Conventions used in collation files .
Note: It is not our intention to collate every extant manuscript for every part of the Dialogus. We have chosen several short sections for "thorough collation", i.e. collation of every extant manuscript, to get a sense of the relationships among the manuscripts (see Relationships among witnesses). We have done this for several sample sections because the relationship among the manuscripts may not be the same throughout. These soundings show a number of families of manuscripts. For other parts of the work we will collate representatives of the main families.
To go to the corresponding point in the collation click on the numbered link. The sizes of the windows can be changed by dragging the separator.
[ 1] Capitulum 1[ 2] Discipulus Hactenus de punicione hereticorum, et precipue pape si efficeretur hereticus, quamplura quesivi, licet multa omiserim de quibus post hoc opus sollicite mentem tuam inquiram. Nunc vero de credentibus, fautoribus, defensoribus et receptatoribus hereticorum investigare propono. Primo autem de credentibus disputes, de quibus ante omnia disseras qui sunt censendi credentes. |
Chapter 1Student I have thus far asked you very many things about the punishment of heretics, and especially of the pope if he were to become a heretic, although I have left aside many matters about which I will carefully seek your opinion after this present work. But now I propose to investigate concerning those who believe, support, defend and receive heretics. Would you first investigate those who believe [heretics], however, and before anything else would you discuss who should be considered believers [in heretics]? |
|
[ 3] Magister Nonnullis apparet quod credentes possunt in duplici differentia reperiri. Quidam enim explicite hereticorum credunt erroribus, quemadmodum arriani credebant explicite quod filius dei non est verus deus, qui fuit error arrii heretici, et de hiis videtur loqui Gregorius IX qui, ut habetur Extra, de hereticis, Excommunicamus, sic ait, "Credentes autem eorum erroribus hereticos similiter iudicamus". Alii vero videntur esse credentes qui, licet non credant explicite hereticorum erroribus, credunt tamen hereticis, ipsos censentes inter catholicos computandos et eorum doctrinam catholicam reputantes, licet in quo explicite discrepent a doctrina catholica ignorent; et isto modo videtur quod illi qui ad hereticos causa addiscendi accedunt (qui secundum leges minus puniuntur quam docentes) inter credentes debeant numerari. |
Master It seems to some people that we can find two kinds of believers. For certain people believe explicitly the errors of heretics, as the Arians used to believe explicitly that the son of God is not truly God, which was the error of the heretic Arius; and it is about these that Gregory IX seems to be speaking when, as we find in Extra, De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus, he speaks as follows, "However, those who believe their errors we judge likewise to be heretics." But others seem to be believers who, although they do not believe explicitly the errors of the heretics do nevertheless believe the heretics, considering that they should be counted among catholics and reckoning their teaching as catholic, although they do not know the matter in which they deviate explicitly from catholic teaching. And in that way it seems that those who approach heretics in order to learn from them (though they are punished by the law less than those who teach them) should be numbered among [their] believers.. |
|
[ 4] Discipulus Distinccionem de credentibus, sive sit vera sive sit falsa, intelligo, et ideo de utroque membro te interrogare intendo. Dic autem in primis de primis credentibus, an omnes sint inter hereticos computandi, cum hoc auctoritas Gregorii superius allegata asserere videatur, cum indistincte, non distinguendo inter hos credentes et illos, dicat "credentes autem eorum", scilicet hereticorum erroribus, "hereticos similiter iudicamus". |
Student I understand the distinction concerning believers, whether it is true or false, and so I intend to ask you about both sorts. Tell me first, however, about the first [kind of] believer, whether all of them should be counted among heretics, since the text of Gregory cited above seems to assert this when it says indiscriminately, without distinguishing between one sort of believer and the other, that "those who believe their errors", i.e., the errors of heretics, "we judge likewise to be heretics". |
|
[ 5] Magister Est quedam assercio, que non debet dici indistincte, quod omnes credentes explicite hereticorum erroribus sunt censendi heretici; quia de credentibus etiam explicite hereticorum erroribus distinguendum apparet. Credentium enim hereticorum erroribus quidam sciunt ipsos errores esse ab ecclesia condemnatos, quidam vero nesciunt quod sint ab ecclesia condemnati; et istorum quidam adherent pertinaciter talibus erroribus, quidam vero non adherent pertinaciter sed corrigi sunt parati. Primi credentes hereticorum erroribus statim absque alia examinacione sunt inter hereticos computandi. Cuius racio assignatur: quia errans contra fidem qui non est paratus corrigi est inter hereticos computandus, 24, q. 3, Dixit apostolus; sed credens hereticorum erroribus quos scit ab ecclesia condemnatos non est paratus corrigi. Quia quilibet errans contra fidem debet esse paratus corrigi per doctrinam ecclesie et aliter est pertinax reputandus; sed qui scit errorem aliquem ab ecclesia esse damnatum et tamen credit eidem errori non est paratus corrigi per doctrinam ecclesie; ergo talis pertinax et hereticus est censendus. |
Master There is an assertion, that should not been made without some distinction, that all who explicitly believe the errors of heretics should be accounted heretics--because it is clear that a distinction should be made even concerning those who explicitly believe the errors of heretics. For some of those who believe the errors of heretics know that those errors have been condemned by the Church, but others do not know that they have been condemned by the Church; and of those some cling pertinaciously to such errors and some do not cling pertinaciously but are prepared to be corrected. The first kind of believer in the errors of heretics should immediately without any examination be counted among the heretics. The argument advanced for this is that if someone who errs against the faith is not prepared to be corrected he should be counted among the heretics (24, q. 3, c. Dixit apostolus); but someone who believes errors of heretics that he knows have been condemned by the church is not prepared to be corrected--because anyone erring against the faith should be prepared to be corrected by the teaching of the church and otherwise should be regarded as pertinacious; but someone who knows that some error has been condemned by the church and nevertheless believes that same error is not prepared to be corrected by the teaching of the church; therefore such a person should be considered pertinacious and a heretic. |
|
[ 6] Discipulus Secundum ista quicunque crederet errori contra fidem damnato a papa romano esset hereticus reputandus, et ita per consequens nullo modo liceret sententie summi pontificis contraire. |
Student According to that anyone who was to believe an error against the faith that had been condemned by the Roman pope should be regarded as a heretic, and so consequently it would not be at all permissible to oppose the judgment of the highest pontiff. |
|
[ 7] Magister Respondetur quod sententie catholice summi pontificis late contra errorem in fide nulli licet absque heretica pravitate resistere, sed sententie pape erronee contra fidem debet quilibet catholicus qui scit sententiam eius esse erroneam obviare. |
Master The reply is that no one is permitted, without heretical wickedness, to resist a catholic judgment of the highest pontiff made against an error in faith, but every catholic who knows that a judgment of the pope is erroneous ought to oppose that erroneous judgment contrary to the faith. |
|
[ 8] Discipulus Si licet sententie romani pontificis obviare et romanus pontifex semper habebit sequaces, schisma sequetur inter christianos, quod est omnino vitandum. Ergo quilibet tenetur saltem propter schisma vitandum acquiescere sententie pape. |
Student If it is permissible to oppose an opinion of the Roman pontiff, then, since the Roman pontiff will always have followers, there will follow a schism among Christians, and this ought to be avoided absolutely. Everyone is bound to agree with the pope's judgment, therefore, at least to avoid a schism. |
|
[ 9] Magister Respondetur quod si sententia pape fuerit erronea et contra fidem schisma sequetur tale quale semper fuit inter hereticos et catholicos. Quale schisma catholici compescendo hereticos sedare debent si possunt. Si autem non possunt, propter nullum schisma vitandum debent acquiescere sententie false--licet in casu quando viderent turbationem periculosam oriri absque omni utilitate fidelium cessare deberent, saltem ad tempus, a divulgacione catholice veritatis. |
Master The reply is that if the pope's judgment is erroneous and against the faith such a schism will follow as there always has been between heretics and catholics. Catholics ought to end such a schism if they can by restraining the heretics. However, if they can not do so, for the sake of avoiding no schism should they acquiesce in a false judgment--though in a situation when they saw that a dangerous disturbance would arise without any benefit to the faithful, they would have to cease, at least for a time, to publish catholic truth. |
|
[ 10] Discipulus Si non est credendum pape in hiis que fidei sunt, cui credetur? |
Student If the pope is not to be believed in matters of faith, who is to be believed? |
|
[ 11] Magister
Respondetur quod credetur scripture divine et doctrine
quam universalis ecclesia hactenus tenuit, predicavit et
docuit. Scriptura enim divina et doctrina precedentium
patrum ab universali ecclesia approbata doctrine pape
posterioris est anteponenda. Quod in decretis, dist. 19,
insinuari videtur expresse, ubi sic legitur: "Hoc
autem", scilicet quod decretales epistole sunt paris
auctoritatis cum canonibus et per consequens quod est
eis adhibenda fides, |
Master The reply is that we should believe the divine scriptures and the teachings which the universal church has up till now held, preached and taught. For divine scripture and the teaching of earlier fathers that has been approved by the universal church should be preferred to the teaching of a later pope. This seems to be implied expressly in dist. 19 of the decrees [of Gratian] where we read the following: "This, however," namely that decretal letters are of equal authority with the canons and as a consequence that faith should be given to them, "should be understood of those enactments or decretal letters in which nothing contrary to the decrees of earlier fathers or to gospel teachings is found. For with the consent of the emperor Anastasius, [Pope] Anastasius II determined that those whom Achacius had ordained as priests and deacons after the sentence had been pronounced against him ought properly to exercise the offices they received." About that constitution the following is subjoined in the same distinction, paragraph Quia ergo, "Therefore because he gave these rescripts illicitly and not canonically but against the decrees of his predecessors and successors, as Felix and Gelasius prove who excommunicated Achacius before [the time of] Anastasius, and Hormisda, third in line after Anastasius, who afterwards condemned that Achacius, he [Anastasius II] is as a result repudiated by the Roman church and, as we read, has been smitten by God." We are given to understand by these words that if the pope issues a constitution in matters pertaining to the faith that is contrary to the approved teaching of earlier fathers, he should not be believed, but such a constitution should be rejected by believers, and those who believe him knowing that his teaching is contrary to the doctrines of earlier orthodox fathers should be counted among the heretics, just as the pope himself should be included in the number of the heretics if he holds such a thing definitively. |
|
[ 14] Discipulus Quid si aliqui scientes talem diffinicionem pape esse determinationi ecclesie obviantem, et tamen credentes in corde determinacionem ecclesie esse veram, exterius ore vel timore vel ambicione vel ex aliqua alia causa tenent aut docent diffinicionem pape determinacioni ecclesie contrariam? |
Student What if some people knowing that such a papal definition is in opposition to a determination of the church, and indeed believing in their heart that the church's determination is true, do yet out of fear or ambition or for some other reason outwardly in speech hold or teach the papal definition opposed to the church's determination? |
|
[ 15] Magister Respondetur quod licet tales apud deum sint deteriores hereticis, eo quod negant agnitam veritatem, ideo et peccant in spiritum sanctum, tamen apud deum non sunt heretici, quia mentaliter contra fidem minime errant. Hoc tamen non obstante, si coram ecclesia probatum fuerit quod ipsi non ignorant determinacionem ecclesie et tamen tenent diffinicionem pape contrariam, ecclesia, que de manifestis iudicat, non de occultis, debet eos hereticos reputare et tanquam hereticos condemnare, etiam si postea assererent quod diffinicionem pape contrariam determinacioni ecclesie nunquam corde tenuerunt: quia tali assercioni eorum de occultis cordium fidem tenetur minime adhibere. |
Master The reply is that although such people are worse than heretics in God's eyes in that they deny a known truth and so sin against the holy spirit, they are nevertheless not heretics before God because they do not err mentally against the faith. Yet notwithstanding this, if it is proved in the eyes of the church that they are not unaware of the church's determination and yet maintain the opposing papal definition, the church, which judges of what is open not of what is hidden, ought to regard them as heretical and condemn them as heretics even if they later affirm that they never in their heart held the papal definition opposed to the church's determination, because it [the church] is not bound to show any faith in such an assertion of theirs about things hidden in their heart. |
[ 16]Capitulum 2[ 17] Discipulus Quid si determinacio pape est ambigua, habens diversos sensus, quorum unus, qui est hereticalis, est de intencione pape, quem in aliis scriptis posterioribus vel prioribus explicat manifeste, alius autem sensus talis determinacionis seu diffinicionis pape est catholicus? Nunquid credens tali determinacioni pape, putans sensum catholicum esse de mente pape, est hereticus reputandus, si scit alium sensum esse ab ecclesia condemnatum? |
Chapter 2Student What if the pope's determination is ambiguous and has conflicting significations, of which one, which is heretical, is the pope's meaning which he clearly explains in other later or earlier writings, while the other sense of such a papal determination or definition is catholic? Should someone who believes such a papal determination, thinking that the catholic sense is the pope's meaning, be regarded as a heretic if he knows that the other sense has been condemned by the church? |
|
[ 18] Magister Una assercio tenet quod talis est hereticus reputandus, quod tali racione videtur posse probari. Sicut non distat in vicio dicere bonum malum et malum bonum dicere, ita non videtur distare in vicio dicere scripturam catholicam esse hereticam et dicere scripturam hereticam esse catholicam. Quod Esaias propheta capitulo 5 testari videtur, cum huiusmodi facientibus imprecetur ve damnacionis eterne, dicens: "Ve qui dicitis malum bonum et bonum malum, ponentes tenebras lucem et lucem tenebras, ponentes amarum in dulce et dulce in amarum". Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod quemadmodum uterque damnabili crimine irretitur, scilicet et qui dicit malum esse bonum et qui dicit bonum esse malum, ita uterque damnabilis est, scilicet et qui ponit tenebras (hoc est pravitatem hereticam) esse lucem (id est catholicam veritatem), et qui dicit lucem (id est catholicam veritatem) esse tenebras (id est hereticam pravitatem). Sed qui dicit scripturam catholicam esse hereticam, trahendo eam videlicet ad sensum hereticum et aliter exponendo quam sensus spiritus sancti efflagitat, est hereticus reputandus, 24, q. 3, Heresis. Ergo ille qui scripturam hereticam trahit ad sensum catholicum, eam erronee exponendo, hereticus est censendus, et ita qui determinacionem pape secundum mentem eius hereticam reputat catholicam, sciens quod ille sensus qui secundum rei veritatem est de mente pape est damnatus, debet hereticus iudicari, licet nesciat quod ille sit sensus pape heretici. |
Master One assertion holds that such a person should be regarded as a heretic, and this seems provable by the following argument. Just as there is no difference in fault between calling good evil and calling evil good, so there does not seem to be a difference in fault between saying that catholic writing is heretical and saying that heretical writing is catholic. The prophet Isaias seems to attest to this in chapter 5[:20] when he calls down the woe of eternal damnation on those doing such a thing, saying, "Woe, you who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." We gather from these words that just as both are entangled in a culpable fault--that is, he who says evil is good and he who says good is evil, so both are culpable--that is, both he who puts darkness, that is heretical wickedness, for light, that is catholic truth, and he who says that light, that is catholic truth, is darkness, that is heretical wickedness. But he who says that catholic scripture is heretical--by dragging it, that is, to a heretical signification and by expounding it otherwise than the sense of the Holy Spirit demands--should be regarded as a heretic (24, q. 3, c. Heresis). Therefore he who drags heretical writing to a catholic signification by expounding it erroneously should be considered a heretic; and so he who regards as catholic a papal determination which is heretical in the pope's meaning, knowing that the signification which is in truth of fact the pope's meaning has been condemned, should be judged a heretic, even if he does not know that that is the heretical pope's meaning. |
|
[ 19] Alia assercio tenet quod talis sic exponens determinacionem pape hereticam et trahens eam ad sensum catholicum quem putat esse de mente pape non est hereticus iudicandus, quod videtur tali racione posse probari. Ille qui non errat contra fidem non est hereticus iudicandus, licet erret circa intencionem alicuius heretici vel catholici; sed qui determinacionem pape habentem diversos sensus, unum catholicum et alium hereticum, trahit ad sensum catholicum, putans eum esse de mente pape quamvis non sit, non errat contra fidem, sed tantum contra mentem pape, quia tenet quicquid spectat ad fidem; in hoc tamen errat quod putat sensum catholicum esse de mente pape, qui tamen non est. Ergo talis non est hereticus reputandus. |
Another assertion holds that someone expounding an heretical papal determination in this way and dragging it to a catholic signification which he thinks is the pope's meaning should not be judged a heretic, and this seems provable by the following argument. He who does not err against the faith should not be judged a heretic even if he errs against the meaning of someone, heretic or catholic; but he who drags to a catholic signification a papal determination having conflicting significations, one catholic and the other heretical, thinking that that is the pope's meaning, though it is not, does not err against the faith but only against the pope's meaning, because he holds whatever pertains to the faith--he does err, nevertheless, in this respect, that he thinks that the catholic signification is the pope's meaning, which in fact it is not. Therefore such a person should not be regarded as a heretic. |
|
[ 20] Discipulus Que predictarum assercionum sit verior post consummacionem istius operis sollicite indagabo. Nunc autem dic an peccet mortaliter ille qui trahit determinacionem pape secundum mentem pape hereticam ad sensum catholicum, quem tamen non credit esse de mente pape, sed credit quod sensus hereticus est de mente eius. |
Student I will carefully investigate which of the above assertions is truer after the conclusion of this work. Now however, tell me whether he sins mortally who drags a papal determination which is heretical according to the pope's intention to a catholic signification, which he nevertheless does not believe is the pope's intention, rather he believes that the heretical signification is his intention. |
|
[ 21] Magister Respondetur quod talis, si non tantummodo recitando sed exterius affirmando trahit determinacionem hereticam ad sensum catholicum quem non credit esse de mente pape taliter determinantis, peccat mortaliter, quia committit crimen mendacii, sive adulando sive ex timore sive ex ambicione taliter mentiatur, nec potest a peccato mortali quomodolibet excusari, quia omne tale mendacium est peccatum mortale; et si ex desiderio complacendi pape heretico mendacium tale procedat, gravius est quam si ex timore solo emanat, quia in pusillanimi timor aliquo modo diminuit peccatum. In illo autem qui homini placere desiderat crimini mendacii crimen adulacionis aut cupiditatis vel ambicionis adiungitur, et ideo talis gravius et multiplicius peccat. |
Master The reply is that if it is not only by recitation but also by outward affirmation that such a person drags the heretical determination to a catholic signification which he does not believe was the pope's intention, in so determining he sins mortally because he commits the crime of lying, whether he lies in this way in order to fawn or out of fear or ambition, and he can not in any way be absolved of mortal sin because every such lie is a mortal sin; and if he puts forth such a lie out of a desire to please an heretical pope it is more serious than if it were to arise from fear alone because in the faint-hearted fear diminishes a sin to some extent. In the person who desires to please a man, however, the crime of fawning, of greed or of ambition is added to the crime of lying, and so such a person sins more seriously and in more manifold ways. |
[ 22]Capitulum 3[ 23] Discipulus Post interrogacionem de trahentibus diffinicionem pape hereticam habentem tamen diversos sensus unum hereticum et alium catholicum ad sensum catholicum, peto ut dicas quid sentiendum esset de illis qui diffinicionem pape hereticam in omni sensu quem talis diffinicio posset habere de virtute verborum traherent ad sensum catholicum, scientes quod quilibet illorum sensuum qui secundum rei veritatem potest elici ex verbis determinacionis pape est hereticus. |
Chapter 3Student Now that I have questioned you about those who drag to a catholic signification an heretical papal definition, yet one having conflicting significations, one heretical and the other catholic, I ask you to say what should be thought about those who drag to a catholic signification a papal definition which is heretical in every signification that such a definition could have by virtue of its language, knowing that any of those significations which can in truth of fact be elicited from the words of the papal definition is heretical. |
|
[ 24] Magister Est quedam assercio dicens quod tales essent credentes errori pape heretici et etiam heretici reputandi, nisi sollicite quererent veritatem parati corrigi quam cito veritatem invenirent. Quod enim tales inter credentes hereticorum errori debeant computari videtur sic posse probari. Ille qui credit hereticorum errori qui nullum potest habere sensum catholicum est inter credentes hereticorum errori merito computandus, sicut ille qui pertinaciter defendit hereticorum errorem qui nullum potest habere sensum catholicum est hereticus reputandus, 24, q. 3, Qui aliorum. Cum ergo per positum tales credant errori qui nullum potest habere sensum catholicum, inter credentes hereticorum errori sunt merito computandi, et per idem patet quod tales, nisi sollicite querant veritatem parati corrigi cum invenerint, sunt heretici iudicandi, quia errans contra fidem, nisi querat sollicite veritatem paratus corrigi cum invenerit est inter hereticos numerandus, 24, q. 3, Dixit apostolus. Ex quo infertur quod qui exponerent et traherent determinacionem pape hereticam in omni sensu quem potest habere de virtute verborum ad sensum catholicum, si simul cum hoc persequerentur et molestarent qualitercunque diffinicionem pape hereticam impugnantes, essent inter hereticos computandi, quia non quererent cauta sollicitudine veritatem. |
Master There is one assertion that says that such people should be regarded as believers in the error of an heretical pope and also as heretics unless they were carefully to seek the truth, prepared to be corrected as soon as they found it. For that such people should be counted among the believers in an error of heretics seems provable as follows. He who believes an error of heretics that can not have any catholic signification should deservedly be counted among the believers in an error of heretics, just as he who defends pertinaciously an error of heretics that can not have any catholic signification should be regarded as an heretic (24, q. 3, c. Qui aliorum). Since by what has been assumed, therefore, such people believe an error which can not have any catholic signification, they should deservedly be counted among the believers in an error of heretics, and by the same reasoning it is clear that unless such people carefully seek the truth and are prepared to be corrected when they find it they should be adjudged heretics, because unless someone who errs against the faith seeks the truth carefully and is prepared to be corrected when he finds it he should be numbered among the heretics (24, q. 3, c. Dixit apostolus). We infer from this that those who were to expound and drag to a catholic signification a papal determination which is heretical in any signification that it can have by virtue of its language, and if at the same time as this they were to persecute and harass in any way at all those who oppose the heretical papal definition, they should be counted among the heretics because they would not be seeking the truth with careful diligence. |
|
[ 25] Alia est assercio que de trahentibus taliter determinacionem pape hereticam ad sensum catholicum dicit esse distinguendum, quia aut tales sunt periti in arte distinguendi asserciones ambiguas diversos sensus habentes, aut in tali arte sunt minime eruditi. Primi excusari non possunt de crimine mendacii, nec etiam de crimine heretice pravitatis, sed sunt censendi sibi ipsis contrarii, quemadmodum heretici sepe reperiuntur sibi ipsis contrarii, quia secundum Augustinum, ut habetur 23, q. 7, c. Quod autem, heretici adeo calumniandi cupiditate cecantur ut non attendant quam sint inter se contraria que loquuntur. Et ideo cum tales sint periti in arte distinguendi asserciones ambiguas, presumpcio est violenta quod tenent assercionem pape hereticam sub aliquo sensu quem sonat et quod, simul cum hoc, tanquam contrarii sibi ipsis, tenent catholicam veritatem. Si autem tales non sunt periti in arte distinguendi asserciones ambiguas non sunt statim heretici iudicandi, sed si pertinaciter defenderent talem assercionem esse sub tali sensu catholico sustinendam debent heretici iudicari. |
There is another assertion which says about those who drag an heretical papal determination to a catholic signification in this way that a distinction should be made, because such people are either learned in the art of distinguishing ambiguous assertions having conflicting significations or they are not skilled in that art. The first group can not be absolved of the crime of lying, nor even of the crime of heretical wickedness, but should be considered as contradicting themselves, just as heretics are often found contradicting themselves, because according to Augustine, as we find in 23, q. 7, c. Quod autem, heretics are so blinded by their desire for misrepresentation that they do not give heed to how what they say is self-contradictory. Therefore since such people are learned in the art of distinguishing ambiguous assertions, there is a violent presumption that they hold the heretical papal assertion in some sense that it signifies and that together with this, as though contradicting themselves, they hold the catholic truth. If such people are not learned in the art of distinguishing ambiguous assertions, however, they should not immediately be adjudged heretics; but if they were to defend pertinaciously [the view] that such an assertion should be maintained with a catholic signification they should be adjudged heretics. |
|
[ 26] Discipulus Quomodo convincetur talis de pertinacia? |
Student How will such a person be convicted of pertinacity? |
|
[ 27] Magister Respondetur quod de pertinacia convincetur si postquam sibi fuerit ostensum evidenter quod assercio pape heretici talem sensum habere non potest adhuc in sua opinione permanserit. Dicitur etiam quod multis aliis modis de pertinacia potest convinci, puta si de veritate quando convenienter potest renuit informari, si impugnatores heretice pravitatis persequitur vel molestat, si alios minis preceptis poenis vel alio quovis modo compellit ad suam opinionem pertinaciter defensandam, et forte aliquibus aliis modis de quibus dictum est supra libro quarto est de pertinacia convincendus. |
Master The reply is that he will be convicted of pertinacity if he still perseveres in his opinion after it has been clearly shown to him that the heretical pope's assertion can not have such a signification. It is said too that he can be convicted of pertinacity in many other ways--for instance, if he refuses to be informed about the truth when he suitably can be, if he persecutes or harasses those who attack heretical wickedness, if by threats, commands, punishments or by any other means he forces others to defend his opinion pertinaciously, and perhaps he should be convicted of pertinacity in some other ways discussed in book four above. |
|
[ 28] Discipulus Quid si aliquis promittit vel iurat quod tenebit talem assercionem hereticam pape et intendit eam tenere sub sensu catholico, quem tamen sensum catholicum de virtute verborum habere non potest? |
Student What if someone promises or swears that he will maintain such an heretical papal assertion and intends to maintain it with a catholic signification, which, by virtue of its language it can not have? |
|
[ 29] Magister Respondetur quod talis est hereticus iudicandus, quia ex quo tenet assercionem hereticam in omni sensu quem de virtute verborum potest habere et promittit seu iurat quod semper tenebit eandem, non est paratus corrigi, et per consequens hereticus est censendus |
Master The reply is that such a person should be adjudged a heretic because, since he maintains an assertion heretical in any sense that by virtue of its language it can have and promises or swears that he will always maintain it, he is not prepared to be corrected and, as a consequence, should be considered a heretic. |
Return to Table of Contents |