would sin beyond all others by believing these
errors. And among them those more learned would sin more
seriously, whether they were masters or students. For in
our times, students are frequently superior to masters
in knowledge of the truth. Indeed, because those prone
to show undue favouritism to persons elevate the
ambitious to master status, many masters in our times
are again in dire need of being taught the rudimentary
elements of the words of God, and have become as those
who require milk rather than solid food. Therefore those
who are more learned, whether they are students or
masters, sin more seriously by believing errors.
|
|
Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius
inter fautores pape heretici et sequacium eius.
|
Student: Who sin more seriously
among the abettors of a heretic pope and his followers.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod reges et
principes scienter faventes pape heretico, ratione
potentie temporalis qua absque periculo temporali valent
sibi resistere, gravius peccant quam alii. Nam alii, qui
non tanta vallantur potentia, absque forte aliquali
periculo pape heretico resistere non valerent, et ita
timor periculi attenuaret peccatum eorum. Et ex isto
concluditur quod, quanto aliqui maiorem defensionem
haberent quam alii, tanto gravius peccarent pape
heretico favendo. Si enim aliquis rex vel princeps omnes
resistentes pape heretico in dominio suo manentes
defenderet, vel eos minime impugnaret, multo gravius
delinquerent qui, manentes in dominio illius regis vel
principis, pape heretico aliquo modo faverent, quam alii
commorantes in dominiis regum et principum qui
resistentes pape heretico nequaquam defenderent sed
persequerentur, vel persequi et molestari ab aliis
minime prohiberent.
|
Master: The answer is that kings
and princes who knowingly support a heretic pope, sin
more seriously than others, by reason of the temporal
power which would make it possible for them to resist
this pope without temporal danger. For others, not
having such power to safeguard them, would perhaps not
be in a position to resist the heretic pope without some
danger, and thus the fear of danger would reduce the
seriousness of their sin. And from this one concludes
that to the extent that some would have greater defense
capabilities than others, to that extent they would sin
more seriously in supporting a heretic pope. Indeed, if
some king or prince were to defend (or fail to attack)
all those residing in his dominion who resisted a
heretic pope, they would commit a far greater offence
who would support the heretic pope in some manner while
residing in the dominion of this king or prince, than
others residing in the dominions of kings and princes
who would not defend opponents of a heretic pope, but
either persecute them or fail to prevent their being
persecuted and harmed by others.
|
|
Discipulus: Mirum videtur quod reges
et principes in hoc casu gravius peccarent quam prelati,
cum magis pertineat ad prelatos obviare pape heretico
quam ad reges et principes.
|
Student: It seems astonishing that
in this case kings and princes would sin more seriously
than prelates, since it is more the function of prelates
to resist a heretic pope than that of kings and princes.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quidam
prelati inter principes, ratione temporalis potentie,
computantur, et ideo illi prelati favendo pape heretico
peccarent gravissime, quia peccatum aliorum aliquo modo
attenuaret timor periculi temporalis. Cum vero dicis
quod ad prelatos magis spectat obviare pape heretico
quam ad reges et principes, respondetur quod ad omnes
spectat obviare pape heretico, quia, sicut notat glossa
Extra, De hereticis, Vergentis:
"quod in religionem divinam committitur, in omnium
fertur iniuriam, et publicum crimen committitur, Codice,
eodem titulo, lege Manichaeos". Sic etiam, ut
habetur dis.1: "ius publicum est in sacris et
sacerdotibus et magistratibus", ubi dicit glossa: "unde
qui ledit sacerdotes, vel res sacras, ab omnibus tanquam
pro publico crimine potest accusari". Multo magis ius
publicum in fide christiana consistit, et multo fortius
qui ledit et impingit fidem catholicam tanquam pro
publico crimine potest ab omnibus accusari, quare omnes
tenentur pape heretico tanquam publicum crimen
committenti resistere. Et ita ad reges et principes
spectat pape heretico obviare. Et hoc similiter spectat
ad prelatos qui etiam inter principes nullatenus
numerantur, sed quodammodo aliter. Quia ad reges et
principes spectat contra papam hereticum exercere
potentiam temporalem, nisi essent aliqui qui vellent
sponte ex instinctu divino subire martyrium, quemadmodum
legio Thebeorum ad martyrium se sponte obtulit, licet,
si voluisset, armis materialibus restitisset.
|
Master: The answer is that some
prelates are numbered among princes by reason of their
temporal power, and therefore these prelates would sin
most seriously by favouring a heretic pope, since the
sin of the other prelates would be diminished in some
measure by their fear of temporal danger. When you
claim, however, that it is more the function of prelates
to resist a heretic pope than that of kings and princes,
the answer is that all have the function of resisting a
heretic pope, because, as the gloss to Extra, De
hereticis, Vergentis notes: "what is
committed against the Christian religion is an injury
which affects everyone, and it is the commission of a
public crime, Codice, eo.tit., l. Manichaeos".
[s.v. longe sit gravius, col. 1676] Similarly, we have
this in dis. 1: "public right consists in the sacred,
the priesthood, and the administration", [c. 11, col. 3]
where the gloss states: "hence, he who does harm to
priests, or to sacred objects, may be accused by all as
one who has committed a public crime". [col. 6] Much
more does public right consist in the Christian
religion, and much more strongly may someone who harms
and impacts upon the catholic faith be accused by all as
one who has committed a public crime. Therefore
everybody is obligated to resist a heretic pope as
someone who is committing a public crime. And thus kings
and princes have the function of opposing a heretic
pope. This pertains in similar fashion even to those
prelates who are not numbered among the princes, but
here the approach is somewhat different. For it is the
task of kings and princes to exercise temporal authority
against a heretic pope, unless there be some among them
who wish to submit voluntarily to martyrdom by divine
inspiration, just as the Theban legion spontaneously
offered itself to martyrdom, although, had it wanted to,
it could have involved itself in armed resistance.
|
|
Ad prelatos autem qui non sunt principes, spectat
scripturarum testimoniis et sanctis exhortationibus,
secularis auxilii brachium invocando, pape heretico
obviare. Porro quia reges et principes essent extra
timorem periculi quamvis papam hereticum impugnarent,
multi autem prelati absque periculo temporali papam
hereticum impugnare non possent, ideo reges et principes
pape heretico favendo gravius peccarent quam prelati in
periculo constituti. Et etiam religiosi ac predicatores
et doctores qui essent extra periculum quamvis papam
hereticum impugnarent, favendo pape heretico gravius
peccarent quam reges et principes, pro eo quod maiorem
habent notitiam veritatis, et ad opera spiritualia ,
inter que impugnatio pape heretici non obtinet infimum
locum, se artius obligaverunt.
|
But to prelates who are not princes, it pertains to
oppose the heretic pope by citing Scriptures, proferring
holy exhortations, and requesting the assistance of the
secular arm. Furthermore, because kings and princes
would fear no danger in the process of opposing a
heretic pope, while many prelates would be unable to
oppose a heretic pope without temporal danger, kings and
princes who support a heretic pope would sin more
seriously than prelates threatened by danger. And
likewise religious, preachers, and doctors [masters] ,
who would not be in danger if they opposed a heretic
pope, would sin more seriously by supporting a heretic
pope than kings and princes, in that they would possess
a better knowledge of the truth, and because they had
obligated themselves more strictly to the performance of
spiritual deeds, among which opposition to a heretic
pope hardly occupies an insignificant place.
|
|
Discipulus: Nunquid sufficit
regibus et principibus defendere impugnantes papam
hereticum.
|
Student: Is it sufficient for kings
and princes to simply defend the opponents of a heretic
pope.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod non,
quia si non potenter, cum potuerint, impugnaverint papam
hereticum, sed solummodo defenderint impugnantes, non
erunt calidi nec frigidi sed tepidi, et ideo incipiet
eos Deus evomere de ore suo. Et consimiliter esset
iudicandum de regibus et principibus si aliquos sequaces
viles et pauperes pape heretici acriter invaderent, et
ipsum papam hereticum satagerent excusare. Tales enim
nequaquam adverterent illud Deuteronomi 1: "ita parvum
audietis ut magnum nec accipietis cuiusquam personam
quia Dei iudicium est". Quod non attendere, quamvis in
omnibus iudicibus et potestatem habentibus sit
dampnabile, tamen in regibus et principibus multo
dampnabilius et ignominiosius esse dinoscitur. Acceptio
enim persone pape heretici in regibus et principibus qui
eius potentiam temporalem nullatenus pertimescunt, vel
contemptui fidei christiane, aut nimis defectu zeli ad
fidem catholicam, aut avaritie effrenate, vel
pusillanimitati, aut stolide fatuitati, vel alicui alio
vitio quod dignitati regie et principum est probrosum,
debet ascribi.
|
Master: One replies that it is not.
For if, having the power to do so, they did not strongly
oppose the heretic pope, but merely defended his
opponents, they would be neither hot nor cold but
lukewarm, and hence God would begin to spew them out of
his mouth. [Revelation 3:16] And a similar judgement
must be made with respect to kings and princes were they
to take harsh measures against some poor and
insignificant followers of a heretic pope, while
attempting to find excuses for the heretic pope himself.
For such would hardly be taking notice of the following
remark in Deuteronomy 1: "ye shall hear the small as
well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of
man; for the judgement is God's". [Deuteronomy 1:17] To
ignore this precept, while being condemnable in the case
of all judges and power wielders, is known to be much
more condemnable and ignominious in the case of kings
and princes. And this unwarranted favouritism shown to
the person of a heretic pope by kings and princes who
hardly fear his temporal power, should be ascribed
either to contempt for the Christian faith, or to a sad
lack of zeal on its behalf, or to limitless avarice,
pusillanimity, dull stupidity, or some other vice
disgraceful to the royal or princely dignity.
|
|
Discipulus: Dic qui inferiores
regibus et principibus gravius peccant favendo pape
heretico, utrum videlicet prelati vel doctores, clerici
seculares vel religiosi.
|
Student: State who among those
inferior to kings and princes sin more seriously by
supporting a heretic pope, namely, whether it is the
prelates or doctors, the secular clerks or the
religious.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quo ad
aliquid prelati gravius peccant quam doctores. Quia enim
prelati curam simplicium susceperunt, et eos non
diligenter informant contra errores pape heretici,
quantum ad hoc gravius peccant quam magistri qui curam
illorum minime gerunt. Illi autem qui sunt prelati et
doctores gravissime peccant. Ratione autem scientie
maioris qua pollent doctores ultra prelatos simplicis
literature, gravius peccant doctores quam prelati
huiusmodi. Religiosi autem, ceteris paribus, gravius
peccant favendo pape heretico quam clerici seculares,
inter quos illi peccarent gravissime quorum statum vel
aliquid contingens statum eorum papa hereticus erronee
condempnaret.
|
Masters: The answer is that as to
certain things, prelates sin more seriously than
doctors. Indeed, since prelates have responsibility for
the spiritual care of the populace, and do not
diligently enlighten it against the errors of the
heretic pope, they sin more seriously in this connection
than masters who do not have such spiritual
responsibilities. And those who are both prelates and
doctors sin most seriously. Further: because of the
greater knowledge by which doctors prevail over
unlearned prelates, doctors sin more seriously than such
prelates. Again: other things being equal, religious sin
more seriously in favouring a heretic pope than do
secular clerks, and among religious they would sin most
seriously whose status or something pertinent thereto
the heretic pope would have erroneously condemned.
|
|
Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius,
fautores pape heretici vel credentes erroribus pape
heretici.
|
Student: Who sin more seriously,
abettors of a heretic pope, or those who believe his
errors.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod si sunt
aliqui fautores pape heretici qui non sunt credentes
eius erroribus, credentes eo quod sunt heretici gravius
peccant quam fautores qui non sunt credentes. Aliter
dicitur quod quia fautores peccant scienter si non sunt
credentes, credentes vero ignoranter peccant, fautores
gravius peccant quam credentes.
|
Master: One responds that if some
are abettors of a heretic pope but do not believe his
errors, believers (because they are heretics) sin more
seriously than abettors who are not believers. Another
response is that since abettors, if they are not
believers, knowingly commit a sin, while believers sin
in ignorance, abettors sin more seriously than
believers.
|
|
Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius,
fautores vel defensores pape heretici.
|
Student: Who sin more seriously,
abettors or defenders of a heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quia
omnis defensor hereticorum est fautor eorum et non
econverso, ideo qui sunt defensores pape heretici
gravius peccant quam qui sunt tantummodo fautores.
|
Master: The answer is that because
every defender of heretics is their abettor, but not
conversely, therefore those who defend a heretic pope
sin more seriously than those who are merely abettors.
|
|
Discipulus: Qui peccant gravius
inter defensores pape heretici.
|
Student: Who among defenders of a
heretic pope sin more seriously.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod inter
defensores scienter pape heretici, gravius peccant reges
et principes ac potentes qui potentiam pape heretici non
formidant. Inter defensores autem ignoranter pape
heretici qui laborant ignorantia, crassa et supina
dampnabilior est in prelatis, et gravius peccant (et
doctores et religiosi), quam in regibus et principibus
qui rebus secularibus ex officio sunt intenti.
|
Master: The answer is that among
the conscious defenders of a heretic pope, it is the
kings, the princes, and the powerful who do not fear the
power of the heretic pope, who sin more seriously. While
among those who defend a heretic pope in ignorance,
grossly passive ignorance is more to be condemned in
prelates than in kings and princes whose normal function
consists in the administration of secular affairs, and
it is prelates who sin more seriously, along with
doctors and religious.
|
|
Discipulus: Dic de receptatoribus
pape heretici, qui gravius peccant.
|
Student: State who sin more
seriously among receivers of a heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quanto
receptatores pape heretici muniuntur maiori potentia
temporali et minus timent potentiam temporalem pape
heretici, tanto gravius peccant. Et ideo gravius
peccaret rex potens receptando papam hereticum quam dux
vel baro, aut castrum vel civitas, nisi ex aliqua causa
rex plus haberet timere potentiam temporalem pape
heretici quam alius minoris potentie temporalis. Et ex
isto concluditur quod, ceteris paribus, inter omnes
reges et principes, ille qui esset maioris potentie et
quem plus timeret papa hereticus, gravius contra Deum et
christianitatem delinqueret si papam hereticum minime
impugnaret.
|
Master: The answer is that to the
extent that receivers of a heretic pope are endowed with
greater power and have less to fear from the temporal
power of a heretic pope, to that extent do they sin more
seriously. And therefore a powerful king, by receiving a
heretical pope, would sin more seriously than a duke, or
a baron, or a fortress, or a city, unless for some
reason this king would have more to fear from the
temporal power of a heretic pope than someone of lesser
temporal power. And from this one concludes that, other
things being equal, among all kings and princes, he
would be more seriously remiss against God and
Christendom if he refrained from opposing a heretic
pope, who would have greater power and who would be
feared more intensely by the heretic pope.
|
|
Capitulum 70
|
Chapter 70
|
|
Discipulus: De papa heretico ac
credentibus, fautoribus, defensoribus, et receptatoribus
pape heretici, ut modo michi videtur, nonnulla
discussimus. Nunc autem rogo ut de gravitate periculi
tempore pape heretici, si unquam aliquis papa a fide
deviabit catholica, perscruteris, an scilicet tempore
pape heretici grave imminebit periculum christianis.
|
Student: As presently appears to
me, we have discussed a number of issues concerning a
heretic pope, and the believers, abettors, defenders,
and receivers of a heretic pope. But now I would ask
that you scrutinize the seriousness of the danger which
would arise in the time of a heretic pope, if some pope
should ever deviate from the catholic faith, namely,
whether, in the time of a heretic pope, a serious danger
would threaten Christians.
|
|
Magister: Interrogatio tua, ut eam
proponis, aliquid supponit et aliquid querit. Supponit
enim quod aliquis erit papa hereticus. Querit autem
quale tunc periculum christianis instabit. De illo vero
quod supponit fuerunt opiniones, quibusdam dicentibus
quod erit futurus papa hereticus, aliis dicentibus quod
temerarium fuit et est dicere quod erit papa hereticus,
et temerarium est negare. Circa illud etiam quod
interrogatio tua querit, sunt diverse opiniones. Una est
quod, si unquam aliquis papa erit hereticus, non grave
periculum fidelibus imminebit, quia cardinales, prelati,
et magistri statim sibi resistent, quibus reges et
principes ac alii seculares potenter assistent, et ideo
statim perfidiam pape heretici extirpabunt. Alia est
opinio que de futuris non reputat divinandum. Tenentes
enim opinionem illam dubitant quod si unquam erit papa
hereticus, gravissimo periculo catholici exponentur, ita
quod timent quod maius instabit periculum christianis si
aliquis papa diu victurus erit hereticus quam si tota
christianitas a sarracenis vel aliis infidelibus
caperetur.
|
Master: Your question, in the form
in which you put it, contains both an assumption and a
query. For it assumes that someone will become a heretic
pope. And it asks what danger will then threaten
Christians. As to what it assumes there were various
opinions, some saying that there would be a future
heretic pope, others retorting that is was and is
foolhardy to state that there would be a heretic pope,
but just as reckless to deny it. And with respect to
what your question specifically asks, there also exist
diverse opinions. There is the view that, if some pope
ever became a heretic, no grave danger would threaten
the faithful, because the cardinals, the prelates, and
the doctors would immediately resist him, and kings and
princes and other secular authorities would give them
powerful assistance, and therefore they would
immediately root out the heretic pope's treachery. But
there is another opinion which holds that one should not
make guesses as to future events. Indeed, those who
propound this opinion think it arguable that should
there ever be a heretic pope, catholics will be exposed
to extreme danger; and they fear that a greater peril
will threaten Christians if some pope should long
prevail as a heretic than if the whole of Christendom
were to be conquered by Saracens or by other
non-believers.
|
|
Discipulus: Miror quod aliqui de
hoc valeant dubitare, quia si sarraceni omnes regiones
christianorum per potentiam subiugarent, omnes
christianos extinguerent vel subderent servituti. Papa
autem hereticus hoc minime attemptaret, et ita ista
opinio ratione carere videtur. De te tamen motivum eius
audire desidero.
|
Student: I am astonished that some
feel this to be an arguable point, for if the Saracens
were to conquer by force all the Christian lands, they
would eradicate or enslave all the Christians. A heretic
pope, on the other hand, would hardly attempt this, and
thus this second opinion appears to lack rational
foundation. However I would like to hear from you the
motive of this opinion.
|
|
Magister: Si affectas scire motivum
eorum, primo opinionem eorum intelligas.
|
Master: If you wish to know what
motivates the thinkers who advance this opinion, you
should first understand the substance of the opinion.
|
|
Discipulus: Puto quod intelligo.
|
Student: I believe I do.
|
|
Magister: Non apparet, quia tu
videris intelligere de periculo temporali. Ipsi autem
principaliter intelligunt de periculo spirituali,
quamvis etiam secundario intelligant de periculo
corporali, quia dubitant quod papa hereticus, nisi
refrenetur timore catholicorum, cogitabit omnes
christianos extinguere vel cogere aliam sectam
suscipere.
|
Master: This is not apparent, for
you appear to understand it as referring to temporal
danger. They, on the other hand, are primarily thinking
of spiritual danger, although they also, secondarily,
include physical peril in their understanding, since
they feel it arguable that a heretic pope, unless
restrained by his fear of catholics, will plan to
eradicate all Christians or force them to adopt another
religious persuasion.
|
|
Discipulus: Narra motivum eorum,
intelligendo de periculo spirituali.
|
Student: Outline their reasoning,
understanding that it applies to spiritual danger.
|
|
Magister: Motivum eorum est tale.
Quanto quis pluribus modis quorum nullus impedit alium,
sed quilibet efficacior sit per quemlibet, nititur
aliquem expugnare, tanto illum citius superabit vel
dubitandum est quod citius superabit. Sed papa, si erit
hereticus, pluribus modis quam sarraceni, quibus tota
christianitas non posset corporaliter obviare, conabitur
populum christianum expugnare et spiritualiter iugulare.
Modi autem impugnandi quibus uteretur essent eque
efficaces vel efficaciores quam modum impugnandi
sarracenorum. Unusquisque modus alium nequaquam
impediet, sed quilibet quemlibet efficaciorem reddet.
Ergo papa, si erit hereticus, citius quam sarraceni
populum christianum spiritualiter superabit, vel
dubitandum est quod citius superabit. Spiritualiter
autem superari et in anima cruciari periculosius est et
peius quam morti succumbere corporali. Ergo gravius
periculum imminebit vel poterit imminere populo
christiano si papa efficietur hereticus quam si
sarraceni totam terram christianorum sue subderent
ditioni.
|
Master: Their reasoning is as
follows. To the extent that someone attempts to attack
someone else by using a number of methods, none of which
obstructs the other, but each of which is rendered more
effective by convergence, to that extent will the
attacker triumph more quickly over the enemy, or it is
arguable that he will so triumph. But the pope, if he
becomes a heretic, will attempt to conquer and
spiritually destroy the Christian people by methods more
numerous than those of the Saracens, which we assume
that the whole of Christendom would be unable to
physically resist. And the methods of attack the heretic
pope would use would be just as effective or more
effective than those of the Saracens. Each and every
method of the pope would in no way obstruct the other,
but each would rather make the other more effective.
Therefore the pope, if he were to become a heretic,
would spiritually triumph over the Christian people more
swiftly than the Saracens, or it is arguable that he
would. But it is more dangerous, indeed worse, to be
defeated spiritually, and to have one's soul crucified,
than to succumb to physical death. Therefore a more
serious danger will threaten, or might threaten, the
Christian people if the pope should become a heretic
than if the Saracens were to subject the whole land of
the Christians to their rule.
|
|
Discipulus: Qui sunt illi modi
quibus papa, si esset hereticus, catholicos et
christianos populos impugnaret.
|
Student: What would be the methods
by means of which the pope, if he were a heretic, would
attack the catholic and Christian peoples.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod
catholicos et sibi resistentes forte non minus acerbe
quam sarraceni corporaliter procuraret invadi. Quia
mandaret episcopis et inquisitoribus heretice pravitatis
ut eos ubicunque possent satagerent captivare, et nisi a
suo proposito resilirent, eos traderent curie seculari,
qui, ut pape heretico complacerent et ab eo aliquod
beneficium obtinerent, tanquam belue crudelissime
mandatum pape heretici totis viribus conarentur effectui
mancipare. Secundo, papa, si esset hereticus, per
scripturarum testimonia ad suum sensum intorta
christianos invaderet et multos ad suam traheret
voluntatem, eo quod intelligentiam scripturarum
nequaquam habentes ad verum intellectum pervenire
nescirent. Tertio, impugnaret christianos per speciem
veritatis et religionis, cui non adherere videretur
multis stultum et insanum. Quarto, impugnaret catholicos
per ecclesiasticam auctoritatem, cui non obedire
putaretur a nonnullis inobedientie crimen incurrere.
|
Master: The answer is that he would
perhaps provide for a physical assault on catholics and
on those resisting him no less cruel than that of the
Saracens. For he would issue a command to bishops and to
inquisitors of heretical wickedness, that they strive to
capture such opponents wherever possible, and hand them
over to the secular arm unless they recanted their
conviction; and these papal agents, in order to please
the heretic pope and to obtain some benefice from him,
would, like the most cruel of beasts, attempt to
effectively carry out the heretic pope's mandate with
all the powers at their disposal. Secondly, the pope, if
he were a heretic, would attack Christians with
Scriptural citations twisted in support of his
interpretation, and would win over many to his will, in
that, not having a proper understanding of the
Scriptures, they would not know how to grasp their true
meaning. Thirdly, he would attack Christians by an
illusion of truthfulness and religious devotion, not to
support which would seem to many a mark of foolishness
or madness. Fourthly, he would attack catholics by
relying on ecclesiastical authority, not to obey which
would be thought by some to be a commission of the crime
of disobedience.
|
|
Discipulus: Probabile michi videtur
quod istis modis et aliis papa, si
esset hereticus, niteretur christianos suis erroribus
subiugare et eos spiritualiter iugulare. Sed christiani
sibi nequaquam acquiescerent, imo nec etiam tolerarent,
sed statim de eo facerent iustitie complementum. Quare
cum ipse esset unus cui omnes resisterent christiani,
sarraceni autem quamplurimi, nullo modo tantum posset
imminere periculum si papa efficeretur hereticus sicut
si sarraceni sibi terram christianorum subiicerent.
|
Student: It seems probable to me
that the pope, if he were a heretic, would attempt to
subjugate Christians to his errors by these and by other
methods, and to destroy them spiritually. But Christians
would in no way yield to him, indeed they would hardly
tolerate him, but would immediately subject him to the
final process of justice. Therefore, since the heretic
pope would be but a single individual whom all
Christians would resist, while the Saracens would be
quite numerous, in no manner would it be possible for a
similar peril to arise if the pope became a heretic, as
would be the case if the Saracens conquered the land of
the Christians.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod si
christiani vellent pape heretico obviare, non incumberet
eis tantum periculum spirituale sicut si sarraceni
regiones christianorum sibi subiicerent. Sed dubitant
isti quod multitudo christianorum pape heretico
nullatenus obviaret, imo suis erroribus adhereret,
ipsique sponte faveret.
|
Master: The answer is that if
Christians wanted to stand up to a heretic pope, they
would not be faced with as great a spiritual danger as
they would have to deal with if the Saracens were to
conquer the Christian territories. But these thinkers
consider it arguable that the multitude of Christians
would not in fact stand up to a heretic pope, indeed
that it would rather participate in his errors, and
voluntarily support him.
|
|
Discipulus: Unde posset accidere
quod multitudo christianorum pape heretico adhereret.
|
Student: How might it come to pass
that the multitude of Christians would join the cause of
a heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Dicunt quod ex multis
causis forte accideret, et aliqui adhererent ex una
causa, alii ex alia.
|
Master: They say that this would
perhaps happen for a variety of causes. Some would join
him for one reason, others for another.
|
|
Discipulus: Enumera aliquas causas
ex quibus posset accidere.
|
Student: List some of the causes
which might lead to this situation.
|
|
Magister: Dicitur quod una causa ex
qua aliqui pape heretico adhererent est falsa et erronea
estimatio quam habent nonnulli de papa.
|
Master: It is said that one cause
whereby some would join the camp of a heretic pope is
the false and erroneous conviction which many have
concerning the papal status.
|
|
Discipulus: Que est illa falsa et
erronea estimatio.
|
Student: What is this false and
erroneous conviction.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod est
multiplex. Quidam enim putant quod papa non potest
peccare, quemadmodum quidam Sergiani, ut in quodam libro
antiquo legi, in favorem Sergii pape tradiderunt. Unde
quidam, ut audivi, hiis temporibus publice dicunt quod
papa est deus in terris, non quidem sicut omnes
sacerdotes dicuntur dii, qui tamen peccare possunt, sed
sic ut malefacere nequaquam possit, et in terris omnia
que vult possit. Quidam putant quod papa contra fidem
errare non potest. Quidam putant quod licet papa peccare
et errare possit contra fidem, de omnibus tamen que
facit debemus supponere quod sint bene facta, et de
nullo quod facit licet nobis iudicare quod sit male
factum. Quidam putant quod licet valeamus reputare
aliqua facta pape esse mala et male facta, tamen nulli
licet christiano papam arguere vel iudicare,
reprehendere, aut aliquam contra eum iudicialiter ferre
sententiam. Et ex hiis quattuor estimationibus falsis de
papa, et ex qualibet illarum, accideret quod, papa
effecto heretico, ei christiani aliqui adhererent.
|
Master: The answer is that it is
multifarious. For instance, some people think that the
pope cannot sin, as certain Sergians claimed on behalf
of pope Sergius, a contention I read in a very old book.
Hence there are some, as I have heard, who are publicly
stating in these times of ours that the pope is a God on
earth, indeed not in the sense in which all priests are
said to be gods (who nevertheless may commit sins), but
with the implication that he can in no way do wrong, and
that he may do on earth everything that he wants. Others
believe that the pope cannot err against the faith.
Still others believe that although the pope may sin and
err against the faith, we must nevertheless assume that
all the things that he has done have been done well, and
that nothing that he does may we judge as having been
done wrongly. Some think that although we may consider
that some things done by the pope are bad and done
badly, nevertheless no Christian is allowed to question
or to judge the pope, to rebuke him, or to pass legal
sentence against him. And from these four false
convictions about the papal status, or from any single
one of them, it might happen that some Christians would
join the camp of a pope who had become a heretic.
|
|
Discipulus: Prime due estimationes
false michi videntur. De quarta autem tractatum est
prius. Ideo dic secundum istos in quo tertia estimatio a
veritate recedit.
|
Student: The first two convictions
appear to me to be false, while the fourth has been
dealt with earlier. [Cf. 1 Dial. 6.1ss] State therefore
in what way, according to these thinkers, the third
conviction deviates from the truth.
|
|
Magister: Dicitur quod quantum ad
omnia que non possunt bono animo fieri est contraria
veritati. Quicquid enim papa fecerit quod non potest
bono animo fieri, nec recta intentione, licet cuilibet
hoc scienti iudicare de papa quod male facit et inique,
et quod peccat mortaliter. Unde si viderem papam
fornicantem, vel simoniam committentem, vel mentientem
in doctrina religionis aut in proximi nocumentum, vel
innocentem aliquem diffamantem, vel aliquid contra Deum
precipientem, aut aliquid huiusmodi, liceret michi et
deberem iudicare, non quidem iudicialiter sed certa
credulitate, papam peccare mortaliter.
|
Master: The answer is that this
conviction contradicts the truth with respect to all
things which cannot be done with a good conscience. For
whatever the pope will have done which cannot be done
with a good conscience or with right intention, anyone
who knows this is permitted to judge as having been done
wrongly and criminally on the part of the pope, and as
constituting the pope in a state of mortal sin. Hence,
were I to see the pope involving himself in fornication,
or committing simony, or lying about religious doctrine,
or lying with harmful consequences to his neighbour, or
defaming some innocent person, or uttering some command
against God or something of this kind, I would have both
the right and the duty to judge that the pope had
committed a mortal sin, and while my judgement would not
carry legal effect it would possess indubitable
cognitive consequences.
|
|
Discipulus: Secundum istam
sententiam ita passim liceret iudicare de papa quod
malefaciat sicut de quocunque alio christiano.
|
Student: According to this
principle, I would be allowed to constantly pass
judgement on the pope's misdeeds as much as on those of
any other Christian.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod non,
quia multa licent pape que aliis illicita dinoscuntur.
Et ideo de talibus, si faciat ea papa, non licet
iudicare quod papa malefaciat, de aliis tamen hoc licet.
Propter quod, quia sunt aliqua que sunt illicita pape
que tamen aliis licent, de talibus licet iudicare quod
papa peccat, sed de aliis hoc minime licet.
|
Master: The reply is negative,
because many things are permitted to the pope which are
known to be forbidden to others. And therefore if the
pope were to do such things, it would not be permitted
to judge that he is doing wrong, while it would be
permissible to make such a judgement with respect to
others. On the other hand, because there are matters
which are forbidden to the pope while allowed to others,
it is permitted with respect to such matters to judge
that the pope is sinning, but it is not permitted to
make such a judgement of other people.
|
|
Discipulus: Videtur quod isti parum
reputant de persona pape, licet forte de officio pape
multum estiment.
|
Student: It seems that these
theorists have little regard for the person of the pope,
although perhaps they think highly of the papal office.
|
|
Magister: Isti reputant papam
hominem mortalem, peccabilem, innumeris periculis
spiritualibus expositum. Multos autem summos pontifices
qui fuerunt, reputant fuisse viros sceleratissimos, omni
confusione dignos, et quod hoc licet asserere et
sentire, et ita de quolibet summo pontifice licet hoc
sentire in speciali, quandoque facit aliquid (et constat
eum posse facere) quod bono animo nequaquam facere
potest. Unde assertionem qua dicitur quod debemus
reputare bene factum quicquid fecerit, heresim
perniciosissimam et periculosissimam arbitrantur.
|
Master: They believe the pope to be
a mortal man, capable of committing sins, and exposed to
countless spiritual dangers. They further believe that
many supreme pontiffs of past ages were the most
heinously criminal of men, worthy of every retribution.
They think that it is permitted to state this fact, and
to feel it, and thus that one is allowed to feel this
reaction specifically concerning any pope, whenever he
does anything (and it stands to reason that he is
capable of doing this) which can in no way be done with
a good conscience. Hence they consider the contention
stating that we must believe well done whatever the pope
has done to be a heresy most pernicious and most
dangerous.
|
|
Discipulus: Suntne alique alie
estimationes false et erronee que facerent multos pape
heretico adherere.
|
Student: Are there any other false
and erroneous convictions which would influence many to
join the camp of the heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod sic.
Putant enim quidam quod cohertio pape heretici spectat
solummodo ad concilium generale. Quidam autem putant
quod cohertio pape heretici spectat solummodo ad
clericos et nullo modo ad laicos, nisi fuerint per
prelatos ecclesie requisiti. Quidam vero putant quod
cohertio, et similiter vitatio pape heretici solummodo
spectat ad cardinales. Quidam putant quod solummodo
spectat ad maiores prelatos ecclesie, puta ad
patriarchas et episcopos. Quidam putant quod simplices
et laici de spiritualibus nichil facere debent, nisi
quod fuerit eis per episcopos suos iniunctum. Et ideo de
papa heretico se intromittere non debent, nisi quod eis
preceperint episcopi eorundem. Quidam putant quod
quamdiu papa hereticus toleratur a multitudine
christianorum nullus debet eum aliqualiter impugnare.
Quidam putant quod multitudo est in omnibus sequenda, et
ideo ille pro papa est habendus quem multitudo
christianorum habet pro papa. Ex hiis omnibus
estimationibus et qualibet illarum, aliisque quam
pluribus estimationibus falsis et erroneis, accideret
quod si papa fieret hereticus quamplures ei firmiter
adhererent.
|
Master: The answer is affirmative.
Some, for instance, think that the forcible suppression
of a heretic pope pertains only to a general council.
Others, however, believe that the forcible suppression
of a heretic pope pertains only to clerks, and in no way
to laymen, unless they were requested to do this by
prelates of the church. And some think that suppression
(and similarly avoidance) of the heretic pope is
strictly the affair of cardinals. Some think that this
only pertains to the major prelates of the church, such
as patriarchs and bishops. Some think that the unlearned
and the laymen must do nothing about spiritual matters
except what they have been enjoined to do by their
bishops, and therefore they must not become involved in
the matter of a heretic pope except to follow the
instructions given to them by their bishops. Some
believe that no one should in any fashion oppose a
heretic pope so long as he is tolerated by the multitude
of Christians. Some believe that the multitude is to be
followed in all things, and therefore he is to be
recognized as pope whom the multitude of Christians
holds to be so. From all of these convictions, and from
any one of them in particular, as well as from other
most numerous false and erroneous convictions, it might
well happen that if a pope were to become a heretic,
very many would firmly place themselves in his camp.
|
|
Discipulus: Dixisti unam causam
divisam in plures ex qua accideret quod si papa
efficeretur hereticus christiani plures adhererent
eidem. Ideo nunc dic alias causas ex quibus idem
accideret.
|
Student: You have stated one cause,
divided into particulars, wherefore it might happen that
were a pope to become a heretic, many Christians would
join his camp. Proceed, therefore, to mention other
causes which might lead to the same eventuality.
|
|
Magister: Alia causa sive occasio,
secundum istos, quare multi christiani pape heretico
adhererent, est timor mundanus sive humanus iunctus
diffidentie qua unus christianus diffidit de alio, et
ista causa oritur ex defectu zeli ad catholicam fidem.
Quia enim multi propter catholicam fidem nollent aliquod
detrimentum corporis vel rerum incurrere, vel saltem non
magnum, et nescientes an alii christiani vellent eis
assistere contra papam hereticum, ab impugnatione pape
heretici omnino desisterent et eidem cum aliis
adhererent, saltem quousque alius potens aliquis
inciperet papam hereticum impugnare. Putant enim
tenentes opinionem predictam, quod si papa esset
hereticus et aliquis rex potens eum invaderet toto
posse, multi qui prius pape heretico adheserunt eum
fortissime impugnarent. Et hec est una causa, secundum
istos, quare reges et principes ac alii potentes qui
temporalem potentiam pape heretici non timerent, gravius
peccarent quam alii si pape heretico scienter faverent,
quia eorum negligentia esset quampluribus occasio pape
heretico adherendi. Alia causa sive occasio quare multi
adhererent pape heretico est cupiditas et ambitio.
Cupiditas enim obtinendi divitias et pecunias ac
beneficia ecclesiastica et honores a papa heretico
multos faceret eidem consentire.
|
Master: According to these
theorists, another cause or opportunity which might
prompt many Christians to join the camp of the heretic
pope, is wordly or human fear mingled with the lack of
confidence whereby one Christian distrusts another. And
this cause is rooted in a lack of zeal for the catholic
faith. For since many would not want to experience any
injury affecting body or property because of the
catholic faith (or at least no great injury), and not
knowing whether other Christians would be prepared to
assist them against a heretic pope, they would totally
refrain from opposing such a pope and would join his
camp along with others, at least until some other
powerful individual began to attack the heretic pope.
Indeed those who hold the opinion we are discussing
believe that if the pope was a heretic and some powerful
king made war on him with all his might, many who had
previously joined the heretic pope's camp would also
oppose him most strongly. And this is one reason,
according to these theorists, why kings and princes and
other potentates unafraid of the heretic pope's temporal
power, would sin more seriously than others if they
knowingly supported the heretic pope, because their
negligence would provide very many with the opportunity
of joining the camp of the heretic pope. Another cause
or opportunity which might prompt many to join the camp
of the heretic pope is greed and ambition. For the
lustful yearning to acquire riches, and monies, and
ecclesiastical benefices and honours from the heretic
pope would drive many to acquiesce in his legitimacy.
|
|
Capitulum 71
|
Chapter 71
|
|
Discipulus: De impugnatoribus pape
heretici sepe fecimus mentionem, de quibus unum obsecro
ut pertractes, qui videlicet ad impugnandum papam
hereticum sunt idonei reputandi.
|
Student: We have frequently
mentioned the opponents of a heretic pope. I would
beseech you to deal with one question concerning these,
namely, which persons are to be considered as qualified
to oppose a heretic pope.
|
|
Magister: Ad hoc respondetur quod
omnes catholici discretionem habentes ad impugnandum
papam hereticum uno modo vel alio debent idonei
reputari.
|
Master: The answer is that all
catholics endowed with reason must be deemed in one
sense or another to be qualified opponents of a heretic
pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Ista responsio est tam
generalis quod ad mentem meam nequaquam vadit. Scio enim
quod cum papa hereticus sit omnium fidelium inimicus,
omnes fideles ratione utentes ad impugnandum ipsum
aliquo modo idonei sunt censendi. Oportet tamen quod
inter ipsos sint quidam qui sint quasi duces,
directores, et capita aliorum, de quibus interrogationem
quam proposui intellexi.
|
Student: This reply is so general
that it hardly touches on what I have in mind. For I
know that since a heretic pope is the enemy of all the
faithful, all believers endowed with reason are in some
way to be considered his qualified opponents. However,
it is proper that there should be some among them who
would act as leaders, directors, and heads of the rest,
and it is of such individuals that I understood my
proposed question.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod
virtutibus excellentes, in sacris literis eruditi, in
arduis rebus experti et potentia prediti temporali, ut
sint duces et capita impugnantium papam hereticum, sunt
censendi idonei. Contingit enim dupliciter papam
hereticum impugnare, scilicet corporaliter contra ipsum,
si oportuerit, materialia arma movendo, et spiritualiter
tam ipsum quam errores eius auctoritatibus et rationibus
convincendo. Primo modo, potentia prediti temporali
debent idonei reputari ad papam hereticum impugnandum.
Secundo modo, in sacris literis eruditi sunt idonei ut
sint quasi duces et principales impugnatores pape
heretica pravitate maculati. Virtutum autem eminentia et
rerum experientia opportune videntur utrisque, ut sicut
oportet et quando oportet papam hereticum et complices
eius impugnent.
|
Master: The answer is that they
should be considered qualified to be leaders and heads
of the heretic pope's opponents who are pre-eminent in
virtues, learned in the sacred letters, experts in
difficult tasks, and possessing temporal power. For one
can oppose a heretic pope in two ways: namely, by
physically attacking him with material arms, if this is
convenient, and by spiritually rejecting both his person
and his errors by authorities and reasons. In the first
instance, those possessing temporal power must be
considered qualified to oppose a heretic pope. In the
second instance, it is the learned in Sacred Letters who
are qualified to be the leaders and principal opponents
of a pope stained by heretical wickedness. But
pre-eminence as to virtues and practical experience seem
convenient to both categories of opponents in order that
they may attack the heretic pope and his accomplices as
and when convenience dictates.
|
|
Discipulus: Adhuc ista reponsio est
magis generalis quam vellem. Unde precor ut secundum
aliquam sententiam aliquas prerogativas speciales
assignes, quibus oportet principales impugnatores pape
heretici preeminere ad hoc quod idonei censeantur.
|
Student: Again, this response is
more general than I would like. Hence I pray that you
follow some opinion in listing certain special
prerogatives which it is proper for the opponents of a
heretic pope to possess in the highest degree in order
to be considered fit to perform their task.
|
|
Magister: Speciales prerogative
tales sunt innumere.
|
Master: There are innumerable
special prerogatives of this kind.
|
|
Discipulus: Aliquas paucas tange.
|
Student: Mention a few of them.
|
|
Magister: Dicunt quidam quod ad hoc
quod quis impugnator pape heretici idoneus censeatur,
requiritur quod sit firmiter stabilitus in veritatibus
contrariis erroribus pape heretici, ut scilicet nulla
ratione ab illis veritatibus possit avelli. Unde quantum
ad veritates illas assertiones suas neque correctioni
pape, neque correctioni concilii generalis, neque
correctioni angelorum de celo debet submittere, sed
quemadmodum beatus Paulus scripsit Galatis dicens:
"licet nos aut angelus de celo evangeliset vobis preter
quam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit", ita
quilibet impugnator idoneus pape heretici dicat in corde
suo et proferat ore cum fuerit opportunum: "licet ego,
aut papa, aut concilium generale, aut tota congregatio
christianorum, aut tota multitudo angelorum de celo
errores pape heretici evangelizare, asserere vel
affirmare presumpserit, anathema sit". Ideo autem non
debet impugnator idoneus pape heretici assertiones suas
quantum ad veritates contrarias erroribus pape heretici
alicuius correctioni submittere, quia illas veritates
non tanquam ab homine, sed tanquam a Deo, qui
correctione non eget, traditas suscepit, amplectitur, et
veneratur. Et ex isto, ut dicunt, eliditur error
quorundam dicentium quod omnis christianus fidem suam
debet supponere correctioni beatissimi pape. Quod
probant per exemplum de beato Hieronymo, qui fidem suam
quam didicerat in ecclesia, et in qua nutritus fuit,
supposuit correctioni et iudicio beatissimi pape. Sed
hoc, dicunt isti, esse erroneum, imo hereticum
manifeste, quod exemplis et ratione probare conantur.
Primo quidem exemplo beati Pauli, qui, ut legitur ad
Galatos 2, cum reprehenderet papam, scilicet beatum
Petrum, assertionem suam correctioni pape nequaquam
submisit, imo voluit quod papa se correctioni sue
committeret. Ideo enim reprehendit papam, ut de excessu
commisso in preiudicium evangelice veritatis corrigeret.
Secundo, probant hoc exemplo clericorum romanorum qui se
a communione Anastasii pape 2i laudabiliter abegerunt,
de quibus constat quod assertionem suam correctioni pape
nullatenus submiserunt.
|
Master: There are those who say
that in order that someone may be considered a fit
opponent of a heretic pope, it is expected that he be
firmly grounded in the truths which contradict the
errors professed by the heretic pope, namely, that no
reason would sway him from these truths. Hence, he must
not submit his stated convictions as to these truths to
the correction of the pope, nor to the correction of a
general council, nor to the correction of angels from
heaven. But just as blessed Paul wrote to the Galatians,
saying: "though an angel from heaven preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto
you, let him be accursed", [Galatians 1:8] so ought
every qualified opponent of a heretic pope say in his
heart and utter verbally at the opportune moment: "were
I myself, or the pope, or the general council, or the
entire congregation of Christians, or the whole
multitude of angels in heaven, to presume to preach,
assert, or affirm the errors of a heretic pope, let each
and every one be accursed". And that is why the
qualified opponent of a heretic pope must not submit to
someone's correction his assertions with respect to
truths which contradict the errors of the heretic pope,
because he has received, he holds, and he venerates
these truths as given to him not by man, but by God, and
God does not require correction. This point, they go on
to say, eliminates the error of some interpreters who
claim that every Christian must submit his faith to the
correction of the most holy pope. They prove this claim
by the example of blessed Jerome, who submitted his
faith, which he had learned in the church, and in which
he was educated, to the correction and judgement of the
most holy pope. But the thinkers we are reporting say
that this claim is erroneous, and even obviously
heretical, a judgement they attempt to prove by examples
and by reason. And first by the example of blessed Paul,
who, as we read in Galatians 2, when he rebuked the pope
(namely blessed Peter), in no sense submitted his
assertion to the correction of the pope, but rather
wanted the pope to submit to his own (Paul's)
correction. [Galatians 2:11] Indeed he rebuked the pope
so that the pope could correct himself as to a deviation
committed in prejudice of evangelical truth. Secondly,
they prove this judgement by the example of the Roman
clerks who removed themselves in praiseworthy manner
from communion with pope Anastasius II, and it is
established that these clerks in no way submitted their
assertion to the correction of the pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Forte dicetur istis
quod clerici illi non submiserunt assertionem suam
correctioni pape heretici qualis fuit Anastasius 2us,
sed submiserunt correctioni futuri pontificis catholici.
|
Student: It might perhaps be
objected to these thinkers that the clerks in question
did not submit their assertion to the correction of a
heretic pope, which Anastasius II was, but submitted it
to the correction of a future catholic pontiff.
|
|
Magister: Hoc reprobatur, quia
Anastasium secundum reputaverunt hereticum propter hoc,
quod assertioni eorum quam acceperant a sanctis patribus
contradixit. Et propter eandem rationem, quicunque
futurus papa postea contradixisset, eundem hereticum
reputassent. Quare nullius hominis correctioni volebant
assertionem suam submittere. Et ideo dicunt isti quod
christianus assertionem catholicam correctioni pape non
debet submittere, quod etiam ratione probare nituntur.
Nam veritatem infallibilem et immutabilem non debet quis
correctioni illius submittere qui falli potest et
errare. Veritates autem catholice sunt infallibiles et
immutabiles, papa vero falli potest et errare, ergo
tales veritates nullus debet correctioni pape
submittere. Unde minimam veritatem contentam in
scriptura divina non debet quicunque submittere
correctioni pape, quia certa, sicut discussione non
indigent, ita et correctione non egent. Quare, cum omnia
asserta in scripturis divinis sint certa, nulla
correctione egent. Quare nullius correctione debent
submitti. Cum vero dicitur quod beatus Hieronymus fidem
suam quam didicerat in ecclesia supposuit correctioni
beatissimi pape, respondetur quod hoc simpliciter est
falsum, quod tamen ex verbis beati Hieronymi male
intellectis elicitur. Unde, ut mentem beati Hieronymi
cunctis aperiant, verba ponunt eiusdem, qui, ut habetur
24 q. 1 cap. Hec est fides, ait: "hec est
fides, papa beatissime, quam in catholica ecclesia
didicimus, quamque semper tenuimus; in qua si minus
perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum est,
emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri et sedem tenes et
fidem. Si autem hec nostra confessio apostolatus tui
iudicio comprobatur, quicunque me culpare voluerit, se
imperitum, vel malivolum, vel etiam non catholicum, sed
hereticum comprobabit". Ex quibus verbis concludunt
quidam quod beatus Hieronymus fidem suam, quam in
ecclesia didicerat, supposuit correctioni beatissimi
pape. Sed dicunt alii quod isti verba beati Hieronymi
minus bene intelligunt. Non enim intendit Hieronymus
fidem suam quam didicerat in ecclesia correctioni
beatissimi pape supponere, quia si papa illi fidei
contradixisset, beatus Hieronymus ipsum hereticum
reputasset. Didicit enim Hieronymus in ecclesia quod
Christus fuit verus Deus et verus homo, cui si papa
obviasset, pro heretico pessimo eum Hieronymus
habuisset.
|
Master: This explanation is
rejected. These clerks considered Anastasius II to be a
heretic because he had contradicted their assertion,
which they had received from the holy fathers. And for
the same reason, they would have considered a heretic
whichever future pope might have subsequently
contradicted this. Therefore they did not want to submit
their assertion to the correction of any man. And that
is why these thinkers say that a Christian must not
submit a catholic assertion to the correction of the
pope, a contention they also attempt to prove by reason.
For someone must not submit a truth which is infaillible
and immutable to the correction of one who may err or be
misled. But catholic truths are infaillible and
immutable, while the pope may err or be misled,
therefore no one must submit such truths to the
correction of the pope. Hence, one must not submit to
the correction of the pope even the least weighty of the
truths contained in Divine Scripture, because matters
which are certain, just as they do not require
discussion, so likewise do they not require correction.
Therefore since all the matters asserted in the Divine
Scriptures are certain, they require no correction at
all. Therefore they must not be submitted to anyone's
correction. When it is claimed, however, that blessed
Jerome submitted his faith, which he had learned in the
church, to the correction of the most holy pope, the
answer is that this is plainly false, and that the claim
is derived from badly understood words of blessed
Jerome. Hence, in order to explain the intention of
blessed Jerome to everyone, the thinkers we are
reporting cite his words. Blessed Jerome (we find this
in 24 q. 1 c. Hec est fides) states: "this is
the faith, most holy pope, which we have learned in the
catholic church, and which we have always held; should
we have affirmed something in our presentation thereof
which is unlearned or perhaps lacking in caution, we
desire to be corrected by you, who hold both Peter's see
and his faith. But if this confession of ours is
approved by the judgement of your apostolicity, then
whoever would want to fault me will prove himself
unlearned, or malicious, or even not a catholic but a
heretic". [col. 970] Some deduce from these words that
blessed Jerome submitted his faith, which he had learned
in the church, to the correction of the most holy pope.
But others reply that such interpreters misunderstand
blessed Jerome's words. Indeed, Jerome did not intend to
submit to the correction of the most holy pope his faith
which he had learned in the church, for had the pope
contradicted this faith, blessed Jerome would have
considered him a heretic. For Jerome had learned in the
church that Christ was true God and true man. Had the
pope denied this, Jerome would have held him to be the
worst of heretics.
|
|
Discipulus: Quid ergo supposuit
beatus Hieronymus correctioni pape.
|
Student: What, then, did Jerome
submit to papal correction.
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod beatus
Hieronymus absolute nichil supposuit correctioni pape,
sed conditionaliter tantum, quod verba eius aperte
declarant cum dicit: "in qua si minus perite aut parum
caute forte aliquid positum est emendari cupimus a te
etc.," que verba, sicut de se patet, conditionalia sunt.
|
Master: The answer is that Jerome
submitted nothing absolutely (but only conditionally) to
the correction of the pope, which his words openly
declare when he states: "should we have affirmed
something in our presentation thereof which is unlearned
or perhaps lacking in caution, we desire to be corrected
by you etc." It is inherently obvious that these words
are conditional.
|
|
Discipulus: Saltem ex forma
verborum apparet quod Hieronymus fidem suam quam
didicerat in ecclesia conditionaliter supposuit
correctioni pape. Quia primo dicit: "hec est fides, papa
beatissime, quam in catholica ecclesia didicimus", et
postea subiungit: "in qua si minus etc."
|
Student: It appears at least from
the form of the words that Jerome conditionally
submitted his faith, which he had learned in the church,
to the correction of the pope. For he initially states:
"this is the faith, most holy pope, which we have
learned in the church", and afterwards he adds; "should
we have affirmed etc."
|
|
Magister: Respondetur quod quamvis
absque periculo Hieronymus potuerit conditionaliter
fidem suam supponere correctioni pape, quia
conditionalis nichil ponit, (unde et hec conditionalis
vera est: "si in evangelio aliquod falsum asseritur,
corrigendum est") tamen beatus Hieronymus in verbis
premissis non intendebat fidem suam supponere
correctioni pape, sed expositionem suam circa fidem
intendebat conditionaliter supponere correctioni pape,
ut iste sit sensus verborum suorum: "in qua", id est
circa quam, scilicet fidem, exponendam et explanandam,
"si minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum
est, emendari cupimus a te, etc." Quemadmodum si quis
postillator evangelii diceret; "hoc est evangelium, in
quo si aliquid minus bene dixi, paratus sum corrigere".
|
Master: The answer is that although
Jerome could have conditionally submitted his faith to
the correction of the pope without danger (for a
conditional statement affirms nothing; hence this
conditional statement is true: "if something false is
asserted in the Gospel it must be corrected"),
nevertheless blessed Jerome had not intended in the
cited words to submit his faith to the correction of the
pope, but had intended to conditionally submit his
exposition concerning the faith to the correction of the
pope. Therefore his words should be interpreted as
follows: "in our presentation thereof", that is,
concerning its (namely the faith's) exposition and
explanation, "should we have affirmed something which is
unlearned, or lacking in caution, we desire to be
corrected by you etc." This is similar to a commentator
of the Gospel saying: "this is the gospel; should I have
stated something badly in my exposition, I stand ready
to be corrected".
|
|
Capitulum 72
|
Chapter 72
|
|
Discipulus: Si de predicto modo
circa alias prerogativas quibus preeminere debet
impugnator idoneus pape heretici dilatares, multis
lectoribus operis huius fastidium generares, ideo alias
succincte percurras.
|
Student: If you offer similarly
expanded comments concerning the other prerogatives
which the qualified opponent of a heretic pope must
possess in pre-eminent fashion, you would arouse boredom
in many readers of this work, therefore be brief in your
description of other prerogatives.
|
|
Magister: Alie prerogative
impugnatoris pape heretici assignantur. Quarum alique
sunt communes impugnantibus corporaliter et
spiritualiter pape heretici, alique vero sunt proprie
impugnantibus spiritualiter papam hereticum. Oportet eos
qui corporaliter vel spiritualiter papam hereticum
magnam sequelam habentem satagunt impugnare, tanquam
directores et capita aliorum, novarum viarum existere
inventivos. Quia sicut, teste beato Augustino ad
Bonifatium, ut legitur dis. 50 cap. Ut
constitueretur, cogunt multas invenire medicinas
multorum experimenta morborum, ita casus novi et
extranei emergentes cogunt industrios ad occurrendum
vias novas et extraneas invenire. Cum ergo sit valde
extraneum atque rarum quod papa sit pravitate infectus
heretica, ad ipsum viriliter impugnandum oportet vias
extraneas cogitare, presertim si potentum fuerit favore
munitus. Quicunque contra papam hereticum voluerit
solumodo uti communibus, erit forsitan similis medico
imperito qui uno collirio omnium oculos vult curare. Non
sufficit autem impugnatori idoneo pape heretici contra
ipsum vias extraneas invenire, nisi, cum fuerit
expediens, ipsas curaverit effectui mancipare, ut,
videlicet, non timeat aggredi novitates. Quamvis enim
novitates inutiles, perniciose, et periculose sint
omnino vitande, novitates tamen perutiles, necessarie,
et salubres sunt carius amplectende. Non est aptus ad
quecunque ardua peragenda qui omnes horruerit novitates.
Si Alexander Macedo novitates aggredi timuisset, maiorem
partem mundi sibi nullatenus subdidisset. Si civitas
Romana novitates minime attemptasset, nunquam pacem in
universo orbe fecisset. Quid loquar de seculi hominibus,
cum apostoli, si novitates inducere formidassent, ad
novam legem gentes nullatenus convertissent. Non sunt
ergo novitates penitus respuende, sed sicut vetusta cum
apparuerint onerosa sunt omnimode abolenda, ita
novitates cum utiles, fructuose, necessarie, et
expedientes secundum rectum iudicium videbuntur, sint
animosius amplectenda. Non autem sufficit impugnatori
idoneo pape heretici novitates, cum opportunum fuerit,
attemptare, nisi etiam, cum expediens fuerit, periculis
et laboribus et etiam morti, si opportuerit, se exponat.
Qui enim omnia pericula expavescit, similis est illi de
quo dicitur Ecclesiasti 11: "qui observat ventum non
seminat, et qui considerat nubes nunquam metet".
|
Master: Here is a listing of other
prerogatives of the heretic pope's opponent. Some of
these are common to both spiritual and physical
opponents of a heretic pope, while others are proper to
those who oppose this pope spiritually. It is
appropriate that the persons directing and heading
others in physical or spiritual opposition to a heretic
pope who has a large following, should be discoverers of
new and fresh methods of action. For just as, witness
blessed Augustine writing to Boniface (as we read in
dis. 50 c. Ut constitueretur), the experience
of many diseases promotes the discovery of many cures,
so does the emergence of new and unusual problems prompt
diligent individuals to intensify the discovery of new
and unusual solutions. Therefore, since it is quite
unusual and rare for the pope to become infected with
heretical wickedness, it is appropriate to discover
unusual methods of firmly opposing him, especially if he
were well protected by the support of the powerful.
Whoever would wish to merely employ common tactics
against a heretic pope would perhaps resemble the
untalented doctor who wants to heal everyone's ocular
ailments with just one kind of eye-salve. Nor would it
suffice for the qualified opponent of a heretic pope to
discover unusual tactics against him, unless he put them
into practice given the opportunity to do so, and,
namely, did not fear to implement these novelties in
reality. For although useless, harmful, and dangerous
innovations are to be entirely avoided, innovations
which are quite useful, necessary, and salutary should
be eagerly embraced. He who would abhor all novelties is
ill-equipped to engage himself in difficult tasks. Had
Alexander the Macedonian feared to implement novelties,
he would not have conquered most of the world. Had the
city of Rome not performed novelties, it would never
have established peace in the whole world. But why do I
speak of secular personalities, when the apostles, had
they been afraid to introduce novelties, would not have
converted peoples to the New Law. Therefore innovations
are not to be unreservedly rejected, but, just as old
ways are to be entirely abolished should they appear
burdensome, so must innovations be heartily embraced
when they shall appear useful, fruitful, necessary, and
expedient by reference to right reason. And,
furthermore, it does not suffice for the qualified
opponent of a heretic pope to embark upon innovations
when the opportunity to do so arises, unless he also,
when expediency demands, exposes himself to dangers,
labours, and even death if need be. For he who takes
fright at all dangers is similar to the person about
whom Ecclesiastes 11 states: "he that observeth the wind
shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall
not reap". [Ecclesiastes 11:4]
|
|
Rursus, si habet divitias, debet esse paratus expensas
effundere, quia nulla eleemosyna corporalis extra
articulum necessitatis extreme est ita necessaria. Neque
enim monasteriorum constructio, neque pauperorum
quorumcunque sustentatio, neque ecclesiarum edificatio,
neque miserabilium personarum defensio, neque captivorum
redemptio, neque pro terre sancta recuperatione
largitio, potest equiparari expensis que fiunt ad
impugnandum papam hereticum et fidem catholicam
defendendam et exaltandam, eo quod exaltatio et defensio
fidei catholice est omnibus temporalibus preferenda.
|
Again, if he possesses wealth, he should be prepared
for considerable expenses, for no physical alm is as
indispensable as this one, save for such as would be
forthcoming in a situation of extreme necessity. Indeed,
neither the construction of monasteries, nor the
sustenance of all categories of the poor, nor the
building of churches, nor the defense of miserable
persons, nor the ransoming of captives, nor the
financial contribution towards the reconquest of the
Holy Land, can be compared to the expenses which need to
be incurred in order to combat a heretic pope, and to
defend and exalt the catholic faith, because the
exaltation and defense of the catholic faith must take
precedence over all temporal concerns.
|
|
Amplius, impugnator idoneus pape heretici perditionem
rerum, honorum, et fame nullatenus expavescat. Hec enim
omnia sunt inter bona minima computanda. Nec propter
ista est defensio fidei aliquatenus obmittenda. Quamvis
enim unusquisque, si convenienter potest, famam suam,
que inter omnia temporalia preeminere videtur, ad
edificationem proximi et propter scandalum evitandum
servare tenetur, propter ipsam tamen servandam non est
defensio fidei relinquenda. Quia absque fama est salus,
et sepe fama est causa perditionis eterne. Et ideo qui
de perditione fame nimium contristatur, ut aliquid
spectans ad honorem Dei vel salutem suam vel proximorum
obmittat, non est dignus regno Dei. Talis enim cum
Apostolo nequaquam propter Christum omnia velut stercora
arbitratur, sed gloria vexatur inani, omnia opera sua
faciens ut ab hominibus videatur.
|
Further, the qualified opponent of a heretic pope
should not fear the loss of property, of honours, and of
reputation. For all these should be reckoned among the
least weighty of goods. Nor should the defense of the
faith be in any way renounced on their account. For
although everyone is obligated, if conveniently
possible, to reserve one's good reputation (apparently
the most significant of temporal goods) for the
edification of neighbours and to avoid scandal, the
defense of the faith must not be abandoned in order to
preserve one's good name. For there can be salvation
without reputation, and reputation is frequently the
cause of eternal perdition. And therefore, he who is
overly saddened by loss of reputation, and proceeds to
renounce something pertinent to the honour of God, or to
his own or his neighbours' salvation, is unworthy of the
kingdom of God. Indeed, such a person will never, in
emulation of the Apostle, consider all things as dung
for the sake of Christ, [Philippians 3:8] but desirous
of vainglory, [Galatians 5:26] will perform all of his
activities so as to gain popular attention.
|
|
Iterum, impugnator idoneus pape heretici omnem
duplicitatem evitet, ne scilicet facto, verbo vel
scripto patenter ostendat quod ipsum habet pro vero
summo pontifice. Quamvis enim nonnunquam licitis et
utilibus simulationibus uti expediens censeatur, tamen
uti duplicitate que falsitatem includit semper est
illicitum reputandum, teste sapiente, qui Ecclesiastici
2 ait: "ve duplici corde et peccatori terram ingredienti
duabus viis".
|
Further, the qualified opponent of a heretic pope will
avoid all duplicity lest, namely, he openly suggests by
deed, word, or script, that he holds the heretic pope to
be a true pope. For although at times it is believed
expedient to utilize legitimate and useful pretences,
nevertheless the use of duplicity which includes
falsehood is always to be considered illegitimate,
witness a wise person who states in Ecclesiasticus 2:
"woe to him who is of a double heart, and to the sinner
that goeth on the earth two ways". [Ecclesiasticus 2:14]
|
|
Sit insuper in prosequendo negotia fidei contra papam
hereticum calidus, non tepidus. Tepidus enim in hoc
negotio, presertim si est magnus et potens, non
solummodo de ore Dei evometur, sed etiam pauperibus et
simplicibus sibi adherentibus erit causa et occasio
confusionis et destructionis, non tantummodo temporalis,
sed etiam forsitan spiritualis. Quia si non ferventer
defendit eos, papa hereticus et complices sui tanquam
belue crudelissime ipsos tam spiritualiter quam
corporaliter satagerent trucidare.
|
Moreover, let the opponent be ardent and not lukewarm
in pursuing the interest of faith against a heretic
pope. For one who is lukewarm in this process,
especially if he is a great and powerful individual,
will not only be spewed out of God's mouth, but will
also become a cause and opportunity of disorder and
destruction, not merely temporal, but perhaps also
spiritual, to his poor and unlearned supporters. For if
he does not vehemently defend the latter, the heretic
pope and his accomplices will, like beasts most cruel,
attempt to exterminate them both spiritually and
physically.
|
|
Oportet etiam impugnatores idoneos pape heretici amore
et concordia fortius adiuvari, ne, si dissensionibus et
contentionibus, odio, emulationibus, et scismatibus
disiungantur, facilius desolentur. Quia, teste
Salvatore: "omne regnum divisum contra se desolatur et
omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se non stabit".
Quare impugnatores pape heretici, quantumcunque iustam
causam habuerint, non sperent quod propter ipsos tam
laudabilem finem accipiant si inter se discordes
extiterint dampnabiliter et divisi. Tales enim non sunt
de semine illorum per quos fides orthodoxa exaltabatur,
sed per aliam occasionem Deus causam fidei feliciter
terminabit.
|
It is also proper that opponents of a heretic pope
strongly rely on mutual love and concord, lest, if
divided by disagreements and quarrels, hatred,
jealousies, and schisms, they be more easily forsaken.
Because, witness the Saviour: "every kingdom divided
against itself is brought to desolation; and every city
or house divided against itself shall not stand".
[Matthew 12:25] Therefore the opponents of a heretic
pope, no matter how just their cause, should not expect
that they will manage to succeed in accomplishing such a
praiseworthy goal through their own efforts if damnable
discord and division exists among them. For if this is
what they are involved in, then they are not of the seed
of those who had once exalted orthodox faith, and God
will choose another set of circumstances to bring the
cause of faith to a happy conclusion.
|
|
Impugnator ergo idoneus pape heretici gloriam propriam
minime querat, quasi velit quod per ipsum solummodo
victoria habeatur, sed gaudeat per quemcunque causa
fidei licite adiuvetur. Nec facta et consilia minorum
despiciat, quia sepe parvulis revelantur que a
sapientibus et prudentibus absconduntur. Sit
consiliativus, assidue inquisitivus, et interrogativus
viarum et modorum quibus est contra papam hereticum
procedendum. Quia, teste Salomone: "erit salus ubi multa
sunt consilia". Et quamvis minorum consilia sepe minime
sint spernenda, tamen a sapientibus est maxime in hoc
casu consilium requirendum, nec aliquis de sapientia
propria tanquam sit sufficiens quoquo modo confidat. Si
enim mille carentes potentia temporali, quorum quilibet
sapientiam Salomonis excederet, papam hereticum regum et
principum favore fulcitum satagerent impugnare, aliorum
consilio indigerent. Nec tamen propter hoc pauciores et
minus sapientes debent aliqualiter formidare contra
papam hereticum bellum accipere. Quia quamvis nichil de
contingentibus obmittere debeant, in sua tamen sapientia
vel virtute sperare non debent, sed in virtute Dei, qui,
si certaverint usque ad mortem, expugnabit pro eis
inimicos eorum. Quamobrem nullam multitudinem
adherentium pape heretico expavescant, quia sicut
allegatum est supra, teste Iuda Machabeo: "non est
differentia in conspectu Dei celi liberare in multis et
in paucis". Et Exodi 23 unicuique fideli in hec verba
mandatur: "non sequeris turbam ad faciendum malum, nec
in iudicio plurimorum acquiesces sententie ut a vero
devies". Cuius rationem assignat Psalmista dicens:
"defecit sanctus quoniam diminute sunt veritates a
filiis hominum, vana locuti sunt unusquisque ad
proximum". Et alibi ait: "omnes declinaverunt simul,
inutiles facti sunt. Non est qui faciat bonum non est
usque unum". Rationem etiam eiusdem assignat Salomon
Ecclesiasti 1 dicens: "stultorum infinitus est numerus".
Nec Isaias rationem eius tacuit cum dixit: "omne caput
languidum et omne cor merens a planta pedis usque ad
verticem non est in eo sanitas". Imo etiam Salvator ipse
rationem dicti prioris expressit cum dicit Matthei 7:
"Lata porta et spaciosa via que ducit ad perditionem et
multi sunt qui intrant per eam quam angusta porta et
arta via que ducit ad vitam et pauci sunt qui inveniunt
eam". Et alibi ait: "multi autem sunt vocati, pauci vero
electi". Ex quibus aliisque innumeris nonnulli accipiunt
argumenta ad probandum quod propter quantamcunque
multitudinem adherentium pape heretico non debent pavere
paucissimi contra papam hereticum patenter insurgere.
Ante omnia tamen ab omni peccato mortali se servare
conantur, quia sicut non est speciosa laus in ore
peccatorum ita defensio fidei vel impugnatio pravitatis
heretice per scelestum coram Deo est minime preciosa,
licet utilis aliis esse possit. Oportet igitur
impugnatorem idoneum pape heretici non solum peccata
carnalia sed etiam spiritualia declinare. Propter quod
nonnulli putant quod hiis diebus essent paucissimi
impugnatores idonei pape heretici, quia fere totum
mundum, tam clericos quam laicos, tam seculares quam
religiosos, dubitant peccatis mortalibus spiritualibus,
fornicatione et furto peioribus, esse enormiter
irretitos, ut ambigant non minus modo quam tempore Noe
verificari illud Genesis 6: "corrupta est autem terra
coram Deo, et repleta est iniquitate".
|
Therefore let the qualified opponent of a heretic pope
not seek his own glory, as if wishing that victory be
achieved through him alone, but let him rejoice in
whoever legitimately assists the cause of faith. And let
him not despise the deeds and counsels of lesser people,
for matters are frequently revealed to the simple which
are hidden from the wise and the prudent. Let him seek
advice, assiduously investigating and querying the ways
and means whereby one ought to proceed against the
heretic pope. For as Solomon witnesses: "in multitude of
counsellers there is safety". [Proverbs 24:6] And
although the counsels of the lesser are frequently not
to be despised, it remains that in such an enterprise it
is above all the counsel of the wise which must be
sought, nor should one in any way be confident of the
sufficiency of one's own wisdom. For if a thousand
individuals not endowed with temporal power, each of
whom exceeded the wisdom of Solomon, were to oppose a
heretic pope who was strengthened by the favour of kings
and princes, they would need the counsel of others. Yet
for all that, the fewer in number and the less wise must
not fear in any way to undertake a war against a heretic
pope. For although they must not omit any of the
relevant preparations, neither must they place exclusive
expectation on their own wisdom and virtue, but rather
on the virtue of God, who will defeat their enemies on
their behalf if they fight unto death. For that reason
they should not fear the multitude of the heretic pope's
supporters, because, as earlier argued, [1 Dial. 7.47]
witness Judah Maccabee: "with the God of heaven it is
all one, to deliver with a great multitude, or a small
company". [1 Maccabees 3:18] And in Exodus 23 a command
is issued to every believer in these words: "thou shalt
not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou
speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest
judgement". [Exodus 23:2] And the reason for this is
laid down by the Psalmist, who states: "for the godly
man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the
children of men. They speak vanity every one with his
neighbour". [Psalms 12:1-2] And elsewhere he states:
"they are all gone aside, they are all together become
filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one".
[Psalms 14:3] The reason for this is also laid down by
Solomon, who states in Ecclesiastes 1: "the foolish are
infinite in number". [Ecclesiastes 1:15] Nor did Isaiah
mute this reason when he stated: "the whole head is
sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the
foot even unto the head is no soundness in it". [Isaiah
1:5-6] Indeed, the Saviour himself expresses the reason
of the prior statement when he says in Matthew 7: "wide
is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to
destruction, and many there be which go in thereat;
because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it".
[Matthew 7:13-14] And elsewhere he states: "for many are
called, but few are chosen". [Matthew 22:14] From these
texts, and from innumerable others, many derive
arguments to prove that the very few must not fear to
rise up openly against a heretic pope, no matter what
multitude of supporters he possesses. But above all,
opponents of a heretic pope must preserve themselves
from any mortal sin, because, just as praise in the
mouth of sinners is not impressive, likewise is the
defense of the faith or the assault on heretical
wickedness made by a criminal of no value before God,
though it might be useful to others. It is therefore
appropriate for the qualified opponent of a heretic pope
to avoid not only physical but also spiritual sins. And
this is why many believe that in our times there would
be exceedingly few qualified opponents of a heretic
pope, because these thinkers argue that practically the
entire world, clerks as much as laymen, seculars as much
as religious, are involved without measure in the
commission of spiritual mortals sins, worse than
fornication and theft, and these thinkers believe that
the following statement of Genesis 6 is presently
verified no less than it was in the time of Noah: "the
earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was
filled with violence". [Genesis 6:11]
|
|
Capitulum 73
|
Chapter 73
|
|
Discipulus: De
isto ultimo dicto vehementer admiror, cuius motiva in
tractatu De gestis circa fidem altercantium orthodoxam
sollicite indagabo. Nunc autem, cum plures prerogativas
tetigeris quibus secundum quorundam sententiam oportet
impugnatores idoneos pape heretici preeminere, que omnes
communes impugnatoribus corporaliter et spiritualiter
papam hereticum michi videntur, numera aliquas
prerogativas speciales quibus expedit preeminere
impugnatores pape heretici, per testimonia scripturarum
precipue, si papa hereticus errores coloratos et
latentes conatus fuerit diffinitive populis tradere
christianis.
|
Student: I am tremendously
astonished by this last statement, and shall diligently
inquire about its motives in the treatise On the deeds
of those disputing about orthodox faith. Now, however,
since you have touched on many prerogatives which,
according to the opinion of some, it is proper for
qualified opponents of a heretic pope to possess in the
highest degree, prerogatives all of which appear to me
to be common to those who oppose a heretic pope
physically and spiritually, proceed to list certain
particular prerogatives which should be present in the
highest degree in those who oppose the pope specifically
by relying on the witnesses of Scriptures, if this
heretic pope should definitively have attempted to
impart to Christian peoples errors both flagrant and
hidden.
|
|
Magister: Dicitur quod huiusmodi
impugnatores idoneos pape heretici oportet sanctarum
habere intelligentiam scripturarum ut, scilicet, non
solum memoriam verborum retineant, sed intellectum
capiant veritatis. Quia, teste Hieronymo, ut legitur 1
q. 1 cap. Marcion: "nec putemus in verbis
scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu; non in
superficie, sed in medulla; non in sermonum foliis, sed
in radice rationis". Multi enim quamvis memoria vigeant
ut literas multas retineant, et prompte que voluerint
recitent et allegent, carent tamen iudicio et acumine
rationis, unde ad verum intellectum, nisi forte
aliquando casualiter, per seipsos nesciant pervenire. Et
de istis potest verificari illud Apostoli 2 Timotheo 3:
"semper discentes et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis
pervenientes". Tales autem non sunt idonei ad
impugnandum errores occultos et latentes. Alii sunt
vigentes rationis iudicio, quamvis in memoria deficere
videantur, et illi, quamvis interdum cum magno labore et
tarde, sunt idonei errores occultos et latentes ac
coloratos pape heretici impugnare. Quamvis enim sepe
sint imperiti sermone ut eloquentia careant et ornatu
verborum, non tamen scientia, quia illi sciunt ex paucis
multa elicere, et illi perspicue vident que veritati
sunt contraria, que consona, que antecedentia, que
consequentia, que impertinentia sunt censenda. Qui etiam
per rationes sophisticas et auctoritates male
intellectas non de facili seducuntur. Per quam autem
scientiam rationis iudicium ad predicta potissime
adiuvetur libro nono De optimo genere addiscendi poteris
invenire. Qui autem memoria et iudicio prepollent, quod
raro accidit ut quidam estimant, et essent in sacris
literis eruditi, essent maxime idonei impugnatores
errorum pape infecti heretica pravitate. Oportet autem
impugnatores idoneos pape heretici summe cavere ne
assertiones ipsius ambiguas contra mentem eius, vel
etiam preter mentem ipsius ad perversum nitantur trahere
intellectum. Et multo fortius assertiones eius veras in
omni sensu pervertere minime debent. Si enim aliquod
fecerint predictorum, presertim scienter, vel etiam ex
ignorantia crassa et supina, non solum coram Deo peccare
mortaliter iudicabuntur, sed etiam apud intelligentes
maligni vel invidi aut iniusti apparebunt. In primis
igitur, mentem ipsius ex omnibus dictis eius, quando
assertio eius est ambigua, investigent. Si enim assertio
eius non est ambigua sed sensum habens tantummodo
falsum, non est necesse ad alia dicta eius recurrere.
Cum vero patuerit manifeste sensum eius esse erroneum,
non cavillose, non sophistice, non per auctoritates male
intellectas, non per assertiones dubias et de quibus est
licitum disputare, non per rationes fantasticas, non
intelligibiles, et intricatas, non per dicta illorum
quos licitum est negare, sed per scripturas autenticas
bene et sane intellectas, ac per rationes apertas,
evidentes, et irrefragabiles, studeant reprobare et
fundare solidissime contrariam veritatem. Hec autem
omnia amore faciant veritatis et odio falsitatis, ut
ira, rancore, vel odio persone pape heretici nullatenus
moveantur.
|
Master: One responds that it is
proper for such qualified opponents of a heretic pope to
possess sound knowledge of Scriptures, namely, so that
they not only remember their words, but also grasp the
meaning of their truth. Because, witness Jerome (as we
read in 1 q. 1 c. Marcion): "nor should we
believe the Gospel to be found in the mere words of the
Scriptures, but in their meaning; not on the surface,
but in the marrow; not on the written pages, but in the
rational foundation". [col 381] For there are many
individuals who, although endowed with sufficient memory
to retain many of Scripture's words, and able to
instantly recite and argue these at will, nevertheless
lack proper judgement and intellectual penetration as to
these words' true meaning, and do not know how to arrive
at this by their own power, unless they manage it
occasionally and by accident. And it is of such
interpreters that may be verified the following comment
of the Apostle in 2 Timothy 3: "ever learning, and never
able to come to the knowledge of the truth". [2 Timothy
3:7] Such persons are indeed not fitted to oppose errors
both flagrant and hidden. There are others, however,
endowed with rational discernment, although they seem to
lack memory, and it is they who are qualified to oppose
the secret, hidden, and flagrant errors of a heretic
pope, even if it sometimes takes them much time and
effort to perform the task. Indeed, although they
frequently are unskilled in qualities of speech, and
lack eloquence and verbal flourish, they do not lack
knowledge, for they know how to deduce much from little,
and it is they who clearly see which claims are contrary
to the truth and which are in harmony with it, which
statements are to be considered the premises of an
argument, which the conclusions, and which are
altogether irrelevant. These individuals are not easily
misled by sophistical reasons and misunderstood
authorities. You will, by the way, be able to discover
in Book Nine [?] of The best method of learning [cf. Introduction
to 1 Dial. 6. 16-35] by which rational science judgement
is most potently assisted in these contexts. It is those
who posses both superior memory and superior judgement
(some consider this confluence to occur but rarely), and
who are learned in the Sacred Letters, who would be the
best qualified opponents of the errors of a pope
infected by heretical wickedness. It is also proper that
the qualified opponents of a heretic pope be supremely
careful not to attempt to forcibly convert his ambiguous
assertions into interpretations which run counter to his
intention, or, equally, to strain these assertions into
perverse meanings which go beyond his intention. And
much more significantly, they must not pervert those
assertions of his which are true in every sense. For if
they did any of the aforementioned, especially if they
did this knowingly, or on the basis of grossly passive
ignorance, they will not only be judged as mortal
sinners before God, but will also appear to be
malicious, or envious, or unjust in the eyes of
intelligent observers. Therefore let them initially
analyze the heretic pope's ambiguous assertion on the
foundation of all his statements. But if his assertion
is not ambiguous, and can only have a sense which is
false, it is not necessary to refer to his other
statements. If, however, it were clear and obvious that
the papal assertion was erroneous, let the opponents
proceed to reject it and to lay most solid foundations
for the contrary truth: not in quibbling fashion, not by
sophistry, not by misunderstood authorities, not by
doubtful assertions concerning which debate is
permissible, not by fantastic, unintelligible, and
involved allegations, not by the statements of those
thinkers one is permitted to reject, but by authentic
Scriptures, well and solidly understood, and by reasons
which are clear, evident, and irrefutable. And let them
do all this from love of truth and from hatred of
falsehood, so that they be in no way motivated by anger,
resentment, or hatred towards the person of the heretic
pope.
|
|
Discipulus: Cum instarem quod hoc
opus inciperes, arbitrabar brevem tractatulum De
hereticis nos facturos, qui preter estimationem meam in
longum aliquantulum est protensus, quem si omnes
difficultates nunc michi de papa heretico eiusque
complicibus occurrentes tibi disserendas exponerem,
oporteret extendere in immensum. Sane cum opera prolixa
pluribus dinoscantur ingrata modernis, sit hic presens
sermo noster De hereticis consummatus. Tue autem
benevolentie gratias ago, quod personam induens
recitantis, votis meis, nunc abbreviando, nunc falsas
sententias recitando et pro eis fortiter allegando, nunc
ad rationes probabiles respondendo, nunc argumentationes
sophisticas non solvendo, nunc veritates absque
probationibus referendo, et quantum ad omnia alia,
condescendere studuisti. Istum autem modum utilem
reputavi, quia sic nec ad probandum nec ad reprobandum
aliquod prescriptorum amor vel odium persone tue
quemcunque movebit, sed omnibus legentibus materia
dabitur cogitandi. Puto enim quod cum ista fuerint
divulgata, tum propter raritatem, tum propter
utilitatem, viri literati et intelligentes zelum
veritatis et boni communis habentes, que vera sunt
rationibus manifestis et testimoniis scripturarum
apertis satagent confirmare, et que falsa sunt reprobare
studebunt. Tu etiam, ut estimo, cum mentem tuam ceperis
aperire de predictis, opera facies magnifica et
preclara, plana veritate referta, ad omnium utilitatem
fidelium, et Dei omnipotentis honorem. Cui sit gloria,
laus, et imperium in secula seculorum. Amen.
|
Student: When I urged you to begin
this work, I thought that we would compose a brief
little treatise On heretics. The actual product has
expanded, beyond my expectation, into a rather long
treatise. If I were to submit to you for discussion all
the problems which now occur to me concerning a heretic
pope and his accomplices, the treatise would swell into
immensity. But since long works are not viewed with
favour by many of our contemporaries, let this present
discourse of ours On heretics be herewith concluded. I
am indeed grateful for your kindness. Assuming the
persona of a reciter, you took care to acquiesce to my
wishes, sometimes abbreviating the material being
discussed, sometimes reciting false opinions and arguing
firmly in support of them, sometimes responding to
strong and probable reasons, sometimes leaving
sophistical arguments unsolved, sometimes simply
declaring truths without proving them; and your
generosity applied to all the other issues which I
raised. I have certainly found this approach to be
useful, because, as a result, the love or hatred of your
person will not influence anybody either to support or
to reject argumentatively any of the issues we have
written about. This approach will rather give all
readers food for thought. Indeed, I do believe that when
these materials will be published, learned and
intelligent men who possess zeal for truth and for the
common good will respond both to their originality and
their usefulness, by attempting to confirm the truths
contained herein through manifest arguments and open
witnesses of the Scriptures, and by studiously rejecting
all the peripheral falsehoods. I further reckon that
when you begin to reveal your own opinion on these
issues, you will write splendid and magnificent works,
presenting the unambiguous truth, for the utility of all
the faithful, and for the honour of Omnipotent God. May
glory, praise, and dominion be His for ever. Amen.
|