|
| |
|
| |
Capitulum 1 |
Chapter 1 |
|
Discipulus Quae recitasti circa quaesita ad praesens mihi sufficiunt, et ideo ad alia que magis habeo cordi festino. Volo enim de haeresibus multa inquirere, sed quia nonnunquam cognitio unius contrariorum ad cognitionem alterius conferre dignoscitur, quaero primo quae veritates sunt catholicae censendae. |
Student What you have recited about the things I asked about is enough for me at the moment, and so I hasten on to other matters that I have more at heart. For I want to ask many things about heresies; but because sometimes knowledge of one of [two] contraries is known to provide knowledge of the other, I want to know first which truths should be considered catholic. |
WHICH TRUTHS ARE CATHOLIC TRUTHS? |
|
|
Magister Quaestio tua unum videtur supponere et aliud quaerere. Videtur enim supponere quod non omnes veritates sunt catholicae iudicandae, quod beatus Augustinus in Encheridion expresse determinat. Quaerit autem quae sunt illae veritates quae catholicae sunt censendae. |
Master Your question seems to suppose one thing and to seek to know another. For it seems to suppose that not all truths should be adjudged catholic, which blessed Augustine expressly lays down in his Enchiridion. It seeks to know, however, which are those truths that should be considered catholic. |
|
Discipulus Cum beato Augustino illud quod supponit questio firmiter teneamus, et circa quaesitum sententiam unam vel plures enarra. |
Student Let us, with blessed Augustine, firmly hold what the question supposes, and tell me one opinion, or more, about what I seek to know. |
First opinion: Catholic truth is found in the Bible alone |
|
|
Magister Circa quaesitum sunt diversae et adversae sententiae. Quarum una est quod illae solae veritates sunt reputandae catholicae de necessitate salutis credendae quae in canone Bibliae explicite vel implicite asseruntur, ita quod si aliquae veritates in Biblia sub forma propria minime continentur, ex solis contentis tamen in ea consequentia necessaria et formali possunt inferri sunt inter catholicas numerandae. Sicut haec veritas, "Christus est verus Deus et verus homo" in tota Scriptura Divina sub hac serie verborum nullatenus invenitur, quia tamen ex contentis in Scriptura Sacra consequentia necessaria et formali concluditur catholica est censenda et eam credere est necessarium ad salutem. Omnes autem aliae veritates quae nec in Biblia sunt insertae nec ex contentis in ea consequentia necessaria et formali possunt inferri, licet in scriptis sanctorum vel in diffinitionibus summorum pontificum asserantur aut etiam ab omnibus fidelibus teneantur, non sunt catholicae reputandae, nec est necessarium ad salutem eis per fidem firmiter adhaerere vel propter eas rationem et humanum ingenium captivare. |
Master There are different and opposing opinions about what you seek to know. One of these is that only those truths should be regarded as catholic and as requiring belief out of necessity for salvation which are asserted explicitly or implicitly in the canon of the bible, so that if some truths are not contained in the bible in that exact form, yet can be inferred by necessary and formal inference from matters contained solely in it, they should be counted as catholic, just as the truth, "Christ is true God and true man", is not found in this sequence of words anywhere in divine scripture, yet because it is a conclusion by necessary and formal inference from things contained in sacred scripture it is to be considered catholic and belief in it is necessary for salvation. All other truths, however, which are neither inserted in the bible nor can be inferred from what is contained in it as a formal and necessary consequence, even if they are asserted in the writings of the saints or in the definitions of the highest pontiffs or even if they are held by all the faithful, should not be regarded as catholic, and it is not necessary for salvation firmly to cling to them through faith or on account of them to take captive reason and human ingenuity. [Cf. Marsilius, DP II.xix. However, Marsilius also holds that the scriptural interpretations of general councils must also be believed.] |
|
Hanc suam sententiam auctoritatibus et rationibus confirmare nituntur. Auctoritas prima est Salomonis Proverbiorum 30 c. qui ait, "Omnis sermo Dei ignitus clypeus est sperantibus in se; ne addas quicquam verbis illius et arguaris inveniarisque mendax." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod verbis divinis quae in Scriptura Divina habentur nihil penitus est addendum tanquam necessarium ad credendum. Hoc etiam testari videtur Moyses Deuteronomii 4 c. et beatus Iohannes Apocalypsis ultimo, quorum verba supra c. 2 sunt adducta. Ex quibus datur intelligi quod sicut de Scriptura Sacra nihil est penitus auferendum, ita ei omnino nihil est addendum tanquam necessarium ad salutem. |
They try to confirm this opinion of theirs by [citing] texts and by arguments. The first text is from the Proverbs of Solomon 30:[5-6] which says, "Every word of God is fire tried; he is a buckler to them that hope in him. Add not anything to his words, lest thou be reproved and found a liar." We gather from these words that nothing at all should be added, as though it were necessary that it be believed, to the divine words that are found in divine scripture. Moses also seems to attest to this in Deuteronomy 4 and blessed John in the last chapter of Revelation, whose words were adduced above in chapter 2 [of the first book]. We are given to understand from these that, just as nothing at all should be removed from sacred scripture, so nothing at all should be added to it as necessary for salvation. |
|
Hanc etiam sententiam auctoritatibus beati Augustini conantur ostendere. Augustinus enim in quadam epistola ad Hieronymum et recitatur etiam in decretis, dist. 9, c. Ego, ait, "Ego solis eis scriptorum, qui iam canonici appellantur, didici hunc timorem honoremque referre ut eorum nullum scribendo errasse audeam credere ac si aliquid in eis offendero, quod videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam vel mendosum esse codicem esse vel non esse assecutum interpretem quod dictum est vel minime me intellexisse non ambigam. Alios autem ita lego ut quantalibet sanctitate quantave doctrina polleant non ideo verum putem quia ita ipsi senserunt sed quia mihi per alios auctores vel canonicas vel probabiles rationes quod a vero non abhorreat persuadere potuerunt." Ex his verbis colligitur quod solis libris canonicis qui in biblia continentur necesse est fidem certissimam adhibere et quod assertionibus aliorum non est necessarium ad salutem firmiter adhaerere. |
They also try to make this opinion known by texts of blessed Augustine. For in a certain letter to Jerome, recorded also in the decretals, dist. 9, c. Ego [c. 5, col.17], Augustine says, "I have learnt to offer this fear and honour only to those works of writers who are now called canonical, so that I dare to believe that none of them has erred in writing; and I do not doubt that if I come upon anything in them which seems contrary to the truth it is nothing but either a faulty codex or that the expounder has not comprehended what has been said or that I have not understood it. I read other [writers], however, in such a way that however greatly enriched they are in sanctity or learning I do not as a result think something true because they have believed it to be so but because they have been able to persuade me by other authors or by canonical or probable arguments that it is not inconsistent with the truth." We gather from these words that it is necessary to offer the most certain trust only to those canonical books which are contained in the bible and that it is not necessary to salvation to cling firmly to the assertions of other [books]. |
|
Item hoc idem Augustinus in libro, De unico Baptismo, ut recitatur eadem dist. 9, c. Quis nesciat, aperte sentire videtur. Ait enim, "Quis nesciat Sanctam Scripturam canonicam tam veteris quam novi testamenti certis terminis suis contineri, eamque posterioribus omnibus episcoporum litteris ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari et disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit, quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit? Episcoporum autem litteras quae post confirmatum canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribentur et per sermonem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris et per aliorum episcoporum graviorem auctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam et per concilia licere reprehendi licere si quid in eis forte a veritate est deviatum?" Ex his verbis colligitur quod de sola scriptura Novi et Veteris Testamenti est illicitum dubitare utrum sit verum vel rectum quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit. Ergo de omnibus scripturis generalium conciliorum et quorumcunque aliorum expositorum Scripturae Divinae ac etiam Romanorum pontificum et quorumlibet historiographorum post canonem editis confirmatum non est illicitum dubitare et disceptare an a veritate exorbitent quaecunque scripta in eis constiterint in eis antequam Scripturae Sacrae novi et veteris testamenti consona demonstrentur. |
Again, Augustine seems clearly to believe this in his book, De unico baptismo, as recorded in the same dist. 9, c. Quis nesciat [c. 8, col. 17]. For he says, "Who does not know that holy canonical scripture, both of the Old and the New Testament, contains its own fixed limits and that it is so preferred to all the later letters of bishops that there can not be any doubt or dispute about it at all, about whether whatever has been written in it is true or right? [Who does not know], however, that if there is anything in the letters of bishops, which have been written or will be written after the canon was confirmed, that has by chance deviated from the truth, it is permissible for them to be reproved by the perhaps wiser discourse of anyone more expert in the matter at hand and by the weightier authority and more learned prudence of other bishops and by councils?" We gather from these words that only about Scripture in the New and Old Testament is it impermissible to doubt whether whatever has been written in it is true or right. About all that has been written and published after the confirmation of the canon, therefore, whether by general councils, by any other expositors of divine scripture, even by Roman pontiffs and by any historians at all it is not impermissible to doubt and discuss, before they are shown to be in accord with the New and Old Testament of sacred scripture, whether anything written in them deviates from the truth. |
|
Item Augustinus in epistola ad Vincentium et allegatur dist. praedicta c. Noli, loquens de scripturis posterioribus novo et veteri testamento, ait, "Hoc genus literarum ab auctoritate canonis distinguendum est; non enim sic leguntur tanquam ex eis ita testimonium proferatur ut contra sentire non liceat, sicubi forte aliter sapuerint quam veritas postulat." Ex his habetur quod contra omne genus literarum post canonem Bibliae licet sentire. |
Again, speaking about writings later than the New and Old Testament in a letter to Vincent cited in the same distinction [9], c. Noli [c. 9, col. 18], Augustine says, "This sort of writing should be distinguished from the authority of the canon; for we do not read them as though the evidence put forward from them is such that it is not permissible to think the contrary, if by chance they suggest something other than what the truth demands." We find from this that it is permissible to think contrary to every sort of writing after the canon of the bible. |
|
His concordare videtur Augustinus in epistola ad Fortunatum et habetur dist. praefata c. Neque qui ait, "Neque quorumlibet disputationes," id est expositiones secundum glossam, "quamvis catholicorum et laudatorum hominum, velut scripturas canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat, salva honorificentia quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare atque respuere, si forte invenerimus, quod aliter senserint quam veritas habet, divino adiutorio vel ab aliis intellecta vel a nobis." Ex his concluditur quod nullus assertionibus quorumcunque quae in Scripturis canonicis non habentur firmiter assentire constringitur. |
Augustine seems to agree with this in his letter to Fortunatus which we find in the aforesaid distinction [9], c. Neque [c. 10, col.18] where he says, "And we should not consider the disputations," that is expositions according to the gloss, "of any men at all, even if they are catholic and praiseworthy, as canonical writings, as if we were not permitted, saving the honour that is owed those men, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if by chance we find that they have thought otherwise than what the truth holds, as understood with divine assistance either by others or by ourselves." We conclude from these [words] that no one is bound to assent firmly to anyone's assertions which are not found in the canonical scriptures. |
|
Item de veritatibus quas docuit Augustinus quod nullus teneatur eas de necessitate salutis recipere nisi in scripturis canonicis habeantur, per eundem Augustinum ostendunt. Nam in libro De trinitate, ut in dist. 9 recitatur c. Noli, ait, "Noli meis litteris quasi canonicis scripturis inservire. Sed in illis et quod non credebas cum inveneris incunctanter crede. In istis autem quod certum non habebas nisi certum intellexeris noli firme tenere." Et in epistola ad Vincentium Victorem libro 2, ut habetur dist. eadem c. Negare, ait, "Negare non possum nec debeo, sicut in ipsis maioribus, ita esse multa in tam multis opusculis meis quae possunt iusto iudicio et nulla temeritate culpari." Ex his concluditur quod scriptis beati Augustini non est necesse incunctanter adhaerere; ergo eadem ratione nec scriptis aliorum quorumcunque qui inter scriptores bibliae non habentur. |
Again, they show through Augustine that no one is bound to accept as necessary for salvation the truths which he himself taught unless they are found in the canonical scriptures. For in his book On the trinity, as recorded in dist. 9, c. Noli [c. 3, col.17], he says, "Do not attend to my writings as to the canonical scriptures. But believe the latter unhesitatingly, even what you did not believe when you came across it; do not hold firmly, however, to what you did not consider as certain in the former unless you judge it to be certain." And in book 2 of his letter to Vincent Victor, as found in the same distinction [9] c. Negare [c. 4, col.17], he says, "I can not and ought not deny that there are many things in many works of mine, as in those of our forefathers, which can be censured with just judgement and without temerity." We conclude from these that it is not necessary to adhere unhesitatingly to the writings of blessed Augustine. By the same argument therefore [this is not necessary] with regard to the writings of any others at all who are not found among the writers of the bible. |
|
Sententiam etiam memoratam rationibus moliuntur ostendere, quarum prima est haec. Extra illam scripturam nulla catholica veritas invenitur in qua omnis veritas utilis ad salutem habetur et omnis falsitas inimica saluti damnatur; sed secundum Augustinum in Scriptura Divina quicquid utile est invenitur, quicquid noxium est damnatur; ergo extra Sacram Scripturam nulla veritas catholica reperitur. |
They try to show the above opinion by arguments too, of which the first is this. No catholic truth is found outside that writing in which every truth useful for salvation is contained and every falsity inimical to salvation is condemned; but according to Augustine [at the end of book 2 of De doctrina christiana] it is in divine scripture that whatever is useful is found and whatever is harmful is condemned; therefore no catholic truth is found outside sacred scripture. |
|
Secunda ratio est haec. Non minus sufficiens pro fidelibus christianis est Novum Testamentum una cum Veteri quam fuit solummodo Vetus Testamentum pro Hebraeis; sed tota fides ad quam astringebantur Hebraei fuit expressa in Veteri Testamento; ergo et tota fides ad quam de necessitate salutis christiani artantur in Novo Testamento et veteri continetur. Ergo christianus de necessitate salutis non tenetur credere aliquid quod nec in biblia continetur nec ex solis contentis in biblia potest consequentia necessaria et manifesta inferri. |
A second argument is this. The New Testament together with the Old is not less sufficient for believing christians than was the Old Testament alone for the Hebrews; but the whole faith to which the Hebrews were bound was expressed in the Old Testament; it is also the case therefore that the whole faith to which christians are bound out of necessity for salvation is contained in the New and Old Testament. Therefore a christian is not bound out of necessity for salvation to believe anything which neither is contained in the bible nor can be inferred as a necessary and clear consequence solely from things contained in the bible. |
|
Tertio sic. Illud quod eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur ad fidem catholicam minime spectat, et esto quod sit verum non debet inter veritates catholicas numerari; sed secundum beatum Hieronymum de Scripturis Divinis loquentem, quod de scripturis auctoritatem non habet eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur; ergo nulla veritas quae ex Scripturis Divinis auctoritatem non habet est inter veritates catholicas computanda. |
A third [argument] is as follows. That which is condemned with the same readiness with which it is approved does not pertain to catholic faith and, even if it is true, should not be counted among catholic truths; but according to blessed Jerome, speaking about the divine scriptures, what does not have authority from those scriptures is condemned with the same readiness with which it is approved; therefore no truth which does not have authority from the divine scriptures should be counted among catholic truths. |
Capitulum 2 |
Chapter 2 |
A second opinion: There are Catholic truths not found in the Bible |
|
|
Magister Sed alii isti sententiae nequaquam consentiunt dicentes quod multae sunt veritates catholicae et fidem sapientes catholicam quae nec in Divinis Scripturis habentur divinis explicite nec ex solis contentis in eis possunt inferri quibus tamen fidem indubiam explicitam vel implicitam adhibere est necessarium ad salutem. |
Master But others do not agree with that opinion, saying that there are many catholic truths and some smacking of catholic faith which neither are found explicitly in the divine scriptures nor can be inferred solely from what is contained in them, towards which it is nevertheless necessary for salvation to exercise undoubting faith, either explicit or implicit. |
|
Ad cuius evidentiam dicunt esse sciendum quod praeter veritates circa quas licitum est sic et aliter opinari veritates quas quilibet catholicus certa credulitate explicite vel implicite tenere astringitur possunt in triplici differentia reperiri. |
To make this clear they say that it ought to be known that besides the truths about which it is permissible to hold opinions one way or the other, the truths which any catholic at all is bound to hold explicitly or implicitly with sure belief can be found in threefold diversity. |
|
Quaedam enim sunt de Deo et Christo secundum humanitatem ex quibus principaliter salus nostra dependet, sicut quod unus est Deus et tres sunt personae, quod Christus est verus Deus et verus homo, passus mortuus et quod resurrexit et ascendit, etc. |
[1] For some, on which our salvation principally depends, concern God and Christ in his humanity, such as that there is one God and three persons, that Christ is true God and true man, [that] he suffered and died, that he rose and ascended, etc. |
|
Aliae sunt veritates ex quibus non ita principaliter dependet salus humana, eas tamen oportet firma fide tenere, quia ex revelatione vel approbatione Dei, cui nullus debet catholicus dissentire, ad orthodoxorum notitiam pervenerunt, quibus mediantibus ipsas fideles posteri susceperunt. Huiusmodi veritates sunt quammplures in canone confirmato contentae in quo etiam multae habentur de creaturis et etiam de infidelibus hominibus, quae non directe sed indirecte quodammodo ad salutem humani generis pertinere noscuntur, sicut quod Pharao, Madianitae, Chananei et alii infideles quamplurimi multas terras occupaverunt et filios Israel multipliciter afflixerunt. |
[2] There are other truths on which human salvation does not principally depend in this way, yet which it is necessary to hold with sure faith because by the revelation or approval of God, from whom no catholic ought to dissent, they came to the knowledge of the orthodox, through whose mediation later believers received them. There are very many truths of this kind contained within the established canon, in which there are also many found about creatures, and even about unbelieving people, which are known to pertain to some extent, not directly but indirectly, to the salvation of human kind, such as that Pharaoh, the Medes, the Canaanites and very many other unbelievers occupied many lands and afflicted the children of Israel in many ways. |
|
Nonnullae etiam veritates huiusmodi extra praedictum canonem continentur quae tamen per revelationem vel approbationem divinam mediantibus apostolis ad catholicos pervenerunt, quia Christus, dum viveret in carne mortali cum apostolis, multa docuit eos et fecit coram eis quae tamen in biblia non habentur. Ex revelatione etiam Spiritus Sancti, qui secundum promissionem Christi docturus erat apostolos omnem veritatem, multa quae non habentur in sacris literis didicerunt quae postea catholicos docuerunt. Omnes veritates praedictas et quae ex eis consequentia necessaria omni tempore necessitatem habente possunt inferri dicunt isti catholicas esse tenendas. |
[3] Some truths of this kind are also preserved outside the canon and yet have become known to catholics by divine revelation or approval through the mediation of the apostles, because while he was living with the apostles in mortal flesh Christ taught them many things and did many things in their presence which are nevertheless not found in the bible. By the revelation of the Holy Spirit, who according to Christ's promise was going to teach them all truth, the apostles also learnt many things not found in the sacred scriptures and afterwards they taught them to catholics. They say that all the above truths and those that can be inferred from them by an inference having necessity at every time should be held to be catholic. |
|
Praeter veritates vero praedictas dicunt esse quasdam alias veritates quae ex solis contentis in Scriptura Divina et veritatibus quae ad nos per apostolos pervenerunt concludi non possunt, quae tamen ex praedictis veritatibus vel aliqua earum et quibusdam aliis veris quae in facto consistunt quae vere negari non possunt manifeste sequuntur. Et de talibus veritatibus exemplificare nituntur dicentes quod talis veritas est ista: regulae a sanctis patribus, scilicet Basilio, Benedicto, Augustino, et Francisco, institutae sunt licitae, meritoriae, et perfectae, quia licet ista veritas ex solis contentis in Scriptura Sacra et veritatibus quas ab apostolis ecclesia universalis accepit inferri non possit, cum de istis sanctis et gestis ac regulis institutis ab eis nulla in praedictis veritatibus mentio habeatur, ista tamen veritas simul ex Scripturis Divinis ac gestis et actibus praedictorum sanctorum, de quibus gestis et actibus christiano rationali sufficienter potest fieri fides, concluditur evidenter. Tales etiam veritates sunt istae: fides quam tenuit Augustinus est catholica reputanda; symbolum Athanasii est catholicum et fidele; sancta quatuor concilia generalia rite celebrata veritatem catholicam diffinierunt; et huiusmodi multae quae ex solis contentis in scriptura Divina Scriptura et doctrina apostolica inferri non possunt, cum Augustinus et Athanasius tunc non fuerint in rerum natura nec tunc illa concilia fuerint celebrata, ex contentis tamen in illis et aliis veris possunt concludi patenter. Tales veritates dicunt esse quamplurimas, quarum aliquae doctrinis autenticis sunt insertae, nonnullae vero in scriptis non habentur. Istas veritates non dicunt esse catholicas accipiendo vocabulum catholici stricte sed dicunt eas sapere catholicam veritatem, quia videlicet ex veritate catholica, stricte accipiendo catholicam veritatem, et veris aliis inferuntur. Et ideo dicunt quod large accipiendo veritates catholicas possunt veritates catholicae nuncupari. Et istas veritates quas dicunt sapere catholicam veritatem existimant ab omni fideli tenendas saltem implicite. |
Now in addition to the above truths they say that there are certain other truths which can not be inferred solely from what is contained in divine scripture and from the truths which have come to us through the apostles, yet which clearly follow from the above truths or from any one of them and certain other truths of fact which can not truly be denied. And they try to cite an example of such truths, saying that the following is such a truth: the rules established by the holy fathers, that is Basil, Benedict, Augustine, and Francis, are licit, meritorious, and perfect, because, although that truth can not be inferred solely from what is contained in holy scripture and from the truths which the universal church received from the apostles, since those saints and their deeds and the rules instituted by them are not mentioned among the aforesaid truths, yet that truth is inferred manifestly from the divine scriptures together with the deeds and acts of the aforesaid saints, deeds and acts in which trust can be established adequately for a reasonable christian. The following are also truths of this kind: the faith which Augustine held should be regarded as catholic; the Athanasian creed is catholic and sure; the four holy general councils properly celebrated defined catholic truth; and many [truths] of this kind which can not be inferred solely from what is contained in divine scripture and from apostolic teaching, since Augustine and Athanasius were not at that time among living creatures and those councils had not been celebrated then, yet they can be clearly inferred from things contained in them and other truths. They say that there are very many such truths, some of which have been inserted into authentic teachings, while some are not found in writing. They do not say that those truths are catholic, taking the word "catholic" strictly, but they say that they smack of catholic truth, because, that is, they are inferred from catholic truth, taking "catholic truth" strictly, and from other truths. And therefore they say that they can be called catholic truths, taking "catholic truths" liberally. And they believe that those truths which they say smack of catholic truth should be held, at least implicitly, by every believer. |
|
Adhuc sunt aliae veritates quas dicunt solummodo in facto consistere. Cuiusmodi sunt veritates de gestis ecclesiae et sanctorum quae in gestis, cronicis, et historiis fide dignis habentur, quas etiam asserunt a fidelibus minime respuendas. |
There are still other truths which they say exist only in fact. Truths about the deeds of the church and of the saints, which are found in accounts of deeds, in chronicles, and in histories worthy of trust, are of this kind, and they say that these too should not be rejected by the faithful. |
|
Ex his omnibus isti concludunt quod multae sunt veritates catholicae quae nec in Scriptura Sacra continentur explicite nec ex solis contentis in ea possunt inferri. Multae etiam sunt veritates aliae quas oportet certa credulitate fide tenere. |
From all of this they conclude that there are many catholic truths which are not explicitly contained in sacred scripture and can not be inferred solely from what is contained in it. There are also many other truths [besides catholic truths] which it is proper to hold with sure belief. |
Capitulum 3 |
Chapter 3 |
|
Discipulus Satis diffuse narrasti istam secundam sententiam, sed vellem scire an pro ipsa aliquae auctoritates vel rationes valeant allegari, ad probandum scilicet quod oporteat ad salutem firma credulitate adhaerere aliquibus veritatibus quae nec in literis sacris habentur nec ex solis contentis in eis necessario argumento possunt inferri. Utrum autem tales veritates stricte loquendo catholicae debeant reputari non curo quod investiges. |
Student You have set out that second opinion copiously enough, but I would like to know whether any texts or arguments can be brought forward for it, to prove, that is, that it is necessary for salvation to adhere with sure belief to some truths which are not found in sacred writings and can not be inferred by necessary argument solely from what is contained in them. However, whether such truths should strictly speaking be regarded as catholic I do not look to you to investigate. |
|
Magister Assertio de qua interrogas multis auctoritatibus et rationibus videtur posse probari. Hoc enim Innocentius tertius, ut habetur Extra, De celebratione missarum, c. Cum Marthae, testari videtur. Ait enim, "Multa tam de verbis quam de factis dominicis invenimus ab evangelistis omissa, quae apostoli vel supplevisse verbo vel facto expressisse leguntur." Et infra, "Credimus igitur quod formam verborum, sicut in canone reperitur, et a Christo apostoli et ab ipsis eorum acceperint successores." Ex his verbis colligitur quod quamvis forma conficiendi sacramentum eucharistiae nequaquam reperiatur secundum se totam in Scriptura Divina, tamen quod illam formam Christus tradiderit est credendum. Hoc etiam beatus Augustinus, sicut allegatum est supra, expresse sentire videtur, cum dicit, "Palam est quod in re dubia ad fidem valeat catholicae ecclesiae auctoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet episcoporum serie et tot populorum consensione firmatur." His verbis datur intelligi ut videtur quod ad fidem faciendam fidem sufficit auctoritas ecclesiae absque Scriptura Divina. |
Master The assertion about which you are asking seems provable by many texts and arguments. For Innocent III seems to attest to it, as we find in Extra, De celebratione missarum, c. Cum Marthae [col.636]. For he says, "We find many things omitted by the evangelists both about the words and the deeds of the Lord which, as we read, the apostles either supplied in words or expressed in their deeds.... Therefore we believe that the form of words, as it is found in the canon [of the mass], was received by the apostles from Christ and by their successors from them." We gather from these words that although the form of consecrating the sacrament of the eucharist is not found in divine scripture fully as it is, yet it should be believed that Christ handed on that form. As was argued above, Augustine also seems expressly to believe this, since he says [dist. 11, c.9; col.25], "It is clear that in a doubtful matter the authority of the catholic church avails for faith, an authority which is strengthened by the sees founded by the apostles, by the series of bishops who have succeeded them up to today and by the agreement of so many people." We are given to understand by these words that it seems that the authority of the church is sufficient for the establishment of faith without divine scripture. |
|
Item Agato papa, ut legitur dist. 19, c. Sic omnes, ait, "Sic omnes apostolicae sedis sanctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam ipsius divina voce Petri firmatae." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod omnes sanctiones apostolicae sedis sunt eiusdem auctoritatis cum scripturis beati Petri, quae inter Scripturas Divinas censentur. Ergo eis fides aequaliter est praebenda. Sed in sanctionibus apostolicae sedis veritates plures habentur quae in Scripturis Divinis minime sunt insertae. Ergo pluribus aliis veritatibus est firmiter adhaerendum. |
Again, as we read in dist. 19, c. Sic omnes [col. 60], Pope Agatho says, "All the sanctions of the apostolic see should be accepted as though affirmed by the divine voice of Peter himself." We are given to understand by these words that all the sanctions of the apostolic see are of the same authority as the writings of blessed Peter, and these are considered to be among the divine scriptures. Therefore faith should be shown to them equally. But many truths are found among the sanctions of the apostolic see which have not been inserted in the divine scriptures. Therefore we should adhere firmly to many other truths. |
|
Item Nicolaus papa, ut habetur dist. 22, c. 1, ait, "Qui autem Romanae ecclesiae privilegium ab ipso summo omnium ecclesiarum capite traditum auferre conatur hic proculdubio in haeresim labitur," et parum post, "Hic est dicendus haereticus." Ex quo datur intelligi quod qui non vult haereticus reputari necessario credere debet quod Romana ecclesia super omnes alias ab ipso Christo primatum accepit, de quo tamen in Scriptura Divina nulla fit mentio. Ergo veritates aliquae sunt credendae licet ex Scripturis Sacris inferri non possint. |
Again, as we find in dist. 22, c. 1, [col.73] Pope Nicholas says, "However, he who tries to remove the Roman church's privilege, conferred by that highest head of all churches, slips undoubtedly into heresy.... This person should be called a heretic." We are given to understand by this that he who does not want to be regarded as a heretic should believe necessarily that the Roman church received from Christ primacy over all others. Yet no mention is made of this in divine scripture. Some truths should be believed, therefore, even though they can not be inferred from the sacred scriptures. |
|
In fulcimentum autem assertionis eiusdem isti rationes adducunt, quarum prima ducit ad inconveniens, quia, si solis Scripturis Divinis et his quae ex solis contentis in eis possunt inferri adstringerentur christiani fidem indubiam adhibere, sequeretur quod negare liceret apostolos symbolum condidisse, beatum Petrum Romanum pontificem fuisse, sedem beati Petri de Antiochia Romam fuisse translatam, Romanos pontifices beato Petro successisse, cum de his in Scripturis Divinis nil legatur. Has tamen veritates universalis ecclesia hactenus tenuit, praedicavit, et docuit, et per consequens ecclesia universalis errasset, quod omnis catholicus pro inconvenienti debet habere. |
Moreover, to support that assertion they adduce arguments. The first of these leads to an irrationality because, if christians were bound to offer undoubting faith only to the divine scriptures and to those things which can be inferred solely from what is contained in them, it would follow that it would be permissible to deny that the apostles were the authors of the creed, that blessed Peter was Roman pontiff, that blessed Peter's see was transferred from Antioch to Rome, and that the Roman pontiffs succeeded Peter, since we read nothing about these in the divine scriptures. Yet the universal church has held, preached, and taught these truths up to this time, and consequently the universal church would have erred, something which every catholic ought to hold as irrational. |
|
Secunda ratio est haec. Non minus catholici tenentur determinationibus et diffinitionibus Romanorum pontificum, cum nihil contra fidem diffiniunt orthodoxam, credulitate indubia assentire quam astringantur eorum statutis quando nihil contra Dei voluntatem praecipiunt obedire. Sed omnibus statutis Romanorum pontificum quando nihil contra Dei praecipiunt voluntatem oportet cum omni humilitate et reverentia obedire, sicut per sacros canones, ut habetur dist. 12, c. 1 et c. Praeceptis, et alibi in decretis capitulis innumeris, constat aperte. Ergo determinationibus et diffinitionibus Romanorum pontificum, quando constat eos nihil contra fidem diffinire catholicam, oportet certissime adhaerere. Sed Romani pontifices multas veritates quae ex solo canone confirmato probari non possunt diffiniunt firmiter esse tenendas. Ergo de necessitate salutis oportet nonnullis veritatibus quae ex solis Scripturis Divinis probari non possunt fidem indubiam adhibere. |
A second argument is this. Catholics are no less bound to assent with undoubting belief to the determinations and definitions of Roman pontiffs when they define nothing against orthodox faith, than they are bound to obey their statutes when they command nothing against God's will. But it is necessary to obey with all humility and reverence all the statutes of Roman pontiffs when they command nothing against God's will, as is clearly established by the sacred canons, as we find in dist. 12, c. 1 [col. 27] and c. Praeceptis [col.27] and in numerous chapters elsewhere in the decretals. Therefore it is necessary to adhere most surely to the determinations and definitions of the Roman pontiffs when it is certain that they are defining nothing against catholic faith. But the Roman pontiffs determine that many truths which can not be proved from the confirmed canon alone should be firmly held. Out of necessity for salvation, therefore, it is proper to offer undoubting faith to some truths which can not be proved solely from the divine scriptures. |
|
Discipulus Affecto scire an isti assertores ponant exemplum de aliqua veritate quae firmiter sit tenenda quae tamen nec in Scripturis Divinis habetur nec ex solis Scripturis illis potest aperte probari. |
Student I desire to know whether those who assert this cite an example of some truth which should be firmly held yet which is not found in the divine scriptures and can not be clearly proved from those scriptures alone. |
|
Magister Multa exempla eorum iam tibi monstravi, videlicet quod apostoli symbolum condiderunt, quod beatus Petrus fuit Romanus episcopus pontifex, quod sedes beati Petri de Antiochia translata fuit Romam, quod beato Petro Romani episcopi successerunt. Aliud etiam ponunt exemplum de primatu Romanae ecclesiae, de quo in Divina Scriptura nulla fit mentio quia, licet de primatu beati Petri Scriptura Sacra expresse loquatur, quod tamen beatus Petrus Romanam rexit ecclesiam in eadem Scriptura minime reperitur, et ita de primatu Romanae ecclesiae nihil per solam eandem Scripturam potest ostendi, et tamen firmiter tenere debemus quod Romana ecclesia primatum habet super alias ecclesias universas. |
Master I have already shown you many of their examples, namely that the apostles were the authors of the creed, that blessed Peter was bishop of Rome, that blessed Peter's see was transferred from Antioch to Rome, and that the bishops of Rome succeeded blessed Peter. They also cite another example, concerning the primacy of the Roman church, of which no mention is made in divine scripture because, although sacred scripture speaks expressly about the primacy of blessed Peter, it is nevertheless not found in that scripture that blessed Peter ruled the Roman church, and so nothing can be shown about the primacy of the Roman church from that scripture alone, and yet we ought to hold firmly that the Roman church has primacy over all other churches. |
|
Discipulus De isto primatu Romanae ecclesiae supersede, quia de ipso postea aliquas quaestiones tibi movebo. Sed si isti assertores in aliqua alia ratione se fundant enarra. |
Student Pass over the primacy of the church of Rome because I will present you with some questions about it later. But tell me if those who make this assertion base themselves on any other argument. |
|
Magister Adhuc aliis rationibus satagunt se munire. Unde tertia ratio eorumdem est ista. Non in minori reverentia et honore debet haberi apostolorum doctrina quam eorum canones et statuta; sed canones et statuta apostolorum, sive ea in scriptis redegerint sive solo verbo ipsa servari mandaverint, firmiter sunt servanda; ergo et omnes veritates quas scripto vel verbo apostoli docuerunt tanquam verissime sunt habendae. Apostoli autem quamplurima docuerunt quae in scriptis minime reliquerunt; ergo aliquae veritates quae in scripturis canonicis non habentur verissimae sunt censendae, quibus per consequens oportet adhaesione certissima consentire. |
Master They try to fortify themselves with still other arguments. Their third argument is this. The teaching of the apostles should not be held in less reverence and honour than their canons and statutes; but the canons and statutes of the apostles, either those they collected in their writings or those they only orally ordered to be preserved, should be firmly preserved; therefore all the truths which the apostles taught in writing or orally should be considered as absolutely true. However, the apostles taught very many things which they did not leave in their writings; therefore some truths which are not found in the canonical scriptures should be considered absolutely true. Consequently, it is necessary to agree with these and to adhere most surely to them. |
|
Quarta ratio eorum est haec. Universalis ecclesia non potest errare, ipsa veritate testante quae ait apostolis Matthaei ultimo, "Vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi." Quae etiam pro fide Petri rogavit ne unquam deficeret; imo quicunque diceret ecclesiam universalem errare in articulum fidei sanctam ecclesiam catholicam vehementer impugnaret. Ecclesia autem universalis multas praedicat veritates quae nec in Scripturis Divinis habentur nec ex solis eis possunt inferri, sicut per exempla priora patet. Ergo et huiusmodi veritates firmiter sunt credendae. |
A fourth argument of theirs is this. The universal church can not err, as the Truth himself attests when he says to the apostles in the last chapter of Matthew [28:20], "I am with you always, to the end of the age." He also prayed for Peter that his faith would never fail [Luke 22:32]. Indeed anyone who was to say that the universal church was in error with regard to an article of faith would be violently attacking the holy catholic church. However, the universal church preaches many truths which are not found in the divine scriptures and can not be inferred from them alone, as is clear from the earlier examples. Therefore truths of this kind should be firmly believed. |
|
Quinta ratio est haec. Non minoris auctoritatis sunt scripta summorum pontificum et sanctorum doctorum quae pro sanis dogmatibus conscripserunt quam sint quaecunque chronicae et historiae, sive infidelium sive fidelium, quae extra Scripturam Sacram habentur; sed omnino fatuus censeretur qui omnes cronicas et historias extra canonem Bibliae reprobaret vel eas diceret minime approbandas. Tunc enim liceret omnia quae narrantur de summis pontificibus, imperatoribus, regibus, regnis, et aliis quibuscunque quae non inveniuntur in Biblia respuere et negare, quod inconveniens est censendum. Ergo multo magis scriptis summorum pontificum et sanctorum quae pro sanis dogmatibus conscripserunt est firmiter inhaerendum; in scriptis autem eorum plures veritates quae non reperiuntur in Biblia inseruntur; ergo et tales veritates sunt firmiter credende. |
A fifth argument is this. The writings composed by the highest pontiffs and holy doctors for the sake of sound doctrine are not of less authority than are any chronicles and histories, whether by unbelievers or believers, which are found outside sacred scripture; but a person who was to reject all the chronicles and histories outside the bible or was to say that they should not be approved would be considered completely foolish. For then it would be permissible to reject and deny everything which is narrated about highest pontiffs, emperors, kings, kingdoms, and anything else which is not found in the bible, and this should be considered irrational. [See Significant Variants, para. 2.] So much the more, therefore, should we adhere firmly to the writings composed by highest pontiffs and saints for sound doctrine; however, many truths that are not found in the bible are introduced into their writings; therefore, such truths should also be firmly believed. |
|
Discipulus Rationes et auctoritates quas pro secunda sententia adduxisti fortes mihi videntur. Et quamvis nolim quod in toto hoc opere manifestes quae est tua assertio quando contraria recitas et adversa, unum tamen in generali cupio scire, an scilicet quando illam assertionem quae tua est rationibus et auctoritatibus munire conaris, existimes omnes rationes et auctoritates quas allegas conclusionem tuam demonstrative probare. |
Student The arguments and texts which you have brought forward for the second opinion seem strong to me. And although I do not want you to make clear throughout this work what your own opinion is when you record contrary and opposed matters, yet there is one thing in general that I want to know and that is whether, when you try to support with arguments and texts that assertion which is your own, you think that all the texts and arguments that you bring forward prove your conclusion demonstratively. |
|
Magister Pro sententia quam reputo veram motiva quandoque demonstrativa, interdum probabilia tantum, nonnunquam vero solummodo apparentia, propter alios exercitandos aut probandos seu tentandos allego. |
Master For the opinion that I regard as true I bring forward reasons that are sometimes demonstrative, sometimes only probable, sometimes indeed only plausible, in order to exercise, test or try other people. |
Capitulum 4 |
Chapter 4 |
|
Discipulus Modus iste valde mihi placet quia per hoc saepe scientiam inflatorum experiar. Porro, cum quaesivi quibus veritatibus oporteat firmiter assentire, super quo diversas sententias retulisti, quarum prima habet convenienter dicere quod solummodo scriptoribus sacrarum literarum fides firmissima est adhibenda, secunda vero quae magis mihi placet concedere debet quod etiam aliis est credendum, ideo nunc interrogo quibus auctoriibus praeter scriptores bibliae est credendum. |
Student That way pleases me greatly because through it I may often put the knowledge of the haughty to the test. Next, since I sought to know which truths it is necessary firmly to assent to, about which you have reported different opinions, the first of which implies that the firmest faith should be offered only to the writers of the bible, and the second, which pleases me more, allows that others should also be believed, [See Significant Variants, para. 3.] I therefore now ask what writers in addition to the writers of the bible should be believed. |
According to the second opinion, what authorities should be believed besides the Bible? |
|
|
Magister Ad interrogationem tuam a diversis diversimode respondetur. Quidam enim dicunt quod universis conciliis generalibus et omnibus summis pontificibus in his quae diffiniuntur esse credenda et omnibus sanctis Scripturae Sacrae tractatoribus credere est necesse, licet ea quae dicunt per Sacram Scripturam nequeant demonstrare. Pro hac assertione videtur facere quod legitur dist. 15 c. 1, ubi de conciliis generalibus recipiendis habetur aperte, et etiam c. Sicut et c. Sancta Romana. De assertionibus vero summorum pontificum recipiendis habetur dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum et in pluribus aliis. De traditionibus autem sanctorum habetur dist. 15, c. Sancta. |
Master Different people reply to your question in different ways. For some people say that it is necessary to believe all general councils and all highest pontiffs, in respect of those things which are defined as needing to be believed, and all the saints who wrote on sacred scripture, even if they can not demonstrate what they say by sacred scripture. What we read in dist. 15, c. 1 [col.34], where we clearly find that general councils should be accepted, and c. Sicut [col.35] and c. Sancta Romana [col.35], seems to support this assertion. Moreover, we find [material] about accepting the assertions of highest pontiffs in dist. 19, c. Si Romanorum [col.58] and in many other chapters. We find [material] about the teachings of saints in dist. 15, c. Sancta [Romana] [col.35]. |
|
Alii vero praedictae assertioni non usquequaque consentiunt, asserentes quod licet assertionibus generalium conciliorum sit universaliter adhaerendum, licet etiam multis decretis seu decretalibus ac diffinitionibus Romanorum pontificum ac pluribus opusculis sanctorum doctorum pro eo quod omnia quae inveniuntur in eis constat esse consona catholicae veritati oporteat catholicos consentire, non tamen eo ipso quod Romani pontifices vel sancti tradunt aliquid esse credendum est hoc tanquam consonum veritati necesse accipere. |
But others do not entirely agree with the above point of view, affirming that although there should be universal adherence to the assertions of general councils and although it is necessary for catholics to agree with many decrees or decretals and definitions of Roman pontiffs and many works of learned saints on the grounds that it is certain that everything found in them is [in fact] in accord with catholic truth, yet it is not the case that just because the Roman pontiffs and the saints teach that something is to be believed it must [therefore] be accepted as being in harmony with the truth. |
|
Discipulus De generalibus conciliis et summis pontificibus intendo postea aliqua ad materiam istam spectantia indagare et ideo hic nihil loquaris de ipsis. Sed de sanctis obsecro resera quid praedicti sentiunt assertores. |
Student I intend to investigate later some matters pertaining to general councils and highest pontiffs and so would you say nothing about them here. But I do ask you to disclose what those who assert the above think about the saints. |
According to the second opinion, it is not always necessary to believe what has been said by the saints |
|
|
Magister De sanctis duas conclusiones affirmant. Quarum prima est quod non eo ipso quod aliquis sanctus aliquid opinatur esse credendum est a cunctis fidelibus tanquam veritati consonum approbandum. Secunda est quod non omnibus sententiis quae inveniuntur in sanctorum opusculis iam per ecclesiam divulgatis est firmiter adhaerendum. |
Master They affirm two conclusions about the saints. The first is that it is not the case that just because some saint opines that something should be believed, it should be approved by all believers as in harmony with the truth. The second is that not all opinions which are found in the works of the saints, even those published throughout the church, should be adhered to firmly. |
|
Prima conclusio probatur auctoritatibus sancti Augustini quae ponuntur dist. 9, c. Noli et c. Negare et c. Ego et c. Quis nesciat et c. Noli et c. Neque. In quibus manifeste asserit Augustinus quod nonnulla in opusculis sanctorum et suis inserta licet fidelibus iusto iudicio absque omni temeritate culpare. |
The first conclusion is proved from texts of St. Augustine included in dist. 9, c. Noli [col.17], et c. Negare [col.17] and c. Ego [col. 17] and c. Quis nesciat [col. 17] and c. Noli [col. 18] and c. Neque [col. 18]. Augustine clearly affirms in these that it is permissible for believers without any temerity to condemn by means of a just judgement some things inserted in the works of the saints and in his own works. |
|
Hoc etiam ratione moliuntur ostendere. Nam non est necesse putare aliquid esse verum propter hoc quod illi qui possunt errare hoc sentiunt. Nam propter solam estimationem illorum qui possunt approbare falsum pro vero non est eo ipso aliquid approbandum pro vero quod tales sic sentiunt. Sed sancti stante sanctitate possunt errare etiam contra catholicam veritatem. Ergo propter hoc quod sancti aliquid sentiunt esse verum non est necesse putare illud idem esse verum. Maior est aperta; minor exemplo et ratione probatur. Exemplo, inquam, de beato Augustino qui sanctus existens plurima scripsit et docuit contra catholicam veritatem quae et postmodum revocavit. Hoc etiam ratione probatur. Nam error qui pertinaciam non habet annexam non obviat sanctitati. Sed contingit aliquem errare contra catholicam veritatem absque omni pertinacia. Ergo non est inconveniens affirmare sanctos stante sanctitate posse errare contra catholicam veritatem; et ita non est necesse omnibus quae sancti dicunt firmiter adhaerere. |
They also try to show this by argument. For it is not necessary to think that something is true because of the fact that those who can err believe it. For just on the basis of the opinion of those who can approve of the false as true it is not for that reason necessary to approve of something as true which they think to be so. But saints can err even against catholic truth with their sanctity unshaken. Because the saints think that something is true, therefore, it is not necessary to think that it is indeed true. The major [premise] is clear; the minor is proved by example and by argument. By the example, I say, of blessed Augustine who, though a saint, wrote and taught many things against catholic truth which he later retracted. This is also proved by argument. For an error which is not joined to pertinacity does not prevent sanctity. But it is possible for someone to err against catholic truth without any pertinacity. It is not irrational to affirm, therefore, that with their sanctity unshaken saints can err against catholic truth; and so it is not necessary to adhere firmly to everything that the saints say. |
|
Secunda conclusio quam isti tenent est quod nec etiam omnibus sententiis que in sanctorum opusculis iam per ecclesiam divulgatis reperiuntur est firmiter adherendum, quod sic probare nituntur. Nemo debet contrariis assentire; sed sancti in suis operibus iam per ecclesiam divulgatis inter se inveniuntur contrarii etiam in his quae ad fidem et doctrinam apostolicam pertinere noscuntur. Nam ut habetur dist. 26 circa doctrinam beati Pauli dicentis quod oportet episcopum esse unius uxoris virum, id est non plurium, Hieronymus et Augustinus sententias contrarias protulerunt. Hinc est quod glossa dist. praedicta c. 1. dicit, "Male sensit hic Hieronymus; unde Augustinus eum corrigit in proximo capitulo." |
[See Significant Variants, para. 4.] The second conclusion they maintain is that not even all the opinions which are found in the works of the saints already published throughout the church should be adhered to firmly, and this they try to prove as follows. No one ought to assent to opposed [views], but in their works already published by the church saints are found to be opposed to each other, even in those matters that are known to pertain to apostolic faith and teaching. For as we find in dist. 26 [c.1 & c.2; col.95] Jerome and Augustine proffered opposing opinions about blessed Paul's teaching that it is proper for a bishop to be the husband of one wife, that is not of many [wives]. Hence the gloss on c. 1 of that distinction [s.v. post baptismum; col.128] says, "Jerome thought wrongly here and so Augustine corrects him in the next chapter." |
|
Isti etiam sancti, sicut patet in eorum epistolis et recitat glossa ad Galatas 2, de reprehensione qua beatus Paulus dicit beatum Petrum fuisse reprehensibilem contraria sentiebant. |
As is clear in their letters and is recorded in the gloss on Galatians 2, those saints also had opposing opinions about the reproof in which blessed Paul says that blessed Peter was reprehensible. |
|
Beatus etiam Cyprianus de baptismo haereticorum aliter quam beatus Augustinus sensit. Unde et beatus Augustinus eundem sanctum Cyprianum redarguit. Loquens enim de sancto Cypriano et aliis, ut habetur De consecratione dist. 4. c. Quomodo, ait, "Non ob aliud visum est quibusdam etiam egregiis viris antistibus Christi, inter quos praecipue beatus Cyprianus eminebat, non esse posse apud haereticos vel schismaticos baptismum Christi, nisi ubi quia non distinguebatur sacramentum ab effectu vel usu sacramenti, et quia eius effectu atque eius usus in liberatione a peccatis et cordis rectitudine apud haereticos non inveniebatur, ipsum quoque sacramentum illic non esse putabant." Haec est sententia beati Cypriani de sacramentis haereticorum, cuius contrarium Augustinus ibidem asserit. |
In addition, blessed Cyprian thought differently from blessed Augustine about the baptism of heretics, and so blessed Augustine contradicted St. Cyprian. For speaking about St. Cyprian and others he says, as we find in De consecratione, dist. 4, c. Quomodo [col.1377], "For no other reason has it seemed even to some distinguished men, priests of Christ, among whom blessed Cyprian is especially prominent, that Christian baptism can not exist among heretics and schismatics except because a sacrament was not distinguished from its effect or use, and because its effect and use were not found free from sin and with uprightness of heart among heretics they thought that the sacrament itself was also not there." This is the opinion of blessed Cyprian about sacraments [administered by] heretics, the opposite of which Augustine asserts in that place. |
|
Manifeste ergo sancti circa sacramenta ecclesiae contraria dogmatizant. Hinc dist. 32 para. Ad hoc vero legitur, "Sciendum vero est quod canones apostolorum, quorum auctoritate orientalis et ex parte utitur Romana ecclesia, et insignis martyr Cyprianus et 80 episcopi cum eodem baptisma haereticorum lavacrum diaboli appellant. Stephanus vero et Cornelius martyres et pontifices Romani et venerabilis Augustinus in libro De baptismate, eundem Cyprianum et praefatos episcopos ob hanc causam vehementer redarguunt, affirmantes baptisma sive ab haeretico sive a schismatico ecclesiastico more celebratum esse ratum." Ex his colligitur quod Cyprianus et Augustinus de sacramentis ecclesiae contraria tradiderunt, quae etiam reperiuntur in scriptis eorum, sicut ex praedictis et capitulo eiusdem Cypriani quod habetur 1, q. 1, c. Si quis patet aperte. Non igitur omnibus assertionibus in operibus sanctorum inventis debet catholicus adhaerere. |
Clearly therefore saints propound opposing dogmas about the sacraments of the church. Hence we read in dist. 32, para. Ad hoc vero [col.118], "It should indeed be known that the canons of the apostles, to whose authority the eastern church and in part the Roman church yield, and the worthy martyr Cyprian and 80 bishops with him call baptism by heretics the bath of the devil. But Stephen and Cornelius, martyrs and bishops of Rome, and the venerable Augustine in his book On baptism vehemently contradicted Cyprian and those bishops on that account, asserting that a baptism celebrated according to ecclesiastical custom, whether by a heretic or a schismatic, is valid." We gather from these [words] that Cyprian and Augustine handed down opposing opinions about the sacraments of the church, and these [opinins] are indeed found in their writings, as is quite clear from the above and from the chapter from Cyprian which is found in 1, q. 1, c. Si quis [col.382]. It is not the case, therefore, that a catholic must adhere to all the assertions found in the works of the saints. |
|
Discipulus De sanctorum libris tam aperte probasti quod non sunt in omnibus approbandi quod nequeo dissentire. Ex quo sequi videtur quod nihil auctoritatis remansit in eis quia, sicut instrumenta ita etiam scripturae, quaecunque quae in parte inveniuntur falsae in totum reprobantur vel saltem suspectae redduntur. Unde et de Scripturis Sacris, ut habetur dist. 9, c. Si ad scripturas, asserit Augustinus quod si ad eas admissa fuerint vel officiosa mendacia nihil auctoritatis remanebit in eis. Dic ergo quomodo isti respondent ad id quod de approbatione opusculorum sanctorum, inter quae etiam opuscula Cypriani et Augustini et Hieronymi numerantur, dist. 15 legitur manifeste. |
Student You have proved so clearly of books by saints that they do not have to be approved in their entirety that I can not disagree. It seems to follow from this that no authority remains in them because, just as with instruments so also with writings, whichever of them is found to be partly false is wholly rejected, or at least rendered suspect. Hence Augustine even asserts about the sacred scriptures, as we find in dist. 9, c. Si ad scripturas [col.17], that if even dutiful falsehoods be admitted to be in them nothing authoritative will remain in them. Tell me, therefore, how they reply to what we clearly read in dist. 15 about the approval of the works of saints, among which are certainly numbered the works of Cyprian, Augustine and Jerome. |
|
Magister Dicunt isti quod non omnia opuscula sanctorum quantum ad omnia contenta in eis sunt per ecclesiam approbata. Constat enim quod in libris beati Augustini multa inveniuntur contraria veritati, quae etiam ipse postmodum retractavit, et ita illa minime approbantur. Et sicut est de libris beati Augustini ita est de libris multorum aliorum sanctorum quod nequaquam quo ad omnia approbantur. Omnes tamen libri sanctorum, de quibus in distinctione praedicta fit mentio, approbantur quo ad omnia quae nec per auctorem nec per alios sunt correcta. |
Master They say that not all the works of saints, in respect of everything contained in them, have been approved by the church. For it is certain that many things opposed to the truth are found in the books of blessed Augustine and that he himself in fact later retracted these, and so they should not be approved. And just as it is with blessed Augustine's books, so it is also with the books of many other saints, that they are not approved in their totality. Nevertheless, all the books of the saints of whom mention is made in the aforesaid distinction are approved with respect to everything which is corrected neither by the author nor by others. |
|
Discipulus Isto modo liceret approbare libros quorumlibet haereticorum, quia liceret approbare libros eorum quo ad omnia quae per catholicos minime sunt correcta. Omnem enim veritatem est licitum approbare. |
Student In that way it would be permissible to approve the books of any heretics at all, because it would be permissible to approve everything in their books in so far as it had not been corrected by catholics. For it is permissible to approve every truth. |
|
Magister Dicunt isti quod non est simile de libris haereticorum et libris sanctorum, quia in libris haereticorum falsa principaliter pertractantur et asseruntur; pauca autem vera inveniuntur inserta. In libris vero sanctorum vera principaliter intenduntur et pauca reperiuntur contraria veritati; et ideo propter pauca inutilia non sunt tanta utilia respuenda. |
Master They say that there is no analogy between the books of heretics and the books of saints, because in the books of heretics it is chiefly falsehoods that are investigated and asserted, while there are few truths incorporated in them. But in the books of saints it is chiefly truths to which attention is paid and there are few things found that are opposed to the truth; and therefore such greatly beneficial things should not be rejected because of a few that are not beneficial. |
|
Discipulus Adhuc explica mihi an isti putent omnes veritates in libris sanctorum inventas catholicas esse censendas. |
Student Explain to me further whether they think that all truths found in the books of saints should be considered catholic. |
|
Magister Nullatenus arbitrantur omnes veritates tractatas in libris sanctorum esse catholicas. Unde dicunt quod sancti aliqua tanquam catholica, quaedam autem tanquam necessaria non ad fidem spectantia, nonnulla vero tanquam probabilia tradiderunt, et hoc ultimum ex auctoritatibus Augustini quae dist. 9 ponuntur, scilicet c. Noli et c. Negare et c. Neque probatur aperte. Cui etiam concordat Anselmus lib. 1 Cur Deus homo dicens, "Eo pacto quo de peccato quod omnia quae dico sic volo accipi, videlicet ut, si quid dixero quod maior non confirmet auctoritas, quamvis illud ratione probare videar, non alia certitudine accipiatur, nisi quod interim ita mihi videtur donec Deus mihi melius aliquo modo revelet." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Anselmus nonnulla tanquam probabilia solummodo dicere intendebat. |
Master They do not think that all the truths treated in the books of saints are catholic. Hence they say that the saints handed down some things as catholic, some things, however, as necessary but not pertaining to faith, and some things indeed as probable; and this last is clearly proved from the texts of Augustine which are included in dist. 9, that is c. Noli [col.17], c. Negare [col.17] and c. Neque [col.18]. Anselm is in accord with this in book 1 of Cur deus homo [ch.2] when he says, "It is on this condition that I want everything I say to be received, that is, let anything I say which a greater authority does not confirm not be received as a certainty, even if I seem to prove it by reason, but only that it seems this way to me for the time, until God in some way gives me a better revelation." We gather from these words that Anselm was intending to say some things as probable only. |
Capitulum 5 |
Chapter 5 |
|
Discipulus Ex his quae narrasti magnam occasionem cogitandi mihi dedisti de ipsis, tamen plura quaerere nunc nequaquam nunc intendo. Sed quot generibus veritatum oporteat christianos catholicos assentire secundum sententiam praedictorum absque omni probatione tibi placeat indicare. |
Student You have given me a fine opportunity to think about these things by what you have said, yet I do not intend to seek to know more now. But would you please indicate without any proof how many kinds of truth, according to the opinion of the aforesaid, it is necessary for catholic christians to assent to. |
According to the second opinion, there are five kinds of truth Catholics must accept |
|
|
Magister Tenent isti quod quinque sunt genera veritatum quibus non licet christianis aliqualiter dissentire. Primum est earum quae in Scriptura Sacra traduntur vel ex eis argumento necessario possunt inferri. Secundum est earum quae ab apostolis ad nos per succedentium relationem vel scripturas fidelium pervenerunt, licet in Scripturis Sacris non inveniantur insertae nec ex solis eis possint necessario argumento concludi. Tertium est earum quas in fide dignis cronicis et historiis vel relationibus fidelium invenimus. Quartum est earum quae ex veritatibus primi generis et secundi tantummodo vel ex eis vel alterius earum una cum veritatibus tertii generis possunt manifeste concludi. Quintum est earum quas Deus praeter veritates revelatas apostolis aliis revelavit vel etiam inspiravit aut noviter revelaret vel etiam inspiraret, quae revelatio vel inspiratio ad universalem ecclesiam absque dubitatione pervenit vel etiam perveniret. |
Master They hold that there are five kinds of truth from which christians are not permitted to dissent in any way. The first is those which are handed down in sacred scripture or can be inferred from them by necessary argument. The second is those which have come to us from the apostles through the report of those who succeeded them or through the writings of the faithful, even if they may not be found included in the sacred scriptures and can not be inferred from them alone by necessary argument. The third is those which we find in chronicles or histories or the accounts of believers which are worthy of trust. The fourth is those which can be clearly inferred from truths of the first and second kind alone or from them or one or other of them together with truths of the third kind. The fifth is those which, in addition to the truths revealed to the apostles, God revealed to or, also, inspired in others or would newly reveal or even inspire, a revelation or inspiration which has come or, also, would come to the universal church without any doubt. |
|
Discipulus Quamvis non intenderim de istis te amplius molestare, quia tamen unum genus veritatum de quibus nullus dubitat catholicus omisisti edissere quare isti inter alias veritates illas quae in decretalibus et diffinitionibus ecclesiae reperiuntur nequaquam enumerant? |
Student Although I did not intend to trouble you further about these matters, nevertheless because you omitted one kind of truth about which no catholic has doubts, set down why they do not count among other truths those which are found in the decretals and definitions of the church? |
|
Magister Ideo de illis veritatibus mentionem non faciunt specialem quia putant quod ecclesia rite procedens nullam veritatem determinat aut diffinit nisi in Scriptura Sacra aut traditionibus apostolorum aut cronicis, historiis, vel revelationibus indubitabilibus fidelium vel in his quae sequuntur ex praedictis aut aliquo praedictorum vel in revelatione seu inspiratione divina modo debito manifestata valeat se fundare. Et ideo omnes veritates quas determinat aut diffinit ecclesia sub aliquo quinque generum praefatorum comprehendi noscuntur. |
Master They do not make particular mention of those truths for this reason, that they think that when the church proceeds correctly it determines or defines no truth unless it can base itself on sacred scripture, on the traditions of the apostles, on indubitable chronicles, histories or revelations of believers, or on those things which follow from these or any one of them, or on divine revelation or inspiration manifested in the due way. And all the truths that the church determines or defines, therefore, are known to be included under some of the above five kinds. |
|
Discipulus Illa quae refers urgent me contra propositum praeconceptum interrogare. Quid de approbatione canonis bibliae et aliorum librorum postea conscriptorum ac omnium aliorum quae ecclesia noscitur approbare assertores sentiunt memorati? |
Student What you are reporting urges me to ask questions about the above proposition. What do those who affirm the above position think about the approval of the canon of the bible, of other books composed later and of all the others which the church is known to approve? |
|
Magister Hoc pro certissimo tenent quod non est in potestate ecclesiae quaecunque ad placitum approbare vel etiam improbare, sed ecclesia rite approbando quaecunque in aliquo praedictorum quinque generum veritatum se fundavit. Unde et approbationem quantum ad rem, licet quantum ad nomen, a determinatione vel diffinitione in proposito non discernunt. |
Master They hold this as quite certain, that it is not in the power of the church to approve or also to reject anything at all as it pleases, but when the church has approved anything correctly it has based itself on some of the above five kinds of truth. Hence also in the present case they do not make any real distinction, although there is a nominal distinction, between approval on the one hand or determination or definition on the other. |
Capitulum 6 |
Chapter 6 |
|
Discipulus De veritatibus catholicis nonnulla quaesivi. Nunc vero ad haereses eis contrarias transeamus. In primis autem affecto scire si diffinitionem haeresis datam ab aliquo invenisti. |
Student I have sought to know some things about catholic truths. But now let us pass on to the heresies opposed to them. First of all, however, I want to know if you have found a definition of heresy given by anyone. |
WHAT IS A HERESY? |
|
|
Magister Quidam diffiniunt vel describunt haeresim dicentes quod haeresis est dogma falsum fidei contrarium orthodoxae. In qua descriptione loco generis ponitur dogma falsum, quia omnis haeresis est dogma falsum sed non omne dogma falsum debet haeresis reputari. Quod enim omnis haeresis sit dogma falsum beatus Hieronymus, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Inter haeresim, testatur aperte dicens, "Haeresis perversum dogma habet." Dogma autem perversum est dogma falsum; haeresis ergo est falsum dogma. Sed non omne dogma falsum est haeresis. Nam secundum Augustinum in Enchiridion in multis rebus errare nullum aut minimum est peccatum; sed haeresis sicut infidelitas gravissimum est peccatum. Ergo non omnis error est haeresis. Ex quo concluditur quod non omne dogma falsum est haeresis cum omnis error dogma falsum sit censendum. Dogma ergo falsum in descriptione haeresis loco generis non incongrue pro genere ponitur secundum istos; fidei autem contrarium orthodoxae ponitur loco differentiae; per hoc enim ab aliis falsis quae non sunt haereses convenienter haeresis est distincta. Nam alia dogmata falsa non sunt contraria fidei orthodoxae et ideo haereses minime nuncupantur. |
Master Some people do define or describe heresy, saying that a heresy is a false doctrine contrary to orthodox faith. "False doctrine" is put in this definition in place of a genus because every heresy is a false doctrine, but not every false doctrine should be regarded as a heresy. For, as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Inter heresim [col.997], Jerome clearly attests that every heresy is a false doctrine, saying, "A heresy involves a wrong doctrine." A wrong doctrine, however, is a false doctrine; therefore a heresy is a false doctrine. But not every false doctrine is a heresy. For according to Augustine in the Enchiridion [bk.2, ch.63], it is no sin or a very small one to err in many things; but like infidelity a heresy is the heaviest sin. Therefore not every error is a heresy. We conclude from this that not every false doctrine is a heresy, since every error should be considered a false doctrine. According to them, therefore, "false doctrine" is not unsuitably put in the description of heresy in place of a genus; "contrary to orthodox faith" is put as a difference; for through this a heresy is suitably distinguished from other falsities which are not heresies, since other false doctrines are not contrary to orthodox faith, and therefore are not called heresies. |
|
Capitulum 7 |
Chapter 7 |
|
Discipulus Ex verbis beati Hieronymi allegatis moveor ad quaerendum an beatus Hieronymus cum dicit "haeresis perversum dogma habet " intenderit diffinitionem aut descriptionem haeresis assignare. |
Student I am moved by the words of Jerome that you brought forward to seek to know whether when blessed Jerome says, "A heresy involves a wrong doctrine", he intended to assign a definition or description of heresy. |
|
Magister Dicunt illi quorum ad praecedentem interrogationem sententiam recitavi quod large accipiendo perversum pro omni qualicunque pernicioso seu nocivo beatus Hieronymus non intendit ibi haeresim diffinire. Multa enim sunt dogmata perniciosa quae haereses nullatenus sunt censendae. Si autem perversum accipiatur magis stricte pro illo quod est perniciosum in doctrina religionis, quemadmodum secundum beatum Augustinum unum genus mendacii est quod invenitur in doctrina religionis, sic potest concedi quod beatus Hieronymus ibi intendit descriptionem haeresis assignare, quia sic dogma perversum accipitur pro dogmate falso fidei contrario orthodoxae. |
Master Those whose opinion of the preceding question I have recorded say that taking "wrong" broadly, as any kind of pernicious or harmful thing, Jerome did not intend there to define heresy. For there are many pernicious doctrines which should not be considered heresies. If "wrong" is taken more strictly, however, as that which is pernicious in the teaching of religion, just as according to blessed Augustine [in Liber de mendacio] one kind of falsehood is that which is found in religious teaching, so it can be granted that blessed Jerome intended to assign a description of heresy there, because in this way "wrong doctrine" is taken for false doctrine contrary to orthodox faith. |
Capitulum 8 |
Chapter 8 |
|
Discipulus Libenter scirem an omnes concorditer reputent haeresim praedicto modo describi debere. |
Student I would gladly know whether everyone is united in the thought that heresy should be described in the above way. |
"New" heresies and "new" Catholic truths |
|
|
Magister Sunt quidam qui non putant haeresim taliter describendam. Qui tali rationi inniti videntur: multa dogmata falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae fiunt noviter haereses quamvis non de novo incipiant esse falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae; ergo priusquam debeant haereses reputari sunt dogmata falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae; ex quo evidenter concluditur quod non omnia dogmata falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae debent haereses reputari. Antecedens videtur evidens quia multae sunt novae haereses quamvis prius fuerint falsa dogmata fidei contraria orthodoxae. Urbanus enim papa, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Notandum, ait, "Sanctus Augustinus cum legatis sanctae Romanae ecclesiae et cum sanctis episcopis suis Pelagium et Caelestinum novam haeresim in sanctam Dei ecclesiam introducentes excommunicavit." Ex quibus verbis colligitur quod Pelagius et Caelestinus opinionem quae erat tunc nova haeresis in ecclesiam induxerunt, et tamen illa opinio prius fuit fidei contraria orthodoxae. Ergo illa opinio seu assertio priusquam esset haeresis fuit dogma falsum fidei contrarium orthodoxae, et ita illa non est descriptio convertibilis cum haeresi. Hinc Gratianus 24, q. 1, para. 1 ait, "Omnis haereticus aut iam damnatam haeresim sequitur aut novam confingit." Et glossa ibidem dicit, "Tu dic indistincte quod sive veterem," scilicet haeresim, "sive novam sequatur excommunicatus est, licet sit occultus." Glossa etiam ibidem ait, "Si scirem praelatum meum esse haereticum quia novam haeresim fingit nec tamen praedicaret si me excommunicaret celebrarem in occulto." Ex his habetur aperte quod fuerunt et possunt esse novae haereses quae tamen non sunt nova falsa fidei contraria orthodoxae; et per consequens non omne falsum fidei contrarium orthodoxae debet inter haereses computari. |
Master There are some people who think that heresy should not be described in such a way. They seem to rely on the following argument. Many false doctrines contrary to orthodox faith newly become heresies although they do not begin from the start to be falsities contrary to orthodox faith; therefore they are false doctrines contrary to orthodox faith before they should be regarded as heresies; we conclude evidently from this that not all false doctrines contrary to orthodox faith should be regarded as heresies. The antecedent seems evident because many heresies are new although previously they were false doctrines contrary to orthodox faith. For as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Notandum [col.1000], Pope Urban says, "St. Augustine, together with legates of the holy Roman church and his own holy bishops, excommunicated Pelagius and Celestine for introducing a new heresy into the holy church of God." We gather from these words that Pelagius and Celestine introduced into the church an opinion that at that time was a new heresy, and yet that opinion was previously contrary to orthodox faith. Before that opinion or assertion was a heresy, therefore, it was a false doctrine contrary to orthodox faith, and so that description is not convertible with heresy. Hence Gratian says in 24, q. 1, para. 1 [col.966], "Every heretic either follows a heresy already condemned or invents a new one." And at that place [s. v. quod autem; col.1382] the gloss says, "Say without distinction that whether he follows a new one," that is a heresy, "or an old one he is excommunicated, even if he is hidden." The gloss also says at that point [s. v. qui vero; col.1382], "If I knew that my prelate was a heretic because he invented a new heresy and yet he was not preaching it, I would celebrate in secret if he were to excommunicate me." We clearly find from these that there have been and can be new heresies, which, nevertheless, are not new falsities contrary to orthodox faith; and therefore not every falsity contrary to orthodox faith should be counted among the heresies. |
Capitulum 9 |
Chapter 9 |
|
Discipulus His non obstantibus diffinitio seu descriptio haeresis supradicta congrua mihi videtur, et ideo qualiter praedictis obiectionibus respondetur indicare digneris. |
Student Notwithstanding these [points] the above definition or description of heresy seems suitable to me. Would you deign to indicate, therefore, how reply is made to the above objections. |
|
Magister Qui praedictam descriptionem assignant dupliciter respondere conantur. Primo enim dicunt quod aliqua haeresis dicitur nova non quia in rei veritate incipiat noviter esse haeresis, sed quia noviter est asserta, illo modo loquendi quo aliquae veritates, etiam necessarie necesse, dicuntur esse novae non quin prius fuerint veritates sed dicuntur novae quia sunt noviter publice dogmatizatae. Tali etiam modo aliqui errores dicuntur esse novi non quin prius fuerint in rei veritate errores sed dicuntur novi quia noviter sunt asserti. Et iste modus loquendi ex verbis Gelasii papae, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. 1, colligitur evidenter. Ait enim, "Achatius non est factus inventor novi erroris, sed veteris imitator." Cui concordat Felix papa eisdem c. et q. c. Achatius dicens, "Achatius non fuit novi vel proprii inventor erroris." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod si Achatius fuisset primus sui erroris assertor fuisset reputatus novi erroris inventor, et tamen idem error antea fuisset error censendus. Multi enim errores antequam asserantur ab aliquo ab aliis non errantibus reprobantur, et per consequens antequam habeant assertorem seu defensorem sunt errores censendi; et tamen secundum unum modum loquendi si aliquis inciperet eos defendere dicerentur novi errores. Consimili etiam modo loquendi quidam Athenienses, ut habetur Actuum 17, dicebant de beato Paulo, "Novorum daemoniorum videtur annunciator esse ", appellantes "nova daemonia" non quia putabant quod antea non fuissent daemonia sed quia putabant antiqua daemonia a Paulo noviter praedicari. Ita dicunt aliqui aliquas haereses vocari novas propter novitatem assertionis vel defensionis quia aliquis eas noviter asserit vel defendit quae tamen prius in rei veritate fuerunt haereses reputandae. |
Master Those who assign the above description try to reply in two ways. For they say firstly that any heresy is said to be new not because in truth of fact it begins newly to be a heresy, but because it is newly asserted, in that way of speaking by which any truths, even those that are necessary, are said to be new not in that they were not truths before but are said to be new because they have been newly propounded in public. In that way too some errors are said to be new not because in truth of fact they were not errors before but they are said to be new because they have been newly asserted. We clearly gather this way of speaking from the words of Pope Gelasius found in 24, q. 1, c. 1 [ col.966]. For he says, "Achatius did not become the inventor of a new error but the imitator of an old one." Pope Felix agrees with this in the same causa and quaestio c. Achatius [col.966] when he says, "Achatius was not the inventor of a new error or of his own error." We are given to understand by these words that if Achatius had been the first to affirm his error he would have been regarded as the inventor of a new error, and yet that error had been considered an error previously. For before they are affirmed by someone many errors are condemned by others who are not in error, and consequently they should be considered errors before they have an assertor or a defender; and yet according to one way of speaking, if someone were to begin to defend them they would be called new errors. In a similar way of speaking too certain Athenians said of blessed Paul, as we find in Acts 17[:18], "He seems to be a proclaimer of new demons", calling them "new demons" not because they thought that they had not been demons before but because they thought that they were old demons newly preached by Paul. In this way some people say that certain heresies are called new because of a new assertion or defence of them, because someone newly asserts or defends those which nevertheless should previously have been regarded in truth of fact as heresies. |
|
Aliter respondent praedictis, ut dicunt, minime obviando quod quemadmodum, ut notat in glossa Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. 1, fides aliquando dicitur credulitas secundum quam credimus quod non videmus, et alio modo dicitur collectio articulorum fidei, licet etiam dicatur aliis sex modis ut habetur ibidem, sic tam error quam haeresis potest dupliciter dici. Potest enim error uno modo dici actus vel habitus quo quis errat, alio modo ipsum obiectum talis habitus vel actus errandi vocatur error. Haeresis etiam potest accipi uno modo pro actu vel habitu haeresis, alio modo dicitur obiectum talis habitus vel actus. Primo modo accipiendo haeresim et consimiliter errorem multae possunt esse novae haereses et novi errores quae vel qui antea haereses vel errores non fuerunt. Secundo modo accipiendo haeresim non dicuntur novae haereses nisi quia noviter sunt assertae, sicut dictum est in responsione priori, et consimiliter de multis erroribus potest dici. |
Otherwise they reply to the above, as they say, without opposing it, that just as faith is sometimes said to be the credence by which we believe what we do not see, and in another way is said to be a collection of articles of faith, as we find in the gloss on Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. 1 [col.5] - although it may also be used in another six ways as we find in the same place - so error as well as heresy can be used in two ways. For in one way an error can be said to be the act or disposition by which someone errs, in another way the very object of such a disposition or act of erring is called an error. A heresy too can be taken in one way for the act or disposition of heresy, in another way it is said to be the object of such a disposition or act. If we take heresy and likewise error in the first way, there can be many new heresies and new errors which were not heresies or errors before. If we take heresy in the second way, heresies are not said to be new unless they have been newly affirmed, as was said in the earlier reply, and a similar thing can be said about many errors. |
Capitulum 10 |
Chapter 10 |
|
Discipulus Ut mihi videtur pertractata difficultas de haeresibus novis magis est vocalis quam realis, et ideo circa ipsam non amplius immoreris. Sed an aliter obiiciatur contra descriptionem haeresis supradictam noli celare. |
Student It seems to me that the difficulty about new heresies that has been investigated is more verbal than real, and so would you not dwell upon it any longer. But do not hide from me whether there is any other objection to the above description of heresy. |
|
Magister Per verba beati Hieronymi quae ponuntur 24, q. 3, c. Haeresis dicta descriptio improbari videtur. Ait enim, "Haeresis autem Graece ab electione dicitur, quod scilicet eam sibi unusquisque eligat disciplinam quam putat esse meliorem." Ex quibus verbis duo dantur intelligi, quorum primum est quod ex quo haeresis ab electione dicitur nullum falsum antequam quis ipsum elegerit opinari vel dogmatizare aut asserere debet inter hereses computari. Secundum est quod cum non solum infideles sed etiam catholici et fideles eligant disciplinam quam putant esse meliorem, non solum assertiones infidelium sed etiam assertiones fidelium debent haereses appellari. Et ex utroque istorum concluditur quod descriptio haeresis saepedicta est incongrue assignata. |
Master That description seems to be disproved by the words of blessed Jerome which are put in 24, q. 3, c. Haeresis [col.997]. For he says, "Heresy is taken from the Greek for 'choice', that is, that each person chooses for himself that teaching which he thinks to be the better." We are given to understand two things from these words. The first is that from the fact that heresy is taken from choice no falsity should be counted among the heresies before someone chooses to propound, opine or assert it. The second is that since not only unbelievers but also catholics and believers choose the teaching that they think is better, the assertions not only of unbelievers but also of believers should be called heresies. And we conclude from both of these that the oft-cited description of heresy has been unsuitably assigned. |
Capitulum 11 |
Chapter 11 |
|
Discipulus Ista obiectio fortis mihi videtur, sed qualiter respondeatur ad ipsam non differas explicare. |
Student That seems to me to be a strong objection, but would you not delay explaining how reply is made to it. |
|
Magister Dicunt quod verba sanctorum sane intelligenda sunt. Quorum intellectus saepe ex diversis dictis eorum accipi debet, et ideo non semper intelligenda sunt sicut in superficie sonant; et ideo dicunt quod licet praedicta verba Hieronimi prima facie videantur praetendere quod ante electionem actualem nullum falsum debeat haeresis appellari et quod omnis disciplina quam quis putat meliorem, sive sit vera sive falsa, possit ad haeresim pertinere, non tamen sic intelligit Hieronymus. Nam Hieronymus, scribens praedicta verba super epistolam ad Galatas, inter schisma et haeresim differentiam nititur assignare, dicens, "Inter schisma et haeresim hoc esse arbitror quod haeresis perversum dogma habeat, schisma post episcopalem discessionem ab ecclesia pariter separat;" et parum post, "caeterum nullum est schisma nisi sibi aliquam haeresim confingit, ut recte ab ecclesia recessisse videatur." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod secundum beatum Hieronymum haeresis sine perverso dogmate contrario doctrinae ecclesiae minime invenitur. Quare verba Hieronimi cum dicit, "Haeresis autem Graece ab electione", etc, de electione non cuiuscunque disciplinae sed disciplinae falsae contrariae disciplinae ecclesiae debent intelligi et non debent intelligi de electione actuali sed etiam magis potentiali qua quis potest disciplinam falsam contrariam disciplinae ecclesiae eligere quam putat meliorem. |
Master They say that the words of the saints have to be understood soundly. An understanding of them often has to be taken from a variety of their writings and so they should not always be understood in a superficial sense. And therefore they say that although the above words from Jerome seem prima facie to allege that no falsity should be called a heresy before there has been an actual choice and that every teaching that someone thinks is better, whether it be true or false, can pertain to a heresy, yet Jerome does not understand them in this way. For in writing the above words about the letter to the Galatians, Jerome tries to mark out the difference between schism and heresy by saying [in 24, q. 3, c. Inter heresim (col.997)], "I think that there is this between schism and heresy, that a heresy contains wrong teaching, a schism likewise separates one from the church after an episcopal separation.... but there is no schism unless someone invents some heresy for himself, with the result that he rightly seems to have withdrawn from the church." We are given to understand by these words that according to blessed Jerome heresy is not found without wrong teaching contrary to the teaching of the church. Therefore Jerome's words, when he says, "Heresy [is taken] from the Greek for choice" etc, should be understood not of any teaching at all but of false teaching contrary to the teaching of the church and should not be understood of an actual choice but more of a potential [choice] by which someone can choose a false teaching which is contrary to the teaching of the church [but] which he thinks is better. |
Capitulum 12 |
Chapter 12 |
|
Discipulus Video quod verba Hieronymi sic intellecta praedictae descriptioni haeresis non repugnant. Ex qua sequi videtur quod omnes assertiones quae Scripturae Sacrae quomodolibet adversantur sunt inter haereses computandae, sed an omnes christiani hoc sentiant et affirment ignoro. Quare si aliqui hoc non sentiunt nequaquam occultes. |
Student I see that understood in this way Jerome's words do not oppose the above description of heresy. It seems to follow from this that all assertions which are in any way at all opposed to sacred scripture should be counted among the heresies, but I do not know whether all christians think and affirm this. Do not conceal it, therefore, if some people do not think this. |
|
Magister Fuerunt Manichaei qui vetus testamentum minime receperunt; aliqui etiam haeretici multa in novo testamento respuerunt. |
Master There were the Manichees who did not accept the Old Testament; some heretics have also rejected many things in the New Testament. |
|
Discipulus Illi de quibus nunc loqueris fuerunt haeretici ab ecclesia condemnati, de quibus non curo audire. Sed libenter cognoscerem an sint aliqui catholici vel aliqui ab ecclesia nullatenus condemnati qui non reputent omnes assertiones haereticas quae Sacrae Scripturae quomodolibet adversantur. |
Student Those about whom you are now speaking were condemned as heretics by the church and I do not care to hear about them. But I would willingly learn whether there are any catholics or any people not condemned by the church who do not regard as heretical all assertions that are in any way opposed to sacred scripture. |
|
Magister Sunt quidam moderni dicentes quod multae sunt assertiones quae in rei veritate adversantur Scripturae Divinae quia tamen ab ecclesia minime sunt condemnatae non sunt inter haereses numerandae, quemadmodum multae sunt veritates consonae Scripturae Divinae quae, quia tamen non sunt per ecclesiam diffinitae vel determinatae, non sunt inter veritates catholicas computandae. Sed postquam assertiones Scripturae Divinae contrariae fuerunt per summum pontificem condemnatae pro haeresibus sunt habendae, et veritates consonae Scripturae Divinae postquam fuerint per summum pontificem diffinitae seu determinatae catholicae sunt censendae. Propter quod dicunt quod papa potest facere novum articulum fidei et eadem ratione potest facere quod assertio quae prius non erat haereticalis postea per condemnationem suam esse haereticalis incipiat. |
Master There are some moderns who say that there are many assertions which in truth of fact are opposed to divine scripture and which should nevertheless not be numbered among heresies because they have not been condemned by the church, just as there are many truths in harmony with divine scripture which nevertheless should not be counted among catholic truths because they have not been defined or determined by the church. But after assertions contrary to divine scripture have been condemned by the highest pontiff they must be held to be heresies, and after truths in harmony with divine scripture have been defined or determined by the highest pontiff they must be considered catholic. For this reason they say that the pope can make a new article of faith and, by the same argument, can bring it about that an assertion which was not previously heretical begins to be heretical after his condemnation. |
Can the pope make a new article of faith? |
|
|
Discipulus Haec opinio multis prioribus assertionibus quae videbantur mihi probabiles apparet omnino repugnans. Ideo si in rationibus vel auctoritatibus satagat se fundare declara. |
Student This opinion seems completely contrary to many earlier assertions which seemed probable to me. Make clear, therefore, if it tries to base itself on arguments or authorities. |
|
Magister In duobus, ut audio, praedicti se fundant. Primo in capitulo Alexandri 3 Extra, De haereticis, Cum Christus ubi, ut dicunt, fecit novum articulum, scilicet Christus est Deus et homo, quia ante tempora Alexandri praedicti licebat, ut dicunt, non credere Christum esse Deum et hominem. Secundo fundant se in constitutione domini Iohannis Cum inter nonnullos in qua diffinitur deinceps esse haereticum dicere Christum et eius apostolos non habuisse aliquid nec in speciali nec in communi, et per consequens antea non fuit haereticum. Ex quibus sequitur quod papa potest novos articulos fidei facere et potest facere quod assertiones quae non fuerunt haereticae esse haereticae de novo incipiant. |
Master Those who hold it base themselves, as I hear, on two [examples]. Firstly, [they base themselves] on Alexander III's Chapter Cum Christus in Extra, De haereticis [col.779] where, as they say, he made a new article [of faith], namely that Christ is God and man, because it was permissible before Alexander's time, as they say, not to believe that Christ was God and man. Secondly, they base themselves on Lord John's constitution Cum inter nonnullos, in which it is defined that hereafter it is heretical to say that Christ and his apostles did not have anything either individually or in common, and consequently it was not heretical before. It follows from these that the pope can make new articles of faith and can bring it about that assertions which were not heretical begin to be newly heretical. |
|
Discipulus Exemplum adductum de constitutione sanctissimi patris Iohannis papae 22 peto quod nullatenus hic pertractes, quia, ut dixi, postea de tota doctrina eiusdem quaestiones tibi movebo. Sed si pro praedicta opinione aliquas rationes alias cogitasti profer easdem. |
Student I ask you not to investigate here the example you brought forward from the constitution of the most holy father, Pope John XXII, because later on, as I have said, I will produce some questions for you about all of his teaching. But if you have thought of some other arguments for the aforesaid opinion put them forward. |
|
Magister Aliter potest opinio memorata muniri. Primo sic: pro assertione haeresis est quis tanquam haereticus condemnandus; sed multae fuerunt assertiones falsae de quibus assertores earum, antequam fuerunt ab ecclesia condemnatae, non fuerunt tanquam haeretici condemnandi; postquam autem dictae assertiones fuerunt ab ecclesia condemnatae, fuerunt assertores earum tanquam haeretici condemnandi; ergo tales assertiones ante damnationem ecclesiae non fuerunt inter haereses computandae quae tamen post damnationem pro haeresibus fuerunt habendae; et per consequens eadem assertio quae primo non erat haeresis per condemnationem ecclesiae haeresibus numeratur. Quare eadem ratione eadem assertio quae primo non est catholica postea per approbationem ecclesiae fit catholica. Huiusmodi autem approbatio et damnatio spectat ad summum pontificem; ergo summus pontifex de assertione non catholica potest facere catholicam, et de assertione non haeretica potest facere haereticam; et ideo novum articulum fidei facere potest. |
Master That opinion can be fortified in other ways. Firstly, as follows: anyone should be condemned as a heretic for the assertion of a heresy; but there have been many false assertions the affirmers of which ought not to have been condemned as heretics before [those assertions] were condemned by the church; after the said assertions have been condemned by the church, however, their affirmers should be condemned as heretics; therefore such assertions, which after their condemnation should be considered as heresies, should not be reckoned among the heresies before their condemnation by the church; and, consequently, the same assertion which at first was not a heresy is numbered among the heresies because of its condemnation by the church. By the same argument, therefore, the same assertion which at first is not catholic, may later be catholic through the approval of the church. Approval or condemnation of this kind, however, pertains to the highest pontiff; therefore the highest pontiff can make a catholic assertion of one which is not catholic, and can make heretical an assertion which is not heretical; and therefore he can make a new article of faith. |
|
Maior istius rationis est manifesta; minor exemplis probatur apertis. Nam Graeci negantes Spiritum Sanctum procedere a Filio ante assertionis damnationem eorum non fuerunt heretici reputati; qui tamen post damnationem eiusdem inter haereticos deputantur. Assertores etiam opinionis Ioachim a concilio generali damnatae post damnationem haeretici iudicantur, ipse tamen abbas Ioachim, quamvis ante damnationem assertionem eandem tenuerit, non fuit haereticus, ut habetur Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica c. Damnamus. Similiter qui post constitutionem Alexandri 3 quae habetur Extra, De haereticis c. Cum Christus tenuerint quod Christus non est aliquid secundum quod homo fuerunt haeretici iudicandi secundum quod glossa notat ibidem, qui tamen antea pro haereticis minime habebantur. Patet igitur quod pro nonnullis assertionibus non sunt assertores ante damnationem haeretici reputandi qui tamen post damnationem inter haereticos computantur. |
The major [premise] of this argument is manifest; the minor is proved by clear examples. For the Greeks, who deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, were not regarded as heretics before the condemnation of their assertion, yet after its condemnation they were considered to be among the heretics. Those too who affirm Joachim's opinion which was condemned by a general council were judged to be heretics after its condemnation, yet Abbot Joachim himself was not a heretic, as we find in Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Damnamus [col.6], although he maintained the same assertion before its condemnation. Similarly those who, after Alexander III's constitution which is found in Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum Christus [col.779], held that Christ is not anything as a man, should have been judged as heretics, according to what the gloss notes at that point [s. v. sub anathemate; col.1671]. Yet before that they were not considered as heretics. It is clear, therefore, with regard to some assertions that their affirmers should not be regarded as heretics before their condemnation, yet after their condemnation they are counted among heretics. |
|
Secundo sic. Ille ad quem pertinet autentice diffinire quae assertio catholica, quae haeretica est censenda, de assertione non catholica catholicam et de assertione non haeretica haereticam facere potest, quia aliter diffinitio sua nihil videretur penitus operari plus quam diffinitio vel determinatio doctoris qui per auctoritates vel rationes declarat et probat quae assertio in rei veritate est catholica et quae haeretica aestimanda. Sed ad summum pontificem non solum per modum docentis vel doctrinae sed etiam autentice pertinet diffinire quae assertio catholica quaeve haeretica est censenda. Ergo summus pontifex de assertione non catholica catholicam et de assertione non haeretica haereticam facere potest. |
Secondly as follows: He to whom it pertains to define by authority which assertion should be considered catholic and which heretical can make catholic an assertion which is not catholic and heretical an assertion which is not heretical, because otherwise his definition would seem to have no more effect at all than the definition or determination of a teacher who declares and proves by authorities or arguments which assertion should in truth of fact be regarded as catholic and which as heretical. But it pertains to the highest pontiff to define not only by way of teaching or doctrine but also by authority which assertion should be considered catholic or which heretical. Therefore the highest pontiff can make catholic an assertion which is not catholic and heretical an assertion which is not heretical. |
Capitulum 13 |
Chapter 13 |
|
Discipulus Istae duae rationes apparentiam habere videntur, tamen conclusio est mihi difficilis ad tenendum. Unde si aliqui asserunt contrarium tibi placeat explicare. |
Student Those two arguments seem plausible, yet the conclusion is difficult for me to hold. If some people affirm the opposite, therefore, would you please set it forth. |
|
Magister Sunt nonulli dicentes quod sicut quantum ad ea quae spectant ad fidem nostram et nequaquam ex voluntate humana dependent non potest summus pontifex nec etiam tota ecclesia Dei de assertione non vera facere veram nec de assertione non falsa facere falsam, ita non potest de assertione non catholica facere catholicam nec de assertione non heretica facere hereticam; et ideo non potest novum articulum fidei facere nec de non haeresi potest facere haeresim quoquo modo, quia sicut catholicae veritates absque omni approbatione ecclesiae ex natura rei sunt immutabiles et immutabiliter verae, ita immutabiliter sunt catholicae reputandae et consimiliter sicut haereses absque omni damnatione ecclesiae sunt falsae ita absque omni damnatione ecclesiae sunt haereses. |
Master There are some people who say that just as with respect to those things that pertain to our faith and do not depend on human will, the highest pontiff can not, nor can even the whole church of God, make true an assertion that is not true nor false an assertion that is not false, so he can not make catholic an assertion that is not catholic nor heretical an assertion that is not heretical; and therefore he can not make a new article of faith nor in any way at all make a heresy of what is not a heresy, because just as without any approval by the church catholic truths are immutable and immutably true by the very nature of things so they should be regarded as immutably catholic, and similarly just as heresies are false without any condemnation by the church so they are heresies without any condemnation by the church. |
|
Discipulus Ista sententia magis me allicit et ideo si potest rationibus confirmari eas non differas allegare. |
Student That opinion attracts me more, and so if it can be confirmed by arguments do not hesitate to bring them forward. |
|
Magister Ista sententia rationibus paucis ostenditur quarum prima est haec. Si aliqua veritas est catholica aut est dicenda catholica quia a Deo revelata vel quia in Scripturis Divinis contenta vel quia ab ecclesia universali recepta vel quia sequitur ex illis aut ex aliquo illorum quae sunt divinitus revelata et in Scripturis Divinis inventa et ab ecclesia universali recepta vel quia a summo pontifice approbata. |
Master That opinion is shown by a few arguments of which the first is this. [A] If any truth is catholic it should be called catholic [Ai] either because it has been revealed by God, [Aii] or because it is contained in the divine scriptures, [Aiii] or because it has been accepted by the universal church, [Aiv] or because it follows from those things or some of those things that have been divinely revealed and found in the divine scriptures and accepted by the universal church, [Av] or because it has been approved by the highest pontiff. |
|
Si aliqua veritas ideo est catholica quia est a Deo revelata et revelatio divina nullatenus dependet ex approbatione summi pontificis nec ex approbatione totius ecclesiae, ergo approbatio summi pontificis nihil facit ad hoc quod talis veritas sit vere catholica. |
[Ai] Now if some truth is catholic because it has been revealed by God and that divine revelation does not depend on the approval of the highest pontiff nor on the approval of the whole church, the approval of the highest pontiff, in that case, adds nothing to the fact that such a truth is truly catholic. |
|
Si detur secundum, scilicet quod aliqua veritas est catholica quia in Divinis Scripturis inserta, et constat quod talem veritatem inseri in Scripturis Divinis ex nulla approbatione ecclesiae vel papae dependet, ergo talis veritas absque omni approbatione tali inter veritates catholicas est numeranda. |
[Aii] If the second is granted, namely that some truth is catholic because it is inserted in the divine scriptures, and it is certain that the insertion of such a truth in the divine scriptures does not depend on any approval by the church or pope, that truth should therefore be numbered among catholic truths without any such approval. |
|
Si detur tertium, scilicet quod aliqua veritas est catholica quia ab ecclesia universali recepta, quaerendum est quare ecclesia universalis talem recipit veritatem: aut quia sibi divinitus revelatur vel etiam inspiratur, et tunc absque tali receptione ecclesiae vere est catholica quia divinitus revelatur vel etiam inspiratur; aut eam recipit universalis ecclesia quia eam in Divinis Scripturis invenit, et tunc adhuc absque tali receptione est catholica iudicanda; aut recipit eam universalis ecclesia quia per experientiam vel rationem naturalem eam cognoscit, quod de multis veritatibus catholicis nullatenus dici potest, et tunc etiam ecclesia in faciendo aliquam veritatem catholicam rationi vel experientiae inniteretur, quod dici non potest. Sequeretur enim quod ecclesia universalis omnem veritatem geometricam et omnes alias quarumcunque scientiarum demonstrative probatas posset veritatibus catholicis aggregare; ex quo sequeretur quod omnes assertiones falsas huiusmodi veritatibus naturaliter notis contrarias posset ecclesia universalis inter haereses computare et omnem assertorem cuiuscunque assertionis falsae veritati naturaliter notae contrariae tanquam haereticum condemnare, quod est inconveniens reputandum. Aut talem veritatem recipit universalis ecclesia quia sibi placet, quod dici non potest quia tunc ecclesia universalis in recipiendo aliquam veritatem et faciendo eam catholicam inniteretur solummodo humanae voluntati, et ita fides nostra esset in voluntate hominum. Cum tamen asserat Apostolus quod fides nostra non est in sapientia hominum 1 ad Corinthios 2 et multo fortius non est in voluntate hominum. Ecclesia igitur universalis nullam recipit veritatem tanquam catholicam nisi quia divinitus revelatur vel quia in sacris literis invenitur. Talis autem veritas etiam si nulla esset ecclesia vere esset catholica. |
[Aiii] If the third is granted, namely that some truth is catholic because it has been accepted by the universal church, it should be asked why the universal church receives such a truth: [Aiiia] either because it is divinely revealed to it or also inspired in it, and then it is truly catholic without such acceptance by the church because it is divinely revealed or even inspired; [Aiiib] or the universal church accepts it because it finds it in the divine scriptures, and then again it should be judged as catholic without any such acceptance; [Aiiic] or the universal church accepts it because it knows it by experience or natural reason - which can not be said about many catholic truths - and then also in making some truth catholic the church would be relying on reason or experience, and this can not be said. For it would follow that the universal church could add every geometrical truth and everything else proved demonstratively by any science at all to catholic truths; from this it would follow that the universal church could count as among the heresies all false assertions of this kind that were contrary to naturally known truths and could condemn as a heretic everyone who affirms any false assertion of this kind which is contrary to any naturally known truth, and this should be regarded as irrational. [Aiiid] Or the universal church accepts such a truth because it pleases it, and this can not be said because then the universal church would rely only on human will in accepting some truth and making it catholic, and so our faith would rest on on human will. Yet since the apostle affirms in 1 Cor. 2[:5] that our faith does not rest on human wisdom, much more is it so that it does not rest on human will. The universal church accepts no truth as catholic, therefore, unless it is revealed divinely or is found in the sacred writings. Such a truth, however, would be truly catholic even if there were no church. |
|
Si detur quartum, scilicet quod aliqua veritas est catholica quia sequitur ex illis vel aliquo illorum quae sunt divinitus revelata et in Scripturis Divinis inserta et ab ecclesia universali recepta, et palam est quod propter approbationem ecclesiae non magis potest ex eis inferri. Ergo per talem approbationem non fit catholica, sed ante fuit catholica. |
[See Significant Variants, para. 5.] [Aiv] If the fourth is granted, namely that some truth is catholic because it follows from those things or some of those things which have been divinely revealed and inserted in the divine scriptures and accepted by the universal church, it is also clear that it can not be inferred from them more because of the church's approval. It would not be made catholic because of such approval, therefore, but it was catholic before that. |
|
Si detur quintum, scilicet quod ideo aliqua veritas est catholica quia est a summo pontifice approbata, tunc quaerendum est an summus pontifex veritatem aliquam approbando innititur revelationi divinae vel Scripturis Sacris aut doctrinae universalis ecclesiae, et quodcunque istorum detur sequitur quod summus pontifex per approbationem suam non facit talem veritatem esse catholicam sed talem veritatem fuisse et esse catholicam determinat et diffinit. Vel summus pontifex approbando aliquam veritatem propriae prudentiae vel voluntati innititur, et si hoc dicatur sequitur quod propter talem approbationem summi pontificis non est aliqua veritas pro catholica acceptanda, quia fides nostra nec in sapientia nec in voluntate hominis potest consistere. |
[Av] If the fifth is granted, namely that some truth is catholic because it has been approved by the highest pontiff, then it should be asked whether in approving the truth the highest pontiff relies on divine revelation or on the sacred scriptures or on the teaching of the universal church, and whichever of these is granted it follows that the highest pontiff does not make such a truth catholic by his approval, but he determines and defines that such a truth was and is catholic. Or in approving some truth the highest pontiff relies on his own prudence or will, and if this is said it follows that the truth should not be accepted as catholic because of this approval by the highest pontiff because our faith can not rest on the wisdom or will of a man. |
|
Patet igitur quod nulla veritas est catholica nisi quia divinitus revelata vel quia in Scripturis Divinis inserta vel quia per certitudinem ecclesiae universali innotuit vel quia ex aliquo illorum necessario argumento concluditur. Nullum autem praedictorum ex approbatione summi pontificis vel etiam ecclesiae noscitur dependere. Ergo per approbationem talem nulla veritas catholica fieri potest, sed per talem approbationem aliqua veritas fuisse et esse catholica diffinitur. Et ita summus pontifex non facit aliquam assertionem esse catholicam vel haerticam, sed per approbationem suam determinat et diffinit veritates quas approbat esse et fuisse catholicas et per condemnationem suam determinat et diffinit assertiones quas reprobat esse et fuisse haereticas. Et ita non facit novum articulum fidei sed noviter diffinit aliquem articulum pertinere et pertinuisse ad catholicam veritatem, et ita talis veritas, quamvis noviter diffiniatur esse catholica, prius tamen fuit catholica. |
It is clear therefore that no truth is catholic unless it has been divinely revealed or has been inserted in the divine scriptures or has become known to the universal church as a certainty or because it is inferred by necessary argument from any of those. None of these, however, is known to depend on the approval of the highest pontiff or also of the church. Therefore no truth can be made catholic through such approval, but through such approval a truth is designated as having been and being catholic. And so the highest pontiff does not make any assertion catholic or heretical, but by his approval he determines and defines truths that he approves as being and having been catholic and by his condemnation he determines and defines assertions that he condemns as being and having been heretical. And so he does not make a new article of faith but newly defines some article as pertaining and having pertained to catholic truth, and so even if such a truth is newly defined as catholic, it was nevertheless catholic before. |
|
Secunda ratio est hec. Si aliqua veritas est catholica solummodo quia est a Romano pontifice approbata, aut ergo est catholica quia est a Romano pontifice sive explicite sive implicite approbata aut est tantummodo catholica quia est a Romano pontifice explicite approbata. Si detur primum sequitur quod pontifex Romanus non potest facere novum articulum fidei de aliqua veritate quae antea necessaria existebat quia omnes veritates divinitus revelatae, in Scripturis Sacris insertae et quas unversalis ecclesia recipit et quae sequuntur ex aliqua vel aliquibus praedictarum fuerunt antea explicte vel implicite per Romanos pontifices approbatae. Ipsi enim totam fidem ecclesiae approbaverunt et per consequens implicite approbaverunt omnia quae sequuntur quia, sicut qui unum dicit dicit omnia quae sequuntur ex illo, ita qui unum approbat approbat omnia quae sequuntur ex illo. Si detur secundum, scilicet quod ideo aliqua veritas solummodo dicitur catholica quia est a Romano pontifice explicite approbata, ergo tales veritates "Christus mortuos suscitavit", "Christus fuit Deus et homo", "Deus omnia praescit", et huiusmodi non essent catholicae reputandae nisi essent a Romano pontifice explicite approbatae, quod pro inconvenienti videtur habendum. |
[B] A second argument is this. If some truth is catholic only because it has been approved by the Roman pontiff, it is as a result catholic [Bi] either because it has been approved either explicitly or implicitly by the Roman pontiff or [Bii] it is catholic only because it has been approved explicitly by the Roman pontiff. [Bi] If the first is granted, it follows that the Roman pontiff can not make a new article of faith from any truth that was necessary beforehand, because all truths divinely revealed, inserted in the sacred scriptures, accepted by the universal church and following from some one or some of those have been explicitly or implicitly approved earlier by Roman pontiffs. For they have approved the whole faith of the church and, as a consequence, have approved implicitly everything which follows [from it], because just as he who says one thing says everything which follows from it, so he who approves one thing approves everything which follows from it. [Bii] If the second is granted, however, namely that some truth is said to be catholic only because it has been explicitly approved by a Roman pontiff, such truths as "Christ raised the dead", "Christ was God and man", "God foreknows everything", and the like should not have been regarded as catholic unless they had been explicitly approved by a Roman pontiff, and it seems that this should be considered irrational. |
|
Per istas itaque rationes ostenditur quod summus pontifex non potest facere novum articulum fidei nec de veritate non catholica potest facere catholicam. Ex quo concludunt isti quod Romanus pontifex de assertione non haeretica non potest facere haereticam quia omni assertioni catholicae contradicit assertio haeretica et econverso quia, sicut si una contradictoriarum est vera altera est falsa et econverso, ita si una contradictoriarum est catholica altera est haeretica; sed sicut probatum est Romanus pontifex non potest de veritate non catholica facere catholicam, ergo nec de assertione non haeretica potest facere haereticam. |
And so it is shown by these arguments that the highest pontiff can not make a new article of faith and can not make catholic a truth that is not catholic. They conclude from this that a Roman pontiff can not make heretical an assertion that is not heretical because an heretical assertion contradicts every catholic assertion, and vice versa, because just as if one of [two] contradictories is true the other is false, and vice versa, so if one of [two] contradictories is catholic the other is heretical. But just as it has been proved that a Roman pontiff can not make catholic a truth that is not catholic, nor can he, therefore, make heretical an assertion that is not heretical. |
|
Tertia ratio est ista. Si ideo solummodo aliqua assertio est inter haereses computanda quia est a Romano pontifice vel etiam ab ecclesia condemnata, aut ergo quia damnata sive implicite sive explicite aut solum quia damnata explicite. Si detur primum, sequitur quod omnis assertio quae potest licite damnari est modo haeresis, quia omnis talis est iam per ecclesiam et Romanos pontifices, qui totam fidem approbando omnem falsitatem contrariam damnaverunt, implicite vel explicite condemnata. Si detur secundum, scilicet quod aliqua assertio ideo solummodo est haeretica quia explicite condemnata, ergo ista assertio, "Christus non est homo", non erat haeretica antequam esset per ecclesiam condemnata, quod isti pro manifesto maximo inconvenienti habent. |
[C] A third argument is this. If an assertion is reckoned among the heresies only because it has been condemned by a Roman pontiff or also by the church, this is therefore [Ci] because it has been condemned either implicitly or explicitly or [Cii] only because it has been condemned explicitly. [Ci] If the first is granted it follows that every assertion which can permissibly be condemned is now a heresy, because every such [assertion] has already been condemned implicitly or explicitly by the church and by the Roman pontiffs who by approving the whole of faith have condemned every contrary falsity. [Cii] If the second is granted, namely that any assertion is heretical only because it has been explicitly condemned, then the assertion, "Christ is not a man", was not heretical before it was condemned by the church, and they hold this as clearly irrational. |
|
Quarta ratio quae eis demonstrativa videtur est haec. Omnis assertio cuius pertinax defensator est vere haereticus est vere haeresis; sed omnes pertinaces defensatores assertionum quae possunt per ecclesiam rite et legitime tanquam haereses condemnari sunt vere haeretici, licet eorum assertiones non sint de facto explicite et sub forma propria ab ecclesia condemnatae; ergo tales assertiones ante damnationem huiusmodi vere sunt inter haereses numerandae. Maior est manifesta quia nemo est haereticus nisi propter haeresim cui adhaeret. Minor auctoritatibus beati Augustini probatur, qui, ut habetur 24, q. 3, c. Dixit apostolus et c. Qui in ecclesia, asserit manifeste quod qui sententiam falsam ac perversam et qui morbidum aliquid et pravum sapiunt et corrigi nolunt sunt heretici; sed omnis assertio que potest per ecclesiam rite damnari est falsa, perversa, morbida et prava; ergo omnis pertinax defensator talis assertionis, licet non sit de facto explicite per ecclesiam condemnata, est vere hereticus. Ex his concludunt isti quod ecclesia non potest facere de assertione non heretica hereticam, sed ecclesia aliquam heresim condemnando determinat et diffinit eam fuisse et esse hereticam. |
[D] A fourth reason, which seems demonstrative to them, is this. Every assertion is truly a heresy if a pertinacious defender of it is truly a heretic; but all pertinacious defenders of assertions which can rightly and legitimately be condemned by the church as heresies are truly heretics, even if their assertions have not in fact been condemned explicitly and in that exact form by the church; such assertions, therefore, should truly be reckoned among the heresies before a condemnation of this kind. The major [premise] is manifest because no one is a heretic except on account of a heresy to which he adheres. The minor [premise] is proved by texts from blessed Augustine who manifestly affirms, as we find in 24, q. 3, c. Dixit apostolus [col.998] and c. Qui in ecclesia [col.998], that those who hold a false and perverse opinion and those who hold something unwholesome and evil and refuse to be corrected are heretics; but any assertion that can rightly be condemned by the church is false, perverse, unwholesome and evil; every pertinacious defender of such an assertion, therefore, even if in fact it has not been explicitly condemned by the church, is truly a heretic. They conclude from this that the church can not make heretical an assertion that is not heretical, but, by condemning any heresy, the church determines and defines that it has been and is heretical. |
Capitulum 14 |
Chapter 14 |
|
Discipulus Istae ultimae rationes apparent mihi fortes et tamen rationes pro prima sententia videntur difficiles; et ideo refer quomodo respondetur ad ipsas. |
Student Those last arguments seem strong to me, and yet the arguments for the first opinion seem difficult. Set forth, therefore, how reply is made to them. |
|
Magister Ad primam illarum respondent secundae sententiae assertores dicentes quod sicut saepe aliquis est haereticus et tamen quia est tantummodo occultus haereticus non debet tanquam haereticus iudicari, ita saepe aliquis est haereticus quia haeresi pertinaciter adhaeret et tamen quia non est certum explicite quod assertio sua est et fuit haeretica, antequam explicite innotuerit ecclesiae quod assertio sua est et fuit haeretica, non debet tanquam haereticus condemnari. Postquam autem per diligentem considerationem innotuerit ecclesiae quod assertio sua est haeretica si pertinax invenitur debet tanquam haereticus condemnari. |
Master In response to the first of them those who affirm the second opinion say that, just as often someone is a heretic and yet ought not be judged as a heretic because he is only a secret heretic, so often someone is a heretic because he clings pertinaciously to a heresy and yet because it is not explicitly certain that his assertion is and was heretical he should not be condemned as a heretic before it has become explicitly known to the church that his assertion is and was heretical. After it has become known to the church by careful reflection, however, that his assertion is heretical, he should be condemned as a heretic if he is found to be pertinacious. |
|
Discipulus Ista responsio mihi videtur apparens nisi quod dubito de qua ecclesia isti loquuntur. |
Student That reply seems clear to me, except that I am uncertain of which church they are speaking about. |
|
Magister Ipsi loquuntur de ecclesia quae est concilium generale vel papa quia non sufficit in hoc casu ad damnationem alicuius quod innotescat alicui alteri quam concilio generali vel papae quod talis assertio fuerit et sit haeretica. |
Master They are speaking about the church which is a general council or a pope, because in this case it does not suffice for someone's condemnation that it becomes known to anyone other than a general council or a pope that such an assertion was and is heretical. |
|
Discipulus Dic quomodo respondent ad exempla de Graecis et Ioachim et illis qui dixerunt Christum non esse aliquid secundum quod homo. |
Student Tell me how they reply to the examples of the Greeks and Joachim and those who have said that Christ is nothing as a man. |
|
Magister Dicunt quod assertiones illae antea fuerunt haereticae, pertinaces etiam assertores earum fuerunt haeretici, quia tamen antea non innotuerat ecclesiae quod eorum assertiones erant haereticae non debuerunt tanquam haeretici condemnari, sed postea debuerunt tamquam haeretici condemnari. |
Master They say that those assertions were heretical before, and those who affirmed them pertinaciously were also heretics, yet because it had not earlier become known to the church that their assertions were heretical they should not have been condemned as heretics, but afterwards they should have been condemned as heretics. |
|
Discipulus Intelligo responsionem eorum ad rationem illam. Dicas ergo quomodo respondent ad secundam. |
Student I understand their reply to that argument. Would you tell me therefore how they reply to the second. |
|
Magister Respondent quod licet ad summum pontificem non solum per modum doctrinae sed etiam autentice pertineat diffinire quae assertio catholica, quae haeretica est censenda, non tamen potest facere de veritate non catholica veritatem catholicam nec de assertione non haeretica haereticam valet efficere. Quo tamen non obstante, diffinitio sua plus operatur quam determinatio doctoris, quia post determinationem doctoris licet cuilibet, sicut prius, contrarium opinari et publice opinando tenere; hoc autem non licet post determinationem summi pontificis. Aliud etiam operatur quia post diffinitionem rectam summi pontificis licet cuilibet episcopo et inquisitori haereticae pravitatis contra tenentes contrarium illius quod rite per summum pontificem diffinitum extitit procedere iuxta canonicas sanctiones, nisi tales offerrent se ad probandum summum pontificem erronee diffinisse, in quo casu esset ad generale concilium recurrendum. Post determinationem autem cuiuscumque doctoris non licet episcopis et inquisitoribus pravitatis haereticae contra tenentes contrarium procedere magis quam ante. |
Master They reply that although it pertains to the highest pontiff to define not only by means of teaching but also by authority which assertion should be considered catholic and which heretical, yet he can not make catholic a truth which is not catholic nor is he able to make heretical an assertion which is not heretical. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this, his definition has more effect than the determination of a doctor because after the determination of a doctor anyone at all is permitted, just as before, to opine, and to maintain publicly by opining, the opposite; this is not permitted, however, after a determination by the highest pontiff. It also has another effect because after a correct definition by the highest pontiff any bishop or inquisitor into heretical wickedness is permitted to proceed in accord with canonical laws against those holding the opposite of what has been rightly defined by the highest pontiff, unless such people bring themselves forward to prove that the highest pontiff has made an erroneous definition, in which case recourse should be had to a general council. After a determination by any doctor at all, however, bishops and inquisitors into heretical wickedness are not permitted to proceed against those holding the contrary more than they were before. |
Capitulum 15 |
Chapter 15 |
|
Discipulus Licet quaedam retuleris de quibus admiror, unde et de eis postea interrogationem habebo, tamen conclusio principalis secundae sententiae videtur mihi probabilis, et miror quod aliquis tenet quod papa potest facere novum articulum fidei. Tamen qualiter respondetur ad c. Extra, De haereticis, Cum Christus indica mihi. |
Student Although you have recounted some things at which I wonder - and I will as a result question you about them later - the main conclusion of this second opinion does nevertheless seem probable to me, and I wonder that anyone holds that the pope can make a new article of faith. For all that, indicate to me how reply is made to the chapter Cum Christus in Extra, De hereticis [col.779]. |
|
Magister Volo te scire quod illa allegatio est quorundam canonistarum, de quibus nonnulli theologi scandalizantur quando vident eos de theologicis difficultatibus se intromittere ultra verba theologorum quae in scriptis suis inveniunt aliquid ex suo ingenio proferendo. Quia enim in theologia sunt minime eruditi ideo auctoritates theologiae quas in suis libris reperiunt non debent exponere ultra sensum grammaticalem, nec ex eis debent aliquas conclusiones inferre, nisi sequantur tam patenter quod quilibet illiteratus utens ratione possit advertere, quia cum saepe verum auctoritatum theologiae non habeant intellectum si ex eis voluerint alias conclusiones inferre facile incident in errores, quod in istis canonistis qui ex praedicto capitulo Alexandri 3 Cum Christus volebant inferre quod papa potest facere novum articulum fidei sine difficultate potest adverti. Nam ex illo capitulo credebant posse concludi quod ante illam constitutionem licebat dicere Christum non esse Deum et hominem, cum tamen non dicat nec ibi inhibeat dicere Christum non esse Deum et hominem, sed inhibet dicere Christum non esse aliquid secundum quod homo. Cuius causam assignat quia Christus est verus Deus et verus homo. Istae autem sunt assertiones distinctae, "Christus est verus Deus et verus homo" et "Christus est aliquid secundum quod homo", una tamen sequitur ex alia. |
Master I want you to know that that argument is adduced by certain canonists by whom some theologians are scandalised when they see them concern themselves with theological difficulties by putting forward something on the basis of their own way of thinking beyond the words of theologians that they find in their own writings. For because they are not learned in theology they should as a result not expound the theological authorities that they find in their own books in more than a grammatical sense, nor should they infer any conclusions from them unless they follow so clearly that any unlearned person at all using his reason can observe them because, since they often do not have a true understanding of theological texts, they will easily fall into errors if they want to infer other conclusions from them. This can be observed without difficulty in those canonists who were wanting to infer from the above chapter of Alexander III, Cum Christus, that the pope can make a new article of faith. For they believed that it can be concluded from that chapter that before [Alexander's] constitution it was permissible to say that Christ is not God and man, although he does not say, nor in that place restrain [anyone] from saying, that Christ is not God and man, but restrains [anyone] from saying that Christ is nothing as a man. The reason he adduces for this is that Christ is true God and true man. However those assertions, "Christ is true God and true man" and "Christ is something as a man", are distinct; yet one follows from the other. |
|
Discipulus Clare video quod praedicti canonistae dictum capitulum Cum Christus male allegant ad probandum quod ante tempora Alexandri licebat dicere Christum non esse Deum et hominem. Sed videtur quod bene allegaverunt ad probandum papam posse facere novum articulum fidei, quia quod Christus est aliquid secundum quod homo ante tempora Alexandri 3 non fuit articulus fidei, imo licebat contrarium opinari; ipse autem fecit quod esset articulus fidei et quod non licet dicere contrarium. Ergo ipse fecit novum articulum fidei. |
Student I see clearly that the aforesaid canonists wrongly adduce the said chapter Cum Christus to prove that before the time of Alexander it was permissible to say that Christ is not God and man. But it seems that they have adduced it correctly to prove that a pope can make a new article of faith, because before the time of Alexander III it was not an article of faith that Christ is something as a man - indeed it was permissible to hold the opposite - however he brought it about that it was an article of faith and that it is not permissible to say the opposite. Therefore he made a new article of faith. |
|
Magister Ad istam tuam obiectionem respondent secundae sententiae assertores dicentes quod articulus fidei accipitur stricte, pro veritate catholica in symbolo autentico sub propria forma inserta, et sic non loquimur nunc de articulo fidei. Aliter potest accipi articulus fidei large, pro omni catholica veritate, et isto modo est nunc sermo de articulo fidei. Et sic non potest papa facere novum articulum fidei, nec Alexander fecit talem novum articulum fidei quia non fecit novam catholicam veritatem sed fecit quod nec asserendo nec opinando liceret dicere contrarium illius quod ante fuit catholica veritas et quod dicentes contrarium excommunicationis sententiae subderentur. Et ita ista, Christus secundum quod homo est aliquid, ante Alexandrum 3 fuit vere catholica veritas, sed ante tempora Alexandri non innotuit ecclesiae quod esset catholica. Ex illis enim quae in Scripturis Divinis habentur veritates multae sequuntur quae tamen latent ecclesiam, et ideo catholicae sunt, licet ecclesia nondum discusserit an catholicam sapiant veritatem. |
Master Those who affirm the second opinion reply to that objection of yours by saying that "article of faith" is taken strictly, as a catholic truth inserted in the authentic creed in that exact form, and we are not now speaking about an article of faith in that sense. Otherwise "article of faith" can be taken broadly, as any catholic truth, and the discussion now is about an article of faith in that sense. And in this sense a pope can not make a new article of faith, and Alexander did not produce such a new article of faith because he did not produce a new catholic truth but brought it about that neither by asserting nor by opining would it be permissible to say the contrary of what was previously a catholic truth and that those saying the contrary would be subjected to a sentence of excommunication. And so before Alexander III it was truly a catholic truth that Christ as a man is something, but before his time it was not known to the church that it was catholic. For from what we find in the divine scriptures many truths follow which nevertheless are hidden from the church, and so they are catholic even if the church has not yet investigated whether they smack of catholic truth. |
Capitulum 16 |
Chapter 16 |
|
Discipulus Quia diffinitio haeresis de qua disseruisti plura conveniens mihi videtur, nec tamen ex ea intelligo an haeresis sit species specialissima vel sub se plures species habens, de hoc quid sentiant literati non postponas exprimere. |
Student Because the definition of heresy about which you have spoken much seems reasonable to me, and yet I do not understand from it whether heresy is an ultimate species or has many species within it, would you not delay describing what the learned think about this. |
Are there several kinds of heresies? |
|
|
Magister De diffinitione specifica sunt plures opiniones. Quidam enim dicunt quod eadem res sub diversis speciebus collocari non potest, quidam dicunt contrarium. |
Master There are several opinions on the definition of a species. For some people say that the same thing can not be put under different species, while some say the opposite. |
|
Discipulus De talibus difficultatibus te nullatenus intromittas. Nam ad philosophicas scientias spectant quarum difficultates proprias quantum potes evita. Sed dic mihi nunc quid tenetur de haeresibus, an omnes sub uno modo vel nomine aut specie continentur vel sub pluribus. |
Student Would you not involve yourself in such difficulties. For they pertain to the philosophical sciences, the particular difficulties of which you should avoid as much as you can. But tell me now what is held about heresies, whether they are all comprehended under the one mode or name or species, or under several. |
|
Magister Intentionem tuam adverto et ideo ad mentem tuam volo tibi opiniones contrarias recitare. Si recolis, de veritatibus catholicis opiniones narravi, quia quidam dicunt quod illae solae veritates sunt catholicae reputandae quae explicite vel implicite in Scripturis Divinis habentur. Alii autem asserunt quod praeter illas veritates sunt nonnullae aliae inter catholicas veritates numerandae. Iuxta istas opiniones sunt etiam de haeresibus opiniones contrariae. Quidam enim tradunt quod haeresis habet solummodo sub se tres species sive tres modos haeresum diversarum propter quas solummodo debet quis puniri. Prima species vel primus modus haeresum est illarum quae veritatibus sub forma propria in Scriptura Divina repertis non solum quomodolibet adversantur sed etiam in eisdem terminis contradicunt. Tales sunt istae "Verbum non est caro factum", "Deus non creavit in principio coelum et terram", "Christus non est assumptus in coelum", et huiusmodi. Aliae sunt haereses quae patenter omni intelligenti, etiam illiterato, his quae in Scripturis Divinis habentur obviant et repugnant. Quales sunt tales, "Christus non fuit natus pro salute nostra", "Nulla est vita beata", et consimiles. Aliae sunt haereses quae non patenter omnibus sed solummodo literatis et sapientibus eruditis in Scripturis Divinis per magnam et subtilem considerationem patent sacris literis adversari. Cuiusmodi sunt tales, "Christus non est aliquid secundum quod homo", "Duae personae sunt in Christo", et huiusmodi multae. |
Master I advert to your intention and so I want to record the opposing opinions for you according to your thoughts. If you remember, I reported opinions about catholic truths, because some people say that only those truths should be regarded as catholic which are found explicitly or implicitly in the divine scriptures. However, others assert that besides those some other truths should be reckoned among catholic truths. In line with these opinions there are also opposing opinions about heresies. For some people teach that there are only three species of heresy or three modes of different heresies on account of which alone someone should be punished. The first species or mode of heresy is those which not only in some way oppose truths found in divine scripture in that exact form but even contradict them using the same terms. The following are of this kind, "The word did not become flesh", "God did not create heaven and earth in the beginning", "Christ was not taken up into heaven", and the like. There are other heresies which in a way clear to anyone with understanding, even to the unlearned, oppose and conflict with those things that are found in the divine scriptures. The following are of this kind, "Christ was not born for our salvation", "There is no life of beatitude", and others like this. There are other heresies which do not clearly oppose sacred writings in the eyes of everyone but only in the eyes of the learned and wise who are erudite in the divine scriptures after long and subtle investigation. The following are of this kind, "Christ is nothing as a man", "There are two persons in Christ", and many like this. |
|
Alii autem sunt qui praedictos modos haeresum asserentes dicunt quod praeter haereses iam dictas sunt aliae, illae videlicet quae doctrinae apostolicae, quae doctrina absque scriptis apostolicis per relationem fidelium sibi succedentium vel per scripturas fidelium ad nos pervenit, quomodolibet adversantur. Si etiam aliqui errores alicui veritati post tempora apostolorum ecclesiae revelatae repugnant, omnes illi sunt inter haereses computandi. |
There are others, however, who affirm the above modes of heresy but say that besides the heresies already mentioned there are others, namely those which oppose in some way apostolic teaching, teaching which has come to us not in apostolic writings but by the narration of the believers succeeding them or by the writings of the believers. Also if some errors conflict with any truth revealed to the church after apostolic times, they should all be reckoned among the heresies. |
Return to Table of Contents