William of Ockham02!01!16

8/10/2019 William of Ockham02!01!16

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/william-of-ockham020116 1/41

William of Ockham, Dialogus,

part 1, book 2, chapters 1-17

Text and translation by ohn !cott"

#opyright $ 1%%%, The &ritish 'cademy

#apitulum 1 #hapter 1

Discipulus Quae recitasti circa quaesita ad

praesens mihi sufficiunt, et ideo ad alia quemagis 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.

!tudent What you have recited about the

things I asked about is enough for me at themoment, 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.

W()#( T*+T(! '* #'T(O)# T*+T(!.

/agister Quaestio tua unum videtursupponere et aliud quaerere. Videtur enim

supponere quod non omnes veritates sunt

catholicae iudicandae, quod beatus#ugustinus in $ncheridion e%presse

determinat. Quaerit autem quae sunt illae

veritates quae catholicae sunt censendae.

/aster &our question seems to suppose onething and to seek to know another. For it

seems to suppose that not all truths should

be ad'udged catholic, which blessed#ugustine e%pressly lays down in his

$nchiridion. It seeks to know, however,

which are those truths that should beconsidered catholic.

Discipulus (um beato #ugustino illud quod

supponit questio firmiter teneamus, et circa

quaesitum sententiam unam vel pluresenarra.

!tudent )et us, with blessed #ugustine,

firmly hold what the question supposes, and

tell me one opinion, or more, about what Iseek to know.

0irst opinion #atholic truth is found in the &ible alone

/agister (irca quaesitum sunt diversae et

adversae sententiae. Quarum una est quod

illae solae veritates sunt reputandaecatholicae de necessitate salutis credendae

/aster *here are different and opposing

opinions about what you seek to know. +ne

of these is that only those truths should beregarded as catholic and as requiring belief



quae in canone ibliae e%plicite vel implicite

asseruntur, ita quod si aliquae veritates iniblia sub forma propria minime continentur,

e% solis contentis tamen in ea consequentia

necessaria et formali possunt inferri sunt

inter catholicas numerandae. -icut haecveritas, (hristus est verus /eus et verus

homo in tota -criptura /ivina sub hac serie

verborum nullatenus invenitur, quia tamen e%contentis in -criptura -acra consequentia

necessaria et formali concluditur catholica

est censenda et eam credere est necessariumad salutem. +mnes autem aliae veritates

quae nec in iblia sunt insertae nec e%

contentis in ea consequentia necessaria et

formali possunt inferri, licet in scriptissanctorum vel in diffinitionibus summorum

pontificum asserantur aut etiam ab omnibus

fidelibus teneantur, non sunt catholicaereputandae, nec est necessarium ad salutem

eis per fidem firmiter adhaerere vel propter

eas rationem et humanum ingeniumcaptivare.

out of necessity for salvation which are

asserted e%plicitly or implicitly in the canonof the bible, so that if some truths are not

contained in the bible in that e%act form, yet

can be inferred by necessary and formal

inference from matters contained solely init, they should be counted as catholic, 'ust

as the truth, (hrist is true 0od and true

man, is not found in this sequence ofwords anywhere in divine scripture, yet

because it is a conclusion by necessary and

formal inference from things contained insacred scripture it is to be considered

catholic and belief in it is necessary for

salvation. #ll other truths, however, which

are neither inserted in the bible nor can beinferred from what is contained in it as a

formal and necessary consequence, even if

they are asserted in the writings of thesaints 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 humaningenuity. !(f. 1arsilius, /2 II.%i%.

3owever, 1arsilius also holds that the

scriptural interpretations of general councils

must also be believed."3anc suam sententiam auctoritatibus et

rationibus confirmare nituntur. #uctoritas

prima est -alomonis 2roverbiorum 45 c. quiait, +mnis sermo /ei ignitus clypeus est

sperantibus in se ne addas quicquam verbis

illius et arguaris inveniarisque menda%. $%quibus verbis colligitur quod verbis divinis

quae in -criptura /ivina habentur nihil

penitus est addendum tanquam necessarium

ad credendum. 3oc etiam testari videtur1oyses /euteronomii 6 c. et beatus

Iohannes #pocalypsis ultimo, quorum verba

supra c. 7 sunt adducta. $% quibus daturintelligi quod sicut de -criptura -acra nihil

est penitus auferendum, ita ei omnino nihil

est addendum tanquam necessarium adsalutem.

*hey try to confirm this opinion of theirs by

!citing" te%ts and by arguments. *he first

te%t is from the 2roverbs of -olomon 458!9:;" which says, $very word of 0od is fire

tried he is a buckler to them that hope in

him. #dd not anything to his words, lestthou 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 divinewords that are found in divine scripture.

1oses also seems to attest to this in

/euteronomy 6 and blessed <ohn in the lastchapter of =evelation, whose words were

adduced above in chapter 7 !of the first

book". We are given to understand fromthese that, 'ust as nothing at all should be

removed from sacred scripture, so nothing

http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t1d1NotProl.html#eighth

http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t1d1NotProl.html#eighth



at all should be added to it as necessary for

salvation.3anc etiam sententiam auctoritatibus beati

#ugustini conantur ostendere. #ugustinus

enim in quadam epistola ad 3ieronymum et

recitatur etiam in decretis, dist. >, c. Ego, ait,$go solis eis scriptorum, qui iam canonici

appellantur, didici hunc timorem

honoremque referre ut eorum nullumscribendo errasse audeam credere ac si

aliquid in eis offendero, quod videatur

contrarium veritati, nihil aliud quam velmendosum esse codicem esse vel non esse

assecutum interpretem quod dictum est vel

minime me intelle%isse non ambigam. #lios

autem ita lego ut quantalibet sanctitatequantave 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. $% his

verbis colligitur quod solis libris canonicisqui in biblia continentur necesse est fidem

certissimam adhibere et quod assertionibus

aliorum non est necessarium ad salutemfirmiter adhaerere.

*hey also try to make this opinion known

by te%ts of blessed #ugustine. For in a

certain letter to <erome, recorded also in the

decretals, dist. >, c. Ego !c. 9, col.?@",#ugustine says, I have learnt to offer this

fear and honour only to those works of

writers who are now called canonical, sothat 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 seemscontrary to the truth it is nothing but either a

faulty code% or that the e%pounder 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 bycanonical 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 #ugustinus in libro, /e unico

aptismo, ut recitatur eadem dist. >, c. Quisnesciat , aperte sentire videtur. #it enim,

Quis nesciat -anctam -cripturam

canonicam tam veteris quam novi testamenticertis terminis suis contineri, eamque

posterioribus omnibus episcoporum litteris

ita praeponi ut de illa omnino dubitari et

disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel utrumrectum sit, quicquid in ea scriptum esse

constiteritA $piscoporum autem litteras quae

post confirmatum canonem vel scriptae suntvel scribentur et per sermonem forte

sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris et

per aliorum episcoporum gravioremauctoritatem doctioremque prudentiam et per

concilia licere reprehendi licere si quid in eis

#gain, #ugustine seems clearly to believe

this in his book, /e unico baptismo, asrecorded in the same dist. >, c. Quis nesciat

!c. B, col. ?@". For he says, Who does not

know that holy canonical scripture, both ofthe +ld and the Cew *estament, contains its

own fi%ed 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 atall, about whether whatever has been

written in it is true or rightA !Who does not

know", however, that if there is anything inthe letters of bishops, which have been

written or will be written after the canon

was confirmed, that has by chance deviatedfrom the truth, it is permissible for them to

be reproved by the perhaps wiser discourse



forte a veritate est deviatumA $% his verbis

colligitur quod de sola scriptura Covi etVeteris *estamenti est illicitum dubitare

utrum sit verum vel rectum quicquid in ea

scriptum esse constiterit. $rgo de omnibus

scripturis generalium conciliorum etquorumcunque aliorum e%positorum

-cripturae /ivinae ac etiam =omanorum

pontificum et quorumlibethistoriographorum post canonem editis

confirmatum non est illicitum dubitare et

disceptare an a veritate e%orbitentquaecunque scripta in eis constiterint in eis

antequam -cripturae -acrae novi et veteris

testamenti consona demonstrentur.

of anyone more e%pert in the matter at hand

and by the weightier authority and morelearned prudence of other bishops and by

councilsA We gather from these words that

only about -cripture in the Cew and +ld

*estament is it impermissible to doubtwhether whatever has been written in it is

true or right. #bout all that has been written

and published after the confirmation of thecanon, therefore, whether by general

councils, by any other e%positors of divine

scripture, even by =oman pontiffs and byany historians at all it is not impermissible

to doubt and discuss, before they are shown

to be in accord with the Cew and +ld

*estament of sacred scripture, whetheranything written in them deviates from the

truth.

Item #ugustinus in epistola ad Vincentium etallegatur dist. praedicta c. Noli, loquens de

scripturis posterioribus novo et veteri

testamento, ait, 3oc genus literarum abauctoritate canonis distinguendum est non

enim sic leguntur tanquam e% eis ita

testimonium proferatur ut contra sentire nonliceat, sicubi forte aliter sapuerint quam

veritas postulat. $% his habetur quod contra

omne genus literarum post canonem ibliae

licet sentire.

#gain, speaking about writings later thanthe Cew and +ld *estament in a letter to

Vincent cited in the same distinction !>", c.

Noli !c. >, col. ?B", #ugustine says, *hissort of writing should be distinguished from

the authority of the canon for we do not

read them as though the evidence putforward 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 thisthat it is permissible to think contrary to

every sort of writing after the canon of the

bible.3is concordare videtur #ugustinus in

epistola ad Fortunatum et habetur dist.

praefata c. Neque qui ait, Cequequorumlibet disputationes, id est

e%positiones secundum glossam, quamvis

catholicorum et laudatorum hominum, velut

scripturas canonicas habere debemus, utnobis non liceat, salva honorificentia quae

illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum

scriptis improbare atque respuere, si forteinvenerimus, quod aliter senserint quam

veritas habet, divino adiutorio vel ab aliis

intellecta vel a nobis. $% his concluditurquod nullus assertionibus quorumcunque

quae in -cripturis canonicis non habentur

#ugustine seems to agree with this in his

letter to Fortunatus which we find in the

aforesaid distinction !>", c. Neque !c. ?5,col.?B" where he says, #nd we should not

consider the disputations, that is

e%positions 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 re'ectanything in their writings, if by chance we

find that they have thought otherwise than

what the truth holds, as understood withdivine assistance either by others or by

ourselves. We conclude from these !words"



firmiter assentire constringitur. that no one is bound to assent firmly to

anyoneDs assertions which are not found inthe canonical scriptures.

Item de veritatibus quas docuit #ugustinus

quod nullus teneatur eas de necessitate

salutis recipere nisi in scripturis canonicishabeantur, per eundem #ugustinum

ostendunt. Cam in libro /e trinitate, ut in

dist. > recitatur c. Noli, ait, Coli meis litterisquasi canonicis scripturis inservire. -ed in

illis et quod non credebas cum inveneris

incunctanter crede. In istis autem quodcertum non habebas nisi certum intelle%eris

noli firme tenere. $t in epistola ad

Vincentium Victorem libro 7, ut habetur dist.

eadem c. Negare, ait, Cegare non possumnec debeo, sicut in ipsis maioribus, ita esse

multa in tam multis opusculis meis quae

possunt iusto iudicio et nulla temeritateculpari. $% his concluditur quod scriptis

beati #ugustini non est necesse incunctanter

adhaerere ergo eadem ratione nec scriptisaliorum quorumcunque qui inter scriptores

bibliae non habentur.

#gain, they show through #ugustine that no

one is bound to accept as necessary for

salvation the truths which he himself taughtunless they are found in the canonical

scriptures. For in his book +n the trinity, as

recorded in dist. >, c. Noli !c. 4, col.?@", hesays, /o not attend to my writings as to the

canonical scriptures. ut 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

'udge it to be certain. #nd in book 7 of hisletter to Vincent Victor, as found in the

same distinction !>" c. Negare !c. 6, col.?@",

he says, I can not and ought not deny thatthere are many things in many works of

mine, as in those of our forefathers, which

can be censured with 'ust 'udgement andwithout temerity. We conclude from these

that it is not necessary to adhere

unhesitatingly to the writings of blessed#ugustine. y 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.-ententiam etiam memoratam rationibus

moliuntur ostendere, quarum prima est haec.

$%tra illam scripturam nulla catholica veritasinvenitur in qua omnis veritas utilis ad

salutem habetur et omnis falsitas inimica

saluti damnatur sed secundum #ugustinumin -criptura /ivina quicquid utile est

invenitur, quicquid no%ium est damnatur

ergo e%tra -acram -cripturam nulla veritas

catholica reperitur.

*hey try to show the above opinion by

arguments too, of which the first is this. Co

catholic truth is found outside that writingin which every truth useful for salvation is

contained and every falsity inimical to

salvation is condemned but according to#ugustine !at the end of book 7 of /e

doctrina christiana" it is in divine scripture

that whatever is useful is found and

whatever is harmful is condemnedtherefore no catholic truth is found outside

sacred scripture.

-ecunda ratio est haec. Con minus sufficiens pro fidelibus christianis est Covum

*estamentum una cum Veteri quam fuit

solummodo Vetus *estamentum pro3ebraeis sed tota fides ad quam

astringebantur 3ebraei fuit e%pressa in Veteri

# second argument is this. *he Cew*estament together with the +ld is not less

sufficient for believing christians than was

the +ld *estament alone for the 3ebrews but the whole faith to which the 3ebrews

were bound was e%pressed in the +ld



*estamento ergo et tota fides ad quam de

necessitate salutis christiani artantur in Covo*estamento et veteri continetur. $rgo

christianus de necessitate salutis non tenetur

credere aliquid quod nec in biblia continetur

nec e% solis contentis in biblia potestconsequentia necessaria et manifesta inferri.

*estament it is also the case therefore that

the whole faith to which christians are bound out of necessity for salvation is

contained in the Cew and +ld *estament.

*herefore a christian is not bound out of

necessity for salvation to believe anythingwhich neither is contained in the bible nor

can be inferred as a necessary and clear

consequence solely from things containedin the bible.

*ertio sic. Illud quod eadem facilitate

contemnitur qua probatur ad fidemcatholicam minime spectat, et esto quod sit

verum non debet inter veritates catholicas

numerari sed secundum beatum

3ieronymum de -cripturis /ivinisloquentem, quod de scripturis auctoritatem

non habet eadem facilitate contemnitur qua

probatur ergo nulla veritas quae e%-cripturis /ivinis auctoritatem non habet est

inter veritates catholicas computanda.

# third !argument" is as follows. *hat which

is condemned with the same readiness withwhich 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 <erome, speakingabout the divine scriptures, what does not

have authority from those scriptures is

condemned with the same readiness withwhich it is approved therefore no truth

which does not have authority from the

divine scriptures should be counted amongcatholic truths.


' second opinion There are #atholic truths not found in

the &ible/agister -ed alii isti sententiae nequaquam

consentiunt dicentes quod multae suntveritates catholicae et fidem sapientes

catholicam quae nec in /ivinis -cripturis

habentur divinis e%plicite nec e% solis

contentis in eis possunt inferri quibus tamenfidem indubiam e%plicitam vel implicitam

adhibere est necessarium ad salutem.

/aster ut others do not agree with that

opinion, saying that there are many catholictruths and some smacking of catholic faith

which neither are found e%plicitly in the

divine scriptures nor can be inferred solely

from what is contained in them, towardswhich it is nevertheless necessary for

salvation to e%ercise undoubting faith,

either e%plicit or implicit.#d cuius evidentiam dicunt esse sciendum

quod praeter veritates circa quas licitum est

sic et aliter opinari veritates quas quilibetcatholicus certa credulitate e%plicite vel

implicite tenere astringitur possunt in triplici

differentia reperiri.

*o make this clear they say that it ought to

be known that besides the truths about

which it is permissible to hold opinions oneway or the other, the truths which any

catholic at all is bound to hold e%plicitly or

implicitly with sure belief can be found in

threefold diversity.Quaedam enim sunt de /eo et (hristo

secundum humanitatem e% quibus

!?" For some, on which our salvation

principally depends, concern 0od and



principaliter salus nostra dependet, sicut

quod unus est /eus et tres sunt personae,quod (hristus est verus /eus et verus homo,

passus mortuus et quod resurre%it et

ascendit, etc.

(hrist in his humanity, such as that there is

one 0od and three persons, that (hrist istrue 0od and true man, !that" he suffered

and died, that he rose and ascended, etc.

#liae sunt veritates e% quibus non ita principaliter dependet salus humana, eas

tamen oportet firma fide tenere, quia e%

revelatione vel approbatione /ei, cui nullusdebet catholicus dissentire, ad orthodo%orum

notitiam pervenerunt, quibus mediantibus

ipsas fideles posteri susceperunt. 3uiusmodiveritates sunt quammplures in canone

confirmato contentae in quo etiam multae

habentur de creaturis et etiam de infidelibus

hominibus, quae non directe sed indirectequodammodo ad salutem humani generis

pertinere noscuntur, sicut quod 2harao,

1adianitae, (hananei et alii infidelesquamplurimi multas terras occupaverunt et

filios Israel multipliciter affli%erunt.

!7" *here are other truths on which humansalvation does not principally depend in this

way, yet which it is necessary to hold with

sure faith because by the revelation orapproval of 0od, from whom no catholic

ought to dissent, they came to the

knowledge of the orthodo%, through whosemediation later believers received them.

*here are very many truths of this kind

contained within the established canon, in

which there are also many found aboutcreatures, and even about unbelieving

people, which are known to pertain to some

e%tent, not directly but indirectly, to thesalvation of human kind, such as that

2haraoh, the 1edes, the (anaanites and

very many other unbelievers occupied manylands and afflicted the children of Israel in

many ways.

Connullae etiam veritates huiusmodi e%tra praedictum canonem continentur quae tamen

per revelationem vel approbationem divinam

mediantibus apostolis ad catholicos

pervenerunt, quia (hristus, dum viveret incarne mortali cum apostolis, multa docuit

eos et fecit coram eis quae tamen in biblia

non habentur. $% revelatione etiam -piritus-ancti, qui secundum promissionem (hristi

docturus erat apostolos omnem veritatem,

multa quae non habentur in sacris literisdidicerunt quae postea catholicos docuerunt.

+mnes veritates praedictas et quae e% eis

consequentia necessaria omni tempore

necessitatem habente possunt inferri dicuntisti catholicas esse tenendas.

!4" -ome 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 hewas living with the apostles in mortal flesh

(hrist taught them many things and did

many things in their presence which arenevertheless not found in the bible. y the

revelation of the 3oly -pirit, who according

to (hristDs promise was going to teach themall truth, the apostles also learnt many

things not found in the sacred scriptures and

afterwards they taught them to catholics.

*hey say that all the above truths and thosethat can be inferred from them by an

inference having necessity at every time

should be held to be catholic.2raeter veritates vero praedictas dicunt esse

quasdam alias veritates quae e% solis

contentis in -criptura /ivina et veritatibusquae ad nos per apostolos pervenerunt

concludi non possunt, quae tamen e%

Cow in addition to the above truths they say

that there are certain other truths which can

not be inferred solely from what iscontained in divine scripture and from the

truths which have come to us through the



praedictis veritatibus vel aliqua earum et

quibusdam aliis veris quae in factoconsistunt quae vere negari non possunt

manifeste sequuntur. $t de talibus veritatibus

e%emplificare nituntur dicentes quod talis

veritas est ista8 regulae a sanctis patribus,scilicet asilio, enedicto, #ugustino, et

Francisco, institutae sunt licitae, meritoriae,

et perfectae, quia licet ista veritas e% soliscontentis in -criptura -acra et veritatibus

quas ab apostolis ecclesia universalis accepit

inferri non possit, cum de istis sanctis etgestis ac regulis institutis ab eis nulla in

praedictis veritatibus mentio habeatur, ista

tamen veritas simul e% -cripturis /ivinis ac

gestis et actibus praedictorum sanctorum, dequibus gestis et actibus christiano rationali

sufficienter potest fieri fides, concluditur

evidenter. *ales etiam veritates sunt istae8fides quam tenuit #ugustinus est catholica

reputanda symbolum #thanasii est

catholicum et fidele sancta quatuor conciliageneralia rite celebrata veritatem catholicam

diffinierunt et huiusmodi multae quae e%

solis contentis in scriptura /ivina -cripturaet doctrina apostolica inferri non possunt,

cum #ugustinus et #thanasius tunc non

fuerint in rerum natura nec tunc illa concilia

fuerint celebrata, e% contentis tamen in illiset aliis veris possunt concludi patenter. *ales

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 seddicunt eas sapere catholicam veritatem, quia

videlicet e% veritate catholica, stricte

accipiendo catholicam veritatem, et veris

aliis inferuntur. $t ideo dicunt quod largeaccipiendo veritates catholicas possunt

veritates catholicae nuncupari. $t istas

veritates quas dicunt sapere catholicamveritatem e%istimant ab omni fideli tenendas

saltem implicite.

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. #nd they try to cite an

e%ample of such truths, saying that the

following is such a truth8 the rulesestablished by the holy fathers, that is asil,

enedict, #ugustine, and Francis, are licit,

meritorious, and perfect, because, althoughthat truth can not be inferred solely from

what is contained in holy scripture and from

the truths which the universal churchreceived 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 inferredmanifestly from the divine scriptures

together with the deeds and acts of the

aforesaid saints, deeds and acts in whichtrust can be established adequately for a

reasonable christian. *he following are also

truths of this kind8 the faith which#ugustine held should be regarded as

catholic the #thanasian 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 fromapostolic teaching, since #ugustine and

#thanasius 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. *hey say that there are verymany such truths, some of which have been

inserted into authentic teachings, while

some are not found in writing. *hey do not

say that those truths are catholic, taking theword 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. #nd therefore they say that

they can be called catholic truths, takingcatholic truths liberally. #nd they believe

that those truths which they say smack of



catholic truth should be held, at least

implicitly, by every believer.#dhuc sunt aliae veritates quas dicunt

solummodo in facto consistere. (uiusmodi

sunt veritates de gestis ecclesiae et

sanctorum quae in gestis, cronicis, ethistoriis fide dignis habentur, quas etiam

asserunt a fidelibus minime respuendas.

*here are still other truths which they say

e%ist only in fact. *ruths 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 re'ected by the faithful.$% his omnibus isti concludunt quod multae

sunt veritates catholicae quae nec in

-criptura -acra continentur e%plicite nec e%solis contentis in ea possunt inferri. 1ultae

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

e%plicitly contained in sacred scripture andcan not be inferred solely from what is

contained in it. *here are also many other

truths !besides catholic truths" which it is

proper to hold with sure belief.

#apitulum #hapter Discipulus -atis diffuse narrasti istam

secundam sententiam, sed vellem scire an

pro ipsa aliquae auctoritates vel rationes

valeant allegari, ad probandum scilicet quodoporteat ad salutem firma credulitate

adhaerere aliquibus veritatibus quae nec in

literis sacris habentur nec e% solis contentisin eis necessario argumento possunt inferri.

Etrum autem tales veritates stricte loquendo

catholicae debeant reputari non curo quodinvestiges.

!tudent &ou have set out that second

opinion copiously enough, but I would like

to know whether any te%ts 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 beinferred by necessary argument solely from

what is contained in them. 3owever,

whether such truths should strictly speaking be regarded as catholic I do not look to you

to investigate.

/agister #ssertio de qua interrogas multisauctoritatibus et rationibus videtur posse

probari. 3oc enim Innocentius tertius, ut

habetur $%tra, De celebratione missarum, c.

Cum Marthae, testari videtur. #it enim,1ulta tam de verbis quam de factis

dominicis invenimus ab evangelistis omissa,

quae apostoli vel supplevisse verbo vel facto

e%pressisse leguntur. $t infra, (redimusigitur quod formam verborum, sicut in

canone reperitur, et a (hristo apostoli et abipsis eorum acceperint successores. $% his

verbis colligitur quod quamvis forma

conficiendi sacramentum eucharistiae

nequaquam reperiatur secundum se totam in-criptura /ivina, tamen quod illam formam

/aster *he assertion about which you areasking seems provable by many te%ts and

arguments. For Innocent III seems to attest

to it, as we find in $%tra, De celebratione

missarum, c. Cum Marthae !col.;4;". Forhe says, We find many things omitted by

the evangelists both about the words and the

deeds of the )ord which, as we read, the

apostles either supplied in words ore%pressed in their deeds.... *herefore we

believe that the form of words, as it is foundin the canon !of the mass", was received by

the apostles from (hrist and by their

successors from them. We gather from

these words that although the form ofconsecrating the sacrament of the eucharist



(hristus tradiderit est credendum. 3oc etiam

beatus #ugustinus, sicut allegatum est supra,e%presse sentire videtur, cum dicit, 2alam

est quod in re dubia ad fidem valeat

catholicae ecclesiae auctoritas, quae ab ipsis

fundatissimis sedibus apostolorum usque adhodiernum diem succedentium sibimet

episcoporum serie et tot populorum

consensione firmatur. 3is verbis daturintelligi ut videtur quod ad fidem faciendam

fidem sufficit auctoritas ecclesiae absque

-criptura /ivina.

is not found in divine scripture fully as it is,

yet it should be believed that (hrist handedon that form. #s was argued above,

#ugustine also seems e%pressly to believe

this, since he says !dist. ??, c.> col.79", It

is clear that in a doubtful matter theauthority of the catholic church avails for

faith, an authority which is strengthened by

the sees founded by the apostles, by theseries 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 #gato papa, ut legitur dist. ?>, c. Sic

omnes, ait, -ic omnes apostolicae sedis

sanctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam ipsiusdivina voce 2etri firmatae. $% quibus verbis

datur intelligi quod omnes sanctiones

apostolicae sedis sunt eiusdem auctoritatiscum scripturis beati 2etri, quae inter

-cripturas /ivinas censentur. $rgo eis fides

aequaliter est praebenda. -ed in sanctionibusapostolicae sedis veritates plures habentur

quae in -cripturis /ivinis minime sunt

insertae. $rgo pluribus aliis veritatibus est

firmiter adhaerendum.

#gain, as we read in dist. ?>, c. Sic omnes

!col. ;5", 2ope #gatho says, #ll the

sanctions of the apostolic see should beaccepted as though affirmed by the divine

voice of 2eter himself. We are given to

understand by these words that all thesanctions of the apostolic see are of the

same authority as the writings of blessed

2eter, and these are considered to be amongthe divine scriptures. *herefore faith should

be shown to them equally. ut many truths

are found among the sanctions of the

apostolic see which have not been insertedin the divine scriptures. *herefore we

should adhere firmly to many other truths.

Item Cicolaus papa, ut habetur dist. 77, c. ?,ait, Qui autem =omanae ecclesiae

privilegium ab ipso summo omnium

ecclesiarum capite traditum auferre conaturhic proculdubio in haeresim labitur, et

parum post, 3ic est dicendus haereticus.

$% quo datur intelligi quod qui non vult

haereticus reputari necessario credere debetquod =omana ecclesia super omnes alias ab

ipso (hristo primatum accepit, de quo tamen

in -criptura /ivina nulla fit mentio. $rgoveritates aliquae sunt credendae licet e%

-cripturis -acris inferri non possint.

#gain, as we find in dist. 77, c. ?, !col.@4"2ope Cicholas says, 3owever, he who tries

to remove the =oman churchDs privilege,

conferred by that highest head of allchurches, slips undoubtedly into heresy....

*his person should be called a heretic. We

are given to understand by this that he who

does not want to be regarded as a hereticshould believe necessarily that the =oman

church received from (hrist primacy over

all others. &et no mention is made of this indivine scripture. -ome 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

1oreover, to support that assertion they

adduce arguments. *he first of these leads



inconveniens, quia, si solis -cripturis /ivinis

et his quae e% solis contentis in eis possuntinferri adstringerentur christiani fidem

indubiam adhibere, sequeretur quod negare

liceret apostolos symbolum condidisse,

beatum 2etrum =omanum pontificem fuisse,sedem beati 2etri de #ntiochia =omam

fuisse translatam, =omanos pontifices beato

2etro successisse, cum de his in -cripturis/ivinis nil legatur. 3as tamen veritates

universalis ecclesia hactenus tenuit,

praedicavit, et docuit, et per consequensecclesia universalis errasset, quod omnis

catholicus pro inconvenienti debet habere.

to an irrationality because, if christians were

bound to offer undoubting faith only to thedivine 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 theapostles were the authors of the creed, that

blessed 2eter was =oman pontiff, that

blessed 2eterDs see was transferred from#ntioch to =ome, and that the =oman

pontiffs succeeded 2eter, since we read

nothing about these in the divine scriptures.&et 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 catholicought to hold as irrational.

-ecunda ratio est haec. Con minus catholici

tenentur determinationibus et diffinitionibus=omanorum pontificum, cum nihil contra

fidem diffiniunt orthodo%am, credulitate

indubia assentire quam astringantur eorumstatutis quando nihil contra /ei voluntatem

praecipiunt obedire. -ed omnibus statutis

=omanorum pontificum quando nihil contra/ei praecipiunt voluntatem oportet cum

omni humilitate et reverentia obedire, sicut

per sacros canones, ut habetur dist. ?7, c. ? et

c. Praeceptis, et alibi in decretis capitulisinnumeris, constat aperte. $rgo

determinationibus et diffinitionibus

=omanorum pontificum, quando constat eosnihil contra fidem diffinire catholicam,

oportet certissime adhaerere. -ed =omani

pontifices multas veritates quae e% solocanone confirmato probari non possunt

diffiniunt firmiter esse tenendas. $rgo de

necessitate salutis oportet nonnullis

veritatibus quae e% solis -cripturis /ivinis probari non possunt fidem indubiam

adhibere.

# second argument is this. (atholics are no

less bound to assent with undoubting beliefto the determinations and definitions of

=oman pontiffs when they define nothing

against orthodo% faith, than they are boundto obey their statutes when they command

nothing against 0odDs will. ut it is

necessary to obey with all humility andreverence all the statutes of =oman pontiffs

when they command nothing against 0odDs

will, as is clearly established by the sacred

canons, as we find in dist. ?7, c. ? !col. 7@"and c. Praeceptis !col.7@" and in numerous

chapters elsewhere in the decretals.

*herefore it is necessary to adhere mostsurely to the determinations and definitions

of the =oman pontiffs when it is certain that

they are defining nothing against catholicfaith. ut the =oman pontiffs determine that

many truths which can not be proved from

the confirmed canon alone should be firmly

held. +ut 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 #ffecto scire an isti assertores

ponant e%emplum de aliqua veritate quae

firmiter sit tenenda quae tamen nec in-cripturis /ivinis habetur nec e% solis

-cripturis illis potest aperte probari.

!tudent I desire to know whether those

who assert this cite an e%ample of some

truth which should be firmly held yet whichis not found in the divine scriptures and can

not be clearly proved from those scriptures



alone.

/agister 1ulta e%empla eorum iam tibimonstravi, videlicet quod apostoli symbolum

condiderunt, quod beatus 2etrus fuit

=omanus episcopus pontife%, quod sedes

beati 2etri de #ntiochia translata fuit=omam, quod beato 2etro =omani episcopi

successerunt. #liud etiam ponunt e%emplum

de primatu =omanae ecclesiae, de quo in/ivina -criptura nulla fit mentio quia, licet

de primatu beati 2etri -criptura -acra

e%presse loquatur, quod tamen beatus 2etrus=omanam re%it ecclesiam in eadem

-criptura minime reperitur, et ita de primatu

=omanae ecclesiae nihil per solam eandem

-cripturam potest ostendi, et tamen firmitertenere debemus quod =omana ecclesia

primatum habet super alias ecclesias

universas.

/aster I have already shown you many oftheir e%amples, namely that the apostles

were the authors of the creed, that blessed

2eter was bishop of =ome, that blessed

2eterDs see was transferred from #ntioch to=ome, and that the bishops of =ome

succeeded blessed 2eter. *hey also cite

another e%ample, concerning the primacy of the =oman church, of which no mention is

made in divine scripture because, although

sacred scripture speaks e%pressly about the primacy of blessed 2eter, it is nevertheless

not found in that scripture that blessed 2eter

ruled the =oman church, and so nothing can

be shown about the primacy of the =omanchurch from that scripture alone, and yet we

ought to hold firmly that the =oman church

has primacy over all other churches.

Discipulus /e isto primatu =omanae

ecclesiae supersede, quia de ipso postea

aliquas quaestiones tibi movebo. -ed si istiassertores in aliqua alia ratione se fundant

enarra.

!tudent 2ass over the primacy of the

church of =ome because I will present you

with some questions about it later. ut tellme if those who make this assertion base

themselves on any other argument.

/agister #dhuc aliis rationibus satagunt semunire. Ende tertia ratio eorumdem est ista.

Con in minori reverentia et honore debet

haberi apostolorum doctrina quam eorum

canones et statuta sed canones et statutaapostolorum, sive ea in scriptis redegerint

sive solo verbo ipsa servari mandaverint,

firmiter sunt servanda ergo et omnesveritates quas scripto vel verbo apostoli

docuerunt tanquam verissime sunt habendae.

#postoli autem quamplurima docuerunt quaein scriptis minime reliquerunt ergo aliquae

veritates quae in scripturis canonicis non

habentur verissimae sunt censendae, quibus

per consequens oportet adhaesionecertissima consentire.

/aster *hey try to fortify themselves withstill other arguments. *heir third argument

is this. *he teaching of the apostles should

not be held in less reverence and honour

than their canons and statutes but thecanons 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 beconsidered as absolutely true. 3owever, the

apostles taught very many things which

they did not leave in their writings

therefore some truths which are not foundin the canonical scriptures should be

considered absolutely true. (onsequently, it

is necessary to agree with these and toadhere most surely to them.

Quarta ratio eorum est haec. Eniversalis

ecclesia non potest errare, ipsa veritatetestante quae ait apostolis 1atthaei ultimo,

Vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem

# fourth argument of theirs is this. *he

universal church can not err, as the *ruthhimself attests when he says to the apostles

in the last chapter of 1atthew !7B875", I



seculi. Quae etiam pro fide 2etri rogavit ne

unquam deficeret imo quicunque diceretecclesiam universalem errare in articulum

fidei sanctam ecclesiam catholicam

vehementer impugnaret. $cclesia autem

universalis multas praedicat veritates quaenec in -cripturis /ivinis habentur nec e%

solis eis possunt inferri, sicut per e%empla

priora patet. $rgo et huiusmodi veritatesfirmiter sunt credendae.

am with you always, to the end of the age.

3e also prayed for 2eter that his faith wouldnever fail !)uke 77847". 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 catholicchurch. 3owever, the universal church

preaches many truths which are not found

in the divine scriptures and can not beinferred from them alone, as is clear from

the earlier e%amples. *herefore truths of

this kind should be firmly believed.Quinta ratio est haec. Con minoris

auctoritatis sunt scripta summorum

pontificum et sanctorum doctorum quae pro

sanis dogmatibus conscripserunt quam sintquaecunque chronicae et historiae, sive

infidelium sive fidelium, quae e%tra

-cripturam -acram habentur sed omninofatuus censeretur qui omnes cronicas et

historias e%tra canonem ibliae reprobaret

vel eas diceret minime approbandas. *uncenim liceret omnia quae narrantur de summis

pontificibus, imperatoribus, regibus, regnis,

et aliis quibuscunque quae non inveniunturin iblia respuere et negare, quod

inconveniens est censendum. $rgo multo

magis scriptis summorum pontificum et

sanctorum quae pro sanis dogmatibusconscripserunt est firmiter inhaerendum in

scriptis autem eorum plures veritates quae

non reperiuntur in iblia inseruntur ergo ettales veritates sunt firmiter credende.

# fifth argument is this. *he writings

composed by the highest pontiffs and holy

doctors for the sake of sound doctrine are

not of less authority than are any chroniclesand histories, whether by unbelievers or

believers, which are found outside sacred

scripture but a person who was to re'ect allthe chronicles and histories outside the

bible or was to say that they should not be

approved would be considered completelyfoolish. For then it would be permissible to

re'ect 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. !-ee -ignificant

Variants, para. 7." -o much the more,therefore, should we adhere firmly to the

writings composed by highest pontiffs and

saints for sound doctrine however, manytruths that are not found in the bible are

introduced into their writings therefore,

such truths should also be firmly believed.

Discipulus =ationes et auctoritates quas pro

secunda sententia addu%isti fortes mihi

videntur. $t quamvis nolim quod in toto hoc

opere manifestes quae est tua assertioquando contraria recitas et adversa, unum

tamen in generali cupio scire, an scilicet

quando illam assertionem quae tua estrationibus et auctoritatibus munire conaris,

e%istimes omnes rationes et auctoritates quas

allegas conclusionem tuam demonstrative probare.

!tudent *he arguments and te%ts which

you have brought forward for the second

opinion seem strong to me. #nd although I

do not want you to make clear throughoutthis work what your own opinion is when

you record contrary and opposed matters,

yet there is one thing in general that I wantto know and that is whether, when you try

to support with arguments and te%ts that

assertion which is your own, you think thatall the te%ts and arguments that you bring

forward prove your conclusion

http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/signif.html#a2




demonstratively.

/agister 2ro sententia quam reputo verammotiva quandoque demonstrativa, interdum

probabilia tantum, nonnunquam vero

solummodo apparentia, propter alios

e%ercitandos aut probandos seu tentandosallego.

/aster For the opinion that I regard as trueI bring forward reasons that are sometimes

demonstrative, sometimes only probable,

sometimes indeed only plausible, in order to

e%ercise, test or try other people.


Discipulus 1odus iste valde mihi placet

quia per hoc saepe scientiam inflatorum

e%periar. 2orro, cum quaesivi quibusveritatibus oporteat firmiter assentire, super

quo diversas sententias retulisti, quarum

prima habet convenienter dicere quodsolummodo scriptoribus sacrarum literarum

fides firmissima est adhibenda, secunda veroquae magis mihi placet concedere debetquod etiam aliis est credendum, ideo nunc

interrogo quibus auctoriibus praeter

scriptores bibliae est credendum.

!tudent *hat way pleases me greatly

because through it I may often put the

knowledge of the haughty to the test. Ce%t,since I sought to know which truths it is

necessary firmly to assent to, about which

you have reported different opinions, thefirst of which implies that the firmest faith

should be offered only to the writers of the bible, and the second, which pleases memore, allows that others should also be

believed, !-ee -ignificant Variants, para. 4."

I therefore now ask what writers in addition

to the writers of the bible should be believed.

'ccording to the second opinion, 4hat authorities should

be belie5ed besides the &ible.

/agister #d interrogationem tuam adiversis diversimode respondetur. Quidam

enim dicunt quod universis conciliis

generalibus et omnibus summis pontificibusin his quae diffiniuntur esse credenda et

omnibus sanctis -cripturae -acrae

tractatoribus credere est necesse, licet ea

quae dicunt per -acram -cripturam nequeantdemonstrare. 2ro hac assertione videtur

facere quod legitur dist. ?9 c. ?, ubi de

conciliis generalibus recipiendis habeturaperte, et etiam c. Sicut et c. Sancta Romana.

/e assertionibus vero summorum pontificum

recipiendis habetur dist. ?>, c. Si Romanorum et in pluribus aliis. /e

traditionibus autem sanctorum habetur dist.

?9, c. Sancta.

/aster /ifferent people reply to yourquestion in different ways. For some people

say that it is necessary to believe all general

councils and all highest pontiffs, in respectof 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 bysacred scripture. What we read in dist. ?9, c.

? !col.46", where we clearly find that

general councils should be accepted, and c.Sicut !col.49" and c. Sancta Romana

!col.49", seems to support this assertion.

1oreover, we find !material" aboutaccepting the assertions of highest pontiffs

in dist. ?>, c. Si Romanorum !col.9B" and in

many other chapters. We find !material"

about the teachings of saints in dist. ?9, c.Sancta Romana! !col.49".

#lii vero praedictae assertioni non ut others do not entirely agree with the






usquequaque consentiunt, asserentes quod

licet assertionibus generalium conciliorumsit universaliter adhaerendum, licet etiam

multis decretis seu decretalibus ac

diffinitionibus =omanorum pontificum ac

pluribus opusculis sanctorum doctorum proeo quod omnia quae inveniuntur in eis

constat esse consona catholicae veritati

oporteat catholicos consentire, non tamen eoipso quod =omani pontifices vel sancti

tradunt aliquid esse credendum est hoc

tanquam consonum veritati necesse accipere.

above point of view, affirming that although

there should be universal adherence to theassertions of general councils and although

it is necessary for catholics to agree with

many decrees or decretals and definitions of

=oman pontiffs and many works of learnedsaints on the grounds that it is certain that

everything found in them is !in fact" in

accord with catholic truth, yet it is not thecase that 'ust because the =oman pontiffs

and the saints teach that something is to be

believed it must !therefore" be accepted as being in harmony with the truth.

Discipulus /e generalibus conciliis et

summis pontificibus intendo postea aliqua ad

materiam istam spectantia indagare et ideohic nihil loquaris de ipsis. -ed de sanctis

obsecro resera quid praedicti sentiunt

assertores.

!tudent I intend to investigate later some

matters pertaining to general councils and

highest pontiffs and so would you saynothing about them here. ut I do ask you

to disclose what those who assert the above

think about the saints.

'ccording to the second opinion, it is not al4ays

necessary to belie5e 4hat has been said by the saints

/agister /e sanctis duas conclusiones

affirmant. Quarum prima est quod non eoipso quod aliquis sanctus aliquid opinatur

esse credendum est a cunctis fidelibus

tanquam veritati consonum approbandum.

-ecunda est quod non omnibus sententiisquae inveniuntur in sanctorum opusculis iam

per ecclesiam divulgatis est firmiter

adhaerendum.

/aster *hey affirm two conclusions about

the saints. *he first is that it is not the casethat 'ust because some saint opines that

something should be believed, it should be

approved by all believers as in harmony

with the truth. *he second is that not allopinions which are found in the works of

the saints, even those published throughout

the church, should be adhered to firmly.2rima conclusio probatur auctoritatibus

sancti #ugustini quae ponuntur dist. >, c.

Noli et c. Negare et c. Ego et c. Quis nesciat et c. Noli et c. Neque. In quibus manifeste

asserit #ugustinus quod nonnulla in

opusculis sanctorum et suis inserta licet

fidelibus iusto iudicio absque omni

temeritate culpare.

*he first conclusion is proved from te%ts of

-t. #ugustine included in dist. >, c. Noli

!col.?@", et c. Negare !col.?@" and c. Ego !col. ?@" and c. Quis nesciat !col. ?@" and c.

Noli !col. ?B" and c. Neque !col. ?B".

#ugustine clearly affirms in these that it is

permissible for believers without any

temerity to condemn by means of a 'ust 'udgement some things inserted in the

works of the saints and in his own works.3oc etiam ratione moliuntur ostendere. Cam

non est necesse putare aliquid esse verum

propter hoc quod illi qui possunt errare hocsentiunt. Cam propter solam estimationem

illorum qui possunt approbare falsum pro

*hey 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 canerr believe it. For 'ust on the basis of the

opinion of those who can approve of the



vero non est eo ipso aliquid approbandum

pro vero quod tales sic sentiunt. -ed sanctistante sanctitate possunt errare etiam contra

catholicam veritatem. $rgo propter hoc quod

sancti aliquid sentiunt esse verum non est

necesse putare illud idem esse verum. 1aiorest aperta minor e%emplo et ratione

probatur. $%emplo, inquam, de beato

#ugustino qui sanctus e%istens plurimascripsit et docuit contra catholicam veritatem

quae et postmodum revocavit. 3oc etiam

ratione probatur. Cam error qui pertinaciamnon habet anne%am non obviat sanctitati. -ed

contingit aliquem errare contra catholicam

veritatem absque omni pertinacia. $rgo non

est inconveniens affirmare sanctos stantesanctitate posse errare contra catholicam

veritatem et ita non est necesse omnibus

quae sancti dicunt firmiter adhaerere.

false as true it is not for that reason

necessary to approve of something as truewhich they think to be so. ut saints can err

even against catholic truth with their

sanctity unshaken. ecause the saints think

that something is true, therefore, it is notnecessary to think that it is indeed true. *he

ma'or !premise" is clear the minor is

proved by e%ample and by argument. y thee%ample, I say, of blessed #ugustine who,

though a saint, wrote and taught many

things against catholic truth which he laterretracted. *his is also proved by argument.

For an error which is not 'oined to

pertinacity does not prevent sanctity. ut it

is possible for someone to err againstcatholic truth without any pertinacity. It is

not irrational to affirm, therefore, that with

their sanctity unshaken saints can erragainst catholic truth and so it is not

necessary to adhere firmly to everything

that the saints say.-ecunda conclusio quam isti tenent est quod

nec etiam omnibus sententiis que in

sanctorum opusculis iam per ecclesiamdivulgatis reperiuntur est firmiter

adherendum, quod sic probare nituntur.

Cemo debet contrariis assentire sed sancti in

suis operibus iam per ecclesiam divulgatisinter se inveniuntur contrarii etiam in his

quae ad fidem et doctrinam apostolicam

pertinere noscuntur. Cam ut habetur dist. 7;circa doctrinam beati 2auli dicentis quod

oportet episcopum esse unius u%oris virum,

id est non plurium, 3ieronymus et#ugustinus sententias contrarias protulerunt.

3inc est quod glossa dist. praedicta c. ?.

dicit, 1ale sensit hic 3ieronymus unde

#ugustinus eum corrigit in pro%imocapitulo.

!-ee -ignificant Variants, para. 6." *he

second conclusion they maintain is that not

even all the opinions which are found in theworks of the saints already published

throughout the church should be adhered to

firmly, and this they try to prove as follows.

Co 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 areknown to pertain to apostolic faith and

teaching. For as we find in dist. 7; !c.?

c.7 col.>9" <erome and #ugustine profferedopposing opinions about blessed 2aulDs

teaching that it is proper for a bishop to be

the husband of one wife, that is not of many

!wives". 3ence the gloss on c. ? of thatdistinction !s.v. post baptismum col.?7B"

says, <erome thought wrongly here and so

#ugustine corrects him in the ne%t chapter.Isti etiam sancti, sicut patet in eorum

epistolis et recitat glossa ad 0alatas 7, de

reprehensione qua beatus 2aulus dicit beatum 2etrum fuisse reprehensibilem

contraria sentiebant.

#s is clear in their letters and is recorded in

the gloss on 0alatians 7, those saints also

had opposing opinions about the reproof inwhich blessed 2aul says that blessed 2eter

was reprehensible.





eatus etiam (yprianus de baptismo

haereticorum aliter quam beatus #ugustinussensit. Ende et beatus #ugustinus eundem

sanctum (yprianum redarguit. )oquens enim

de sancto (ypriano et aliis, ut habetur De

consecratione dist. 6. c. Quomodo, ait, Conob aliud visum est quibusdam etiam egregiis

viris antistibus (hristi, inter quos praecipue

beatus (yprianus eminebat, non esse posseapud haereticos vel schismaticos baptismum

(hristi, 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. 3aec est sententia beati (ypriani

de sacramentis haereticorum, cuius

contrarium #ugustinus ibidem asserit.

In addition, blessed (yprian thought

differently from blessed #ugustine aboutthe baptism of heretics, and so blessed

#ugustine contradicted -t. (yprian. For

speaking about -t. (yprian and others he

says, as we find in De consecratione, dist.6, c. Quomodo !col.?4@@", For no other

reason has it seemed even to some

distinguished men, priests of (hrist, amongwhom blessed (yprian is especially

prominent, that (hristian baptism can not

e%ist among heretics and schismatics e%cept 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 hereticsthey thought that the sacrament itself was

also not there. *his is the opinion of

blessed (yprian about sacraments!administered by" heretics, the opposite of

which #ugustine asserts in that place.

1anifeste ergo sancti circa sacramentaecclesiae contraria dogmatiGant. 3inc dist.

47 para. "d hoc vero legitur, -ciendum vero

est quod canones apostolorum, quorumauctoritate orientalis et e% parte utitur

=omana ecclesia, et insignis martyr

(yprianus et B5 episcopi cum eodem

baptisma haereticorum lavacrum diaboliappellant. -tephanus vero et (ornelius

martyres et pontifices =omani et venerabilis

#ugustinus in libro /e baptismate, eundem(yprianum et praefatos episcopos ob hanc

causam vehementer redarguunt, affirmantes

baptisma sive ab haeretico sive a schismaticoecclesiastico more celebratum esse ratum.

$% his colligitur quod (yprianus et

#ugustinus de sacramentis ecclesiae

contraria tradiderunt, quae etiam reperiunturin scriptis eorum, sicut e% praedictis et

capitulo eiusdem (ypriani quod habetur ?, q.

?, c. Si quis patet aperte. Con igitur omnibusassertionibus in operibus sanctorum inventis

debet catholicus adhaerere.

(learly therefore saints propound opposingdogmas about the sacraments of the church.

3ence we read in dist. 47, para. "d hoc

vero !col.??B", It should indeed be knownthat the canons of the apostles, to whose

authority the eastern church and in part the

=oman church yield, and the worthy martyr

(yprian and B5 bishops with him call baptism by heretics the bath of the devil.

ut -tephen and (ornelius, martyrs and

bishops of =ome, and the venerable#ugustine in his book +n baptism

vehemently contradicted (yprian 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 (yprian and #ugustinehanded 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 (yprian which is found in

?, q. ?, c. Si quis !col.4B7". It is not thecase, therefore, that a catholic must adhere

to all the assertions found in the works of



the saints.

Discipulus /e sanctorum libris tam aperte probasti quod non sunt in omnibus

approbandi quod nequeo dissentire. $% quo

sequi videtur quod nihil auctoritatis remansit

in eis quia, sicut instrumenta ita etiamscripturae, quaecunque quae in parte

inveniuntur falsae in totum reprobantur vel

saltem suspectae redduntur. Ende et de-cripturis -acris, ut habetur dist. >, c. Si ad

scripturas, asserit #ugustinus quod si ad eas

admissa fuerint vel officiosa mendacia nihilauctoritatis remanebit in eis. /ic ergo

quomodo isti respondent ad id quod de

approbatione opusculorum sanctorum, inter

quae etiam opuscula (ypriani et #ugustini et3ieronymi numerantur, dist. ?9 legitur

manifeste.

!tudent &ou 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, 'ustas with instruments so also with writings,

whichever of them is found to be partly

false is wholly re'ected, or at least renderedsuspect. 3ence #ugustine even asserts

about the sacred scriptures, as we find in

dist. >, c. Si ad scripturas !col.?@", that ifeven dutiful falsehoods be admitted to be in

them nothing authoritative will remain in

them. *ell me, therefore, how they reply to

what we clearly read in dist. ?9 about theapproval of the works of saints, among

which are certainly numbered the works of

(yprian, #ugustine and <erome.

/agister /icunt isti quod non omnia

opuscula sanctorum quantum ad omnia

contenta in eis sunt per ecclesiam approbata.(onstat enim quod in libris beati #ugustini

multa inveniuntur contraria veritati, quae

etiam ipse postmodum retractavit, et ita illaminime approbantur. $t sicut est de libris

beati #ugustini ita est de libris multorum

aliorum sanctorum quod nequaquam quo ad

omnia approbantur. +mnes tamen librisanctorum, de quibus in distinctione

praedicta fit mentio, approbantur quo ad

omnia quae nec per auctorem nec per aliossunt correcta.

/aster *hey 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

#ugustine and that he himself in fact laterretracted these, and so they should not be

approved. #nd 'ust as it is with blessed

#ugustineDs books, so it is also with the

books of many other saints, that they are notapproved in their totality. Cevertheless, all

the books of the saints of whom mention is

made in the aforesaid distinction areapproved 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. +mnemenim veritatem est licitum approbare.

!tudent 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 hadnot been corrected by catholics. For it is

permissible to approve every truth.

/agister /icunt isti quod non est simile delibris haereticorum et libris sanctorum, quia

in libris haereticorum falsa principaliter

pertractantur et asseruntur pauca autem verainveniuntur inserta. In libris vero sanctorum

vera principaliter intenduntur et pauca

/aster *hey 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 investigatedand asserted, while there are few truths

incorporated in them. ut in the books of



reperiuntur contraria veritati et ideo propter

pauca inutilia non sunt tanta utilia respuenda.

saints it is chiefly truths to which attention

is paid and there are few things found thatare opposed to the truth and therefore such

greatly beneficial things should not be

re'ected because of a few that are not

beneficial.Discipulus #dhuc e%plica mihi an isti putent

omnes veritates in libris sanctorum inventas

catholicas esse censendas.

!tudent $%plain to me further whether they

think that all truths found in the books of

saints should be considered catholic.

/agister Cullatenus arbitrantur omnes

veritates tractatas in libris sanctorum esse

catholicas. Ende dicunt quod sancti aliquatanquam catholica, quaedam autem tanquam

necessaria non ad fidem spectantia, nonnulla

vero tanquam probabilia tradiderunt, et hoc

ultimum e% auctoritatibus #ugustini quaedist. > ponuntur, scilicet c. Noli et c. Negare

et c. Neque probatur aperte. (ui etiam

concordat #nselmus lib. ? Cur Deus homo dicens, $o pacto quo de peccato quod

omnia quae dico sic volo accipi, videlicet ut,

si quid di%ero quod maior non confirmetauctoritas, quamvis illud ratione probare

videar, non alia certitudine accipiatur, nisi

quod interim ita mihi videtur donec /eusmihi melius aliquo modo revelet. $% quibus

verbis colligitur quod #nselmus nonnulla

tanquam probabilia solummodo dicere

intendebat.

/aster *hey do not think that all the truths

treated in the books of saints are catholic.

3ence they say that the saints handed downsome 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 te%tsof #ugustine which are included in dist. >,

that is c. Noli !col.?@", c. Negare !col.?@"

and c. Neque !col.?B". #nselm is in accordwith this in book ? of Cur deus homo !ch.7"

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 byreason, but only that it seems this way to

me for the time, until 0od in some way

gives me a better revelation. We gather

from these words that #nselm wasintending to say some things as probable

only.


Discipulus $% his quae narrasti magnam

occasionem cogitandi mihi dedisti de ipsis,tamen plura quaerere nunc nequaquam nunc

intendo. -ed quot generibus veritatum

oporteat christianos catholicos assentire

secundum sententiam praedictorum absqueomni probatione tibi placeat indicare.

!tudent &ou have given me a fine

opportunity to think about these things bywhat you have said, yet I do not intend to

seek to know more now. ut would you

please indicate without any proof how

many kinds of truth, according to theopinion of the aforesaid, it is necessary for

catholic christians to assent to.

'ccording to the second opinion, there are fi5e kinds of

truth #atholics must accept

/agister *enent isti quod quinque sunt

genera veritatum quibus non licet christianis/aster *hey hold that there are five kinds

of truth from which christians are not



aliqualiter dissentire. 2rimum est earum quae

in -criptura -acra traduntur vel e% eisargumento necessario possunt inferri.

-ecundum est earum quae ab apostolis ad

nos per succedentium relationem vel

scripturas fidelium pervenerunt, licet in-cripturis -acris non inveniantur insertae nec

e% solis eis possint necessario argumento

concludi. *ertium est earum quas in fidedignis cronicis et historiis vel relationibus

fidelium invenimus. Quartum est earum quae

e% veritatibus primi generis et secunditantummodo vel e% eis vel alterius earum

una cum veritatibus tertii generis possunt

manifeste concludi. Quintum est earum quas

/eus praeter veritates revelatas apostolisaliis revelavit vel etiam inspiravit aut noviter

revelaret vel etiam inspiraret, quae revelatio

vel inspiratio ad universalem ecclesiamabsque dubitatione pervenit vel etiam

perveniret.

permitted to dissent in any way. *he first is

those which are handed down in sacredscripture or can be inferred from them by

necessary argument. *he second is those

which have come to us from the apostles

through the report of those who succeededthem or through the writings of the faithful,

even if they may not be found included in

the sacred scriptures and can not be inferredfrom them alone by necessary argument.

*he third is those which we find in

chronicles or histories or the accounts of believers which are worthy of trust. *he

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 themtogether with truths of the third kind. *he

fifth is those which, in addition to the truths

revealed to the apostles, 0od revealed to or,also, inspired in others or would newly

reveal or even inspire, a revelation or

inspiration which has come or, also, wouldcome to the universal church without any

doubt.

Discipulus Quamvis non intenderim de ististe amplius molestare, quia tamen unum

genus veritatum de quibus nullus dubitat

catholicus omisisti edissere quare isti inter

alias veritates illas quae in decretalibus etdiffinitionibus ecclesiae reperiuntur

nequaquam enumerantA

!tudent #lthough I did not intend totrouble 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 amongother truths those which are found in the

decretals and definitions of the churchA

/agister Ideo de illis veritatibus mentionemnon faciunt specialem quia putant quod

ecclesia rite procedens nullam veritatem

determinat aut diffinit nisi in -criptura -acraaut traditionibus apostolorum aut cronicis,

historiis, vel revelationibus indubitabilibus

fidelium vel in his quae sequuntur e%

praedictis aut aliquo praedictorum vel inrevelatione seu inspiratione divina modo

debito manifestata valeat se fundare. $t ideo

omnes veritates quas determinat aut diffinitecclesia sub aliquo quinque generum

praefatorum comprehendi noscuntur.

/aster *hey do not make particularmention of those truths for this reason, that

they think that when the church proceeds

correctly it determines or defines no truthunless it can base itself on sacred scripture,

on the traditions of the apostles, on

indubitable chronicles, histories or

revelations of believers, or on those thingswhich follow from these or any one of

them, or on divine revelation or inspiration

manifested in the due way. #nd all thetruths 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!tudent What you are reporting urges me to

ask questions about the above proposition.



de approbatione canonis bibliae et aliorum

librorum postea conscriptorum ac omniumaliorum quae ecclesia noscitur approbare

assertores sentiunt memoratiA

What do those who affirm the above

position think about the approval of thecanon of the bible, of other books

composed later and of all the others which

the church is known to approveA

/agister 3oc pro certissimo tenent quodnon est in potestate ecclesiae quaecunque ad

placitum approbare vel etiam improbare, sed

ecclesia rite approbando quaecunque inaliquo praedictorum quinque generum

veritatum se fundavit. Ende et

approbationem quantum ad rem, licetquantum ad nomen, a determinatione vel

diffinitione in proposito non discernunt.

/aster *hey hold this as quite certain, thatit is not in the power of the church to

approve or also to re'ect anything at all as it

pleases, but when the church has approvedanything correctly it has based itself on

some of the above five kinds of truth.

3ence also in the present case they do notmake any real distinction, although there is

a nominal distinction, between approval on

the one hand or determination or definition

on the other.

#apitulum #hapter Discipulus /e veritatibus catholicis nonnulla

quaesivi. Cunc vero ad haereses eis

contrarias transeamus. In primis autem

affecto scire si diffinitionem haeresis datamab aliquo invenisti.

!tudent I have sought to know some things

about catholic truths. ut now let us pass on

to the heresies opposed to them. First of all,

however, I want to know if you have founda definition of heresy given by anyone.

W('T )! ' (*!8.

/agister Quidam diffiniunt vel describunt

haeresim dicentes quod haeresis est dogma

falsum fidei contrarium orthodo%ae. In quadescriptione loco generis ponitur dogma

falsum, quia omnis haeresis est dogma

falsum sed non omne dogma falsum debethaeresis reputari. Quod enim omnis haeresis

sit dogma falsum beatus 3ieronymus, ut

habetur 76, q. 4, c. #nter haeresim, testaturaperte dicens, 3aeresis perversum dogma

habet. /ogma autem perversum est dogma

falsum haeresis ergo est falsum dogma. -ed

non omne dogma falsum est haeresis. Cam

secundum #ugustinum in $nchiridion inmultis rebus errare nullum aut minimum est

peccatum sed haeresis sicut infidelitasgravissimum est peccatum. $rgo non omnis

error est haeresis. $% quo concluditur quod

non omne dogma falsum est haeresis cumomnis error dogma falsum sit censendum.

/ogma ergo falsum in descriptione haeresis

/aster -ome people do define or describe

heresy, saying that a heresy is a false

doctrine contrary to orthodo% faith. Falsedoctrine 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

76, q. 4, c. #nter heresim !col.>>@", <erome

clearly attests that every heresy is a falsedoctrine, saying, # heresy involves a

wrong doctrine. # wrong doctrine,

however, is a false doctrine therefore a

heresy is a false doctrine. ut not every

false doctrine is a heresy. For according to#ugustine in the $nchiridion !bk.7, ch.;4",

it is no sin or a very small one to err inmany things but like infidelity a heresy is

the heaviest sin. *herefore not every error is

a heresy. We conclude from this that notevery false doctrine is a heresy, since every

error should be considered a false doctrine.



loco generis non incongrue pro genere

ponitur secundum istos fidei autemcontrarium orthodo%ae ponitur loco

differentiae per hoc enim ab aliis falsis quae

non sunt haereses convenienter haeresis est

distincta. Cam alia dogmata falsa non suntcontraria fidei orthodo%ae et ideo haereses

minime nuncupantur.

#ccording to them, therefore, false

doctrine is not unsuitably put in thedescription of heresy in place of a genus

contrary to orthodo% faith is put as a

difference for through this a heresy is

suitably distinguished from other falsitieswhich are not heresies, since other false

doctrines are not contrary to orthodo% faith,

and therefore are not called heresies.


Discipulus $% verbis beati 3ieronymiallegatis moveor ad quaerendum an beatus

3ieronymus cum dicit haeresis perversum

dogma habet intenderit diffinitionem autdescriptionem haeresis assignare.

!tudent I am moved by the words of<erome that you brought forward to seek to

know whether when blessed <erome says,

# heresy involves a wrong doctrine, heintended to assign a definition or

description of heresy./agister /icunt illi quorum ad praecedentem interrogationem sententiam

recitavi quod large accipiendo perversum pro

omni qualicunque pernicioso seu nocivo

beatus 3ieronymus non intendit ibi haeresimdiffinire. 1ulta enim sunt dogmata

perniciosa quae haereses nullatenus sunt

censendae. -i autem perversum accipiaturmagis stricte pro illo quod est perniciosum in

doctrina religionis, quemadmodum

secundum beatum #ugustinum unum genusmendacii est quod invenitur in doctrina

religionis, sic potest concedi quod beatus

3ieronymus ibi intendit descriptionemhaeresis assignare, quia sic dogma

perversum accipitur pro dogmate falso fidei

contrario orthodo%ae.

/aster *hose whose opinion of the preceding question I have recorded say that

taking wrong broadly, as any kind of

pernicious or harmful thing, <erome did not

intend there to define heresy. For there aremany 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, 'ust

as according to blessed #ugustine !in )iber

de mendacio" one kind of falsehood is thatwhich is found in religious teaching, so it

can be granted that blessed <erome intended

to assign a description of heresy there, because in this way wrong doctrine is

taken for false doctrine contrary to orthodo%

faith.


Discipulus )ibenter scirem an omnes

concorditer reputent haeresim praedicto

modo describi debere.

!tudent I would gladly know whether

everyone is united in the thought that heresy

should be described in the above way.

:;e4: heresies and :ne4: #atholic truths

/agister -unt quidam qui non putant

haeresim taliter describendam. Qui tali

rationi inniti videntur8 multa dogmata falsafidei contraria orthodo%ae fiunt noviter

haereses quamvis non de novo incipiant esse

/aster *here are some people who think

that heresy should not be described in such

a way. *hey seem to rely on the followingargument. 1any false doctrines contrary to

orthodo% faith newly become heresies



falsa fidei contraria orthodo%ae ergo

priusquam debeant haereses reputari suntdogmata falsa fidei contraria orthodo%ae e%

quo evidenter concluditur quod non omnia

dogmata falsa fidei contraria orthodo%ae

debent haereses reputari. #ntecedens videturevidens quia multae sunt novae haereses

quamvis prius fuerint falsa dogmata fidei

contraria orthodo%ae. Erbanus enim papa, uthabetur 76, q. 4, c. Notandum, ait, -anctus

#ugustinus cum legatis sanctae =omanae

ecclesiae et cum sanctis episcopis suis2elagium et (aelestinum novam haeresim in

sanctam /ei ecclesiam introducentes

e%communicavit. $% quibus verbis

colligitur quod 2elagius et (aelestinusopinionem quae erat tunc nova haeresis in

ecclesiam indu%erunt, et tamen illa opinio

prius fuit fidei contraria orthodo%ae. $rgoilla opinio seu assertio priusquam esset

haeresis fuit dogma falsum fidei contrarium

orthodo%ae, et ita illa non est descriptioconvertibilis cum haeresi. 3inc 0ratianus 76,

q. ?, para. ? ait, +mnis haereticus aut iam

damnatam haeresim sequitur aut novamconfingit. $t glossa ibidem dicit, *u dic

indistincte quod sive veterem, scilicet

haeresim, sive novam sequatur

e%communicatus est, licet sit occultus.0lossa etiam ibidem ait, -i scirem

praelatum meum esse haereticum quia

novam haeresim fingit nec tamen praedicaretsi me e%communicaret celebrarem in

occulto. $% his habetur aperte quod fuerunt

et possunt esse novae haereses quae tamennon sunt nova falsa fidei contraria

orthodo%ae et per consequens non omne

falsum fidei contrarium orthodo%ae debet

inter haereses computari.

although they do not begin from the start to

be falsities contrary to orthodo% faiththerefore they are false doctrines contrary to

orthodo% faith before they should be

regarded as heresies we conclude evidently

from this that not all false doctrinescontrary to orthodo% faith should be

regarded as heresies. *he antecedent seems

evident because many heresies are newalthough previously they were false

doctrines contrary to orthodo% faith. For as

we find in 76, q. 4, c. Notandum !col.?555",2ope Erban says, -t. #ugustine, together

with legates of the holy =oman church and

his own holy bishops, e%communicated

2elagius and (elestine for introducing anew heresy into the holy church of 0od.

We gather from these words that 2elagius

and (elestine introduced into the church anopinion that at that time was a new heresy,

and yet that opinion was previously

contrary to orthodo% faith. efore thatopinion or assertion was a heresy, therefore,

it was a false doctrine contrary to orthodo%

faith, and so that description is notconvertible with heresy. 3ence 0ratian says

in 76, q. ?, para. ? !col.>;;", $very heretic

either follows a heresy already condemned

or invents a new one. #nd at that place !s.v. quod autem col.?4B7" the gloss says,

-ay without distinction that whether he

follows a new one, that is a heresy, or anold one he is e%communicated, even if he is

hidden. *he gloss also says at that point !s.

v. qui vero col.?4B7", 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

e%communicate me. We clearly find fromthese that there have been and can be new

heresies, which, nevertheless, are not new

falsities contrary to orthodo% faith andtherefore not every falsity contrary to

orthodo% faith should be counted among the

heresies.

#apitulum % #hapter %



Discipulus 3is non obstantibus diffinitio seu

descriptio haeresis supradicta congrua mihi

videtur, et ideo qualiter praedictis

obiectionibus respondetur indicare digneris.

!tudent Cotwithstanding these !points" the

above definition or description of heresy

seems suitable to me. Would you deign to

indicate, therefore, how reply is made to theabove ob'ections.

/agister Qui praedictam descriptionemassignant dupliciter respondere conantur.

2rimo enim dicunt quod aliqua haeresis

dicitur nova non quia in rei veritate incipiat

noviter esse haeresis, sed quia noviter estasserta, illo modo loquendi quo aliquae

veritates, etiam necessarie necesse, dicuntur

esse novae non quin prius fuerint veritatessed dicuntur novae quia sunt noviter publice

dogmatiGatae. *ali etiam modo aliqui erroresdicuntur esse novi non quin prius fuerint inrei veritate errores sed dicuntur novi quia

noviter sunt asserti. $t iste modus loquendi

e% verbis 0elasii papae, ut habetur 76, q. ?,

c. ?, colligitur evidenter. #it enim, #chatiusnon est factus inventor novi erroris, sed

veteris imitator. (ui concordat Feli% papa

eisdem c. et q. c. "chatius dicens, #chatiusnon fuit novi vel proprii inventor erroris. $%

quibus verbis datur intelligi quod si #chatius

fuisset primus sui erroris assertor fuissetreputatus novi erroris inventor, et tamen

idem error antea fuisset error censendus.

1ulti enim errores antequam asserantur abaliquo ab aliis non errantibus reprobantur, et

per consequens antequam habeant

assertorem seu defensorem sunt errores

censendi et tamen secundum unum modumloquendi si aliquis inciperet eos defendere

dicerentur novi errores. (onsimili etiam

modo loquendi quidam #thenienses, ut

habetur #ctuum ?@, dicebant de beato 2aulo,Covorum daemoniorum videtur annunciator

esse , appellantes nova daemonia nonquia putabant quod antea non fuissent

daemonia sed quia putabant antiqua

daemonia a 2aulo noviter praedicari. Ita

dicunt aliqui aliquas haereses vocari novas propter novitatem assertionis vel defensionis

/aster *hose who assign the abovedescription 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 newlyasserted, in that way of speaking by which

any truths, even those that are necessary, are

said to be new not in that they were nottruths before but are said to be new because

they have been newly propounded in public.In that way too some errors are said to benew 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 thewords of 2ope 0elasius found in 76, q. ?, c.

? ! col.>;;". For he says, #chatius did not

become the inventor of a new error but theimitator of an old one. 2ope Feli% agrees

with this in the same causa and quaestio c.

"chatius !col.>;;" when he says, #chatiuswas not the inventor of a new error or of his

own error. We are given to understand by

these words that if #chatius had been thefirst 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 bysomeone many errors are condemned by

others who are not in error, and

consequently they should be considered

errors before they have an assertor or adefender and yet according to one way of

speaking, if someone were to begin todefend them they would be called new

errors. In a similar way of speaking too

certain #thenians said of blessed 2aul, as

we find in #cts ?@!8?B", 3e seems to be a proclaimer of new demons, calling them



quia aliquis eas noviter asserit vel defendit

quae tamen prius in rei veritate fuerunthaereses reputandae.

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 2aul. 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 intruth of fact as heresies.

#liter respondent praedictis, ut dicunt,

minime obviando quod quemadmodum, utnotat in glossa $%tra, De summa trinitate et

fide catholica, c. ?, fides aliquando dicitur

credulitas secundum quam credimus quod

non videmus, et alio modo dicitur collectioarticulorum fidei, licet etiam dicatur aliis se%

modis ut habetur ibidem, sic tam error quam

haeresis potest dupliciter dici. 2otest enimerror uno modo dici actus vel habitus quo

quis errat, alio modo ipsum obiectum talis

habitus vel actus errandi vocatur error.3aeresis etiam potest accipi uno modo pro

actu vel habitu haeresis, alio modo dicitur

obiectum talis habitus vel actus. 2rimo modoaccipiendo haeresim et consimiliter errorem

multae possunt esse novae haereses et novi

errores quae vel qui antea haereses vel

errores non fuerunt. -ecundo modoaccipiendo haeresim non dicuntur novae

haereses nisi quia noviter sunt assertae, sicut

dictum est in responsione priori, etconsimiliter de multis erroribus potest dici.

+therwise they reply to the above, as they

say, without opposing it, that 'ust as faith issometimes 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$%tra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica,

c. ? !col.9" : although it may also be used in

another si% 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 bywhich someone errs, in another way the

very ob'ect of such a disposition or act of

erring is called an error. # heresy too can betaken in one way for the act or disposition

of heresy, in another way it is said to be the

ob'ect of such a disposition or act. If we

take heresy and likewise error in the firstway, there can be many new heresies and

new errors which were not heresies or

errors before. If we take heresy in thesecond way, heresies are not said to be new

unless they have been newly affirmed, as

was said in the earlier reply, and a similarthing can be said about many errors.

#apitulum 1< #hapter 1<

Discipulus Et mihi videtur pertractatadifficultas de haeresibus novis magis est

vocalis quam realis, et ideo circa ipsam nonamplius immoreris. -ed an aliter obiiciatur

contra descriptionem haeresis supradictam

noli celare.

!tudent It seems to me that the difficultyabout new heresies that has been

investigated is more verbal than real, and sowould you not dwell upon it any longer. ut

do not hide from me whether there is any

other ob'ection to the above description of

heresy.

/agister 2er verba beati 3ieronymi quae /aster *hat description seems to be



ponuntur 76, q. 4, c. $aeresis dicta

descriptio improbari videtur. #it enim,3aeresis autem 0raece ab electione dicitur,

quod scilicet eam sibi unusquisque eligat

disciplinam quam putat esse meliorem. $%

quibus verbis duo dantur intelligi, quorum primum est quod e% quo haeresis ab

electione dicitur nullum falsum antequam

quis ipsum elegerit opinari vel dogmatiGareaut asserere debet inter hereses computari.

-ecundum est quod cum non solum infideles

sed etiam catholici et fideles eligantdisciplinam quam putant esse meliorem, non

solum assertiones infidelium sed etiam

assertiones fidelium debent haereses

appellari. $t e% utroque istorum concluditurquod descriptio haeresis saepedicta est

incongrue assignata.

disproved by the words of blessed <erome

which are put in 76, q. 4, c. $aeresis !col.>>@". For he says, 3eresy is taken

from the 0reek for DchoiceD, that is, that each

person chooses for himself that teaching

which he thinks to be the better. We aregiven to understand two things from these

words. *he first is that from the fact that

heresy is taken from choice no falsityshould be counted among the heresies

before someone chooses to propound, opine

or assert it. *he second is that since not onlyunbelievers 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.#nd we conclude from both of these that

the oft:cited description of heresy has been

unsuitably assigned.


Discipulus Ista obiectio fortis mihi videtur,sed qualiter respondeatur ad ipsam non

differas e%plicare.

!tudent *hat seems to me to be a strongob'ection, but would you not delay

e%plaining how reply is made to it.

/agister /icunt quod verba sanctorum saneintelligenda sunt. Quorum intellectus saepe

e% diversis dictis eorum accipi debet, et ideo

non semper intelligenda sunt sicut insuperficie sonant et ideo dicunt quod licet

praedicta verba 3ieronimi prima facie

videantur praetendere quod ante electionemactualem nullum falsum debeat haeresis

appellari et quod omnis disciplina quam quis

putat meliorem, sive sit vera sive falsa,

possit ad haeresim pertinere, non tamen sicintelligit 3ieronymus. Cam 3ieronymus,

scribens praedicta verba super epistolam ad

0alatas, inter schisma et haeresim

differentiam nititur assignare, dicens, Interschisma 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 ecclesiarecessisse videatur. $% quibus verbis datur

/aster *hey say that the words of thesaints have to be understood soundly. #n

understanding of them often has to be taken

from a variety of their writings and so theyshould not always be understood in a

superficial sense. #nd therefore they say

that although the above words from <eromeseem 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 <erome does not understand

them in this way. For in writing the above

words about the letter to the 0alatians,<erome tries to mark out the difference

between schism and heresy by saying !in76, q. 4, c. #nter heresim Hcol.>>@", I think

that there is this between schism and heresy,

that a heresy contains wrong teaching, a

schism likewise separates one from thechurch after an episcopal separation.... but



intelligi quod secundum beatum

3ieronymum haeresis sine perverso dogmatecontrario doctrinae ecclesiae minime

invenitur. Quare verba 3ieronimi cum dicit,

3aeresis autem 0raece ab electione, etc,

de electione non cuiuscunque disciplinae seddisciplinae 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.

there is no schism unless someone invents

some heresy for himself, with the result thathe rightly seems to have withdrawn from

the church. We are given to understand by

these words that according to blessed

<erome heresy is not found without wrongteaching contrary to the teaching of the

church. *herefore <eromeDs words, when he

says, 3eresy !is taken" from the 0reek forchoice etc, should be understood not of

any teaching at all but of false teaching

contrary to the teaching of the church andshould 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 thechurch !but" which he thinks is better.


Discipulus Video quod verba 3ieronymi sic

intellecta praedictae descriptioni haeresis

non repugnant. $% qua sequi videtur quodomnes assertiones quae -cripturae -acrae

quomodolibet adversantur sunt inter haereses

computandae, sed an omnes christiani hocsentiant et affirment ignoro. Quare si aliqui

hoc non sentiunt nequaquam occultes.

!tudent I see that understood in this way

<eromeDs words do not oppose the above

description of heresy. It seems to followfrom this that all assertions which are in any

way at all opposed to sacred scripture

should be counted among the heresies, but Ido not know whether all christians think

and affirm this. /o not conceal it, therefore,

if some people do not think this./agister Fuerunt 1anichaei qui vetus

testamentum minime receperunt aliqui etiam

haeretici multa in novo testamentorespuerunt.

/aster *here were the 1anichees who did

not accept the +ld *estament some heretics

have also re'ected many things in the Cew*estament.

Discipulus Illi de quibus nunc loqueris

fuerunt haeretici ab ecclesia condemnati, de

quibus non curo audire. -ed libentercognoscerem an sint aliqui catholici vel

aliqui ab ecclesia nullatenus condemnati qui

non reputent omnes assertiones haereticas

quae -acrae -cripturae quomodolibetadversantur.

!tudent *hose about whom you are now

speaking were condemned as heretics by the

church and I do not care to hear about them.ut 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 inany way opposed to sacred scripture.

/agister -unt quidam moderni dicentesquod multae sunt assertiones quae in rei

veritate adversantur -cripturae /ivinae quia

tamen ab ecclesia minime sunt condemnatae

non sunt inter haereses numerandae,quemadmodum multae sunt veritates

/aster *here are some moderns who saythat 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 beencondemned by the church, 'ust as there are



consonae -cripturae /ivinae quae, quia

tamen non sunt per ecclesiam diffinitae veldeterminatae, non sunt inter veritates

catholicas computandae. -ed postquam

assertiones -cripturae /ivinae contrariae

fuerunt per summum pontificemcondemnatae pro haeresibus sunt habendae,

et veritates consonae -cripturae /ivinae

postquam fuerint per summum pontificemdiffinitae seu determinatae catholicae sunt

censendae. 2ropter quod dicunt quod papa

potest facere novum articulum fidei et eademratione potest facere quod assertio quae prius

non erat haereticalis postea per

condemnationem suam esse haereticalis

incipiat.

many truths in harmony with divine

scripture which nevertheless should not becounted among catholic truths because they

have not been defined or determined by the

church. ut after assertions contrary to

divine scripture have been condemned bythe highest pontiff they must be held to be

heresies, and after truths in harmony with

divine scripture have been defined ordetermined by the highest pontiff they must

be considered catholic. For this reason they

say that the pope can make a new article offaith and, by the same argument, can bring

it about that an assertion which was not

previously heretical begins to be heretical

after his condemnation.

#an the pope make a ne4 article of faith.Discipulus 3aec opinio multis prioribus

assertionibus quae videbantur mihi

probabiles apparet omnino repugnans. Ideo

si in rationibus vel auctoritatibus satagat sefundare declara.

!tudent *his opinion seems completely

contrary to many earlier assertions which

seemed probable to me. 1ake clear,

therefore, if it tries to base itself onarguments or authorities.

/agister In duobus, ut audio, praedicti se

fundant. 2rimo in capitulo #le%andri 4 $%tra, De haereticis, Cum Christus ubi, ut dicunt,

fecit novum articulum, scilicet (hristus est

/eus et homo, quia ante tempora #le%andri praedicti licebat, ut dicunt, non credere

(hristum esse /eum et hominem. -ecundo

fundant se in constitutione domini Iohannis

Cum inter nonnullos in qua diffinitur

deinceps esse haereticum dicere (hristum et

eius apostolos non habuisse aliquid nec in

speciali nec in communi, et per consequensantea non fuit haereticum. $% quibus

sequitur quod papa potest novos articulos

fidei facere et potest facere quod assertiones

quae non fuerunt haereticae esse haereticaede novo incipiant.

/aster *hose who hold it base themselves,

as I hear, on two !e%amples". Firstly, !they base themselves" on #le%ander IIIDs (hapter

Cum Christus in $%tra, De haereticis

!col.@@>" where, as they say, he made a newarticle !of faith", namely that (hrist is 0od

and man, because it was permissible before

#le%anderDs time, as they say, not to believethat (hrist was 0od and man. -econdly,

they base themselves on )ord <ohnDs

constitution Cum inter nonnullos, in which

it is defined that hereafter it is heretical tosay that (hrist 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 popecan make new articles of faith and can bring

it about that assertions which were notheretical begin to be newly heretical.

Discipulus $%emplum adductum de

constitutione sanctissimi patris Iohannis

papae 77 peto quod nullatenus hic pertractes,quia, ut di%i, postea de tota doctrina eiusdem

!tudent I ask you not to investigate here

the e%ample you brought forward from the

constitution of the most holy father, 2ope<ohn JJII, because later on, as I have said,



quaestiones tibi movebo. -ed si pro praedicta

opinione aliquas rationes alias cogitasti profer easdem.

I will produce some questions for you about

all of his teaching. ut if you have thoughtof some other arguments for the aforesaid

opinion put them forward.

/agister #liter potest opinio memorata

muniri. 2rimo sic8 pro assertione haeresis estquis tanquam haereticus condemnandus sed

multae fuerunt assertiones falsae de quibus

assertores earum, antequam fuerunt abecclesia condemnatae, non fuerunt tanquam

haeretici condemnandi postquam autem

dictae assertiones fuerunt ab ecclesiacondemnatae, fuerunt assertores earum

tanquam haeretici condemnandi ergo tales

assertiones ante damnationem ecclesiae non

fuerunt inter haereses computandae quaetamen post damnationem pro haeresibus

fuerunt habendae et per consequens eadem

assertio quae primo non erat haeresis percondemnationem ecclesiae haeresibus

numeratur. Quare eadem ratione eadem

assertio quae primo non est catholica postea per approbationem ecclesiae fit catholica.

3uiusmodi autem approbatio et damnatio

spectat ad summum pontificem ergosummus pontife% de assertione non catholica

potest facere catholicam, et de assertione non

haeretica potest facere haereticam et ideo

novum articulum fidei facere potest.

/aster *hat opinion can be fortified in

other ways. Firstly, as follows8 anyoneshould be condemned as a heretic for the

assertion of a heresy but there have been

many false assertions the affirmers of whichought not to have been condemned as

heretics before !those assertions" were

condemned by the church after the saidassertions have been condemned by the

church, however, their affirmers should be

condemned as heretics therefore such

assertions, which after their condemnationshould 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 bythe church. y the same argument,

therefore, the same assertion which at first

is not catholic, may later be catholicthrough the approval of the church.

#pproval or condemnation of this kind,

however, pertains to the highest pontiff

therefore the highest pontiff can make acatholic assertion of one which is not

catholic, and can make heretical an

assertion which is not heretical andtherefore he can make a new article of faith.

1aior istius rationis est manifesta minor

e%emplis probatur apertis. Cam 0raecinegantes -piritum -anctum procedere a Filio

ante assertionis damnationem eorum non

fuerunt heretici reputati qui tamen post

damnationem eiusdem inter haereticosdeputantur. #ssertores etiam opinionis

Ioachim a concilio generali damnatae post

damnationem haeretici iudicantur, ipsetamen abbas Ioachim, quamvis ante

damnationem assertionem eandem tenuerit,

non fuit haereticus, ut habetur $%tra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica c.

Damnamus. -imiliter qui post

*he ma'or !premise" of this argument is

manifest the minor is proved by cleare%amples. For the 0reeks, who deny that

the 3oly -pirit proceeds from the -on, were

not regarded as heretics before the

condemnation of their assertion, yet after itscondemnation they were considered to be

among the heretics. *hose too who affirm

<oachimDs opinion which was condemned by a general council were 'udged to be

heretics after its condemnation, yet #bbot

<oachim himself was not a heretic, as wefind in $%tra, De summa trinitate et fide

catholica, c. Damnamus !col.;", although



constitutionem #le%andri 4 quae habetur

$%tra, De haereticis c. Cum Christus tenuerint quod (hristus non est aliquid

secundum quod homo fuerunt haeretici

iudicandi secundum quod glossa notat

ibidem, qui tamen antea pro haereticisminime habebantur. 2atet igitur quod pro

nonnullis assertionibus non sunt assertores

ante damnationem haeretici reputandi quitamen post damnationem inter haereticos

computantur.

he maintained the same assertion before its

condemnation. -imilarly those who, after#le%ander IIIDs constitution which is found

in $%tra, De hereticis, c. Cum Christus

!col.@@>", held that (hrist is not anything as

a man, should have been 'udged as heretics,according to what the gloss notes at that

point !s. v. sub anathemate col.?;@?". &et

before that they were not considered asheretics. It is clear, therefore, with regard to

some assertions that their affirmers should

not be regarded as heretics before theircondemnation, yet after their condemnation

they are counted among heretics.

-ecundo sic. Ille ad quem pertinet autentice

diffinire quae assertio catholica, quaehaeretica 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. -ed

ad summum pontificem non solum permodum docentis vel doctrinae sed etiam

autentice pertinet diffinire quae assertio

catholica quaeve haeretica est censenda.

$rgo summus pontife% de assertione noncatholica catholicam et de assertione non

haeretica haereticam facere potest.

-econdly as follows8 3e to whom it pertains

to define by authority which assertionshould be considered catholic and which

heretical can make catholic an assertion

which is not catholic and heretical anassertion which is not heretical, because

otherwise his definition would seem to have

no more effect at all than the definition ordetermination of a teacher who declares and

proves by authorities or arguments which

assertion should in truth of fact be regardedas catholic and which as heretical. ut it

pertains to the highest pontiff to define not

only by way of teaching or doctrine but also

by authority which assertion should beconsidered catholic or which heretical.

*herefore the highest pontiff can make

catholic an assertion which is not catholicand heretical an assertion which is not

heretical.


Discipulus Istae duae rationes apparentiam

habere videntur, tamen conclusio est mihi

difficilis ad tenendum. Ende si aliquiasserunt contrarium tibi placeat e%plicare.

!tudent *hose two arguments seem

plausible, yet the conclusion is difficult for

me to hold. If some people affirm theopposite, therefore, would you please set it

forth.

/agister -unt nonulli dicentes quod sicut

quantum ad ea quae spectant ad fidem

nostram et nequaquam e% voluntate humana

dependent non potest summus pontife% necetiam tota ecclesia /ei de assertione non

/aster *here are some people who say that

'ust as with respect to those things that

pertain to our faith and do not depend on

human will, the highest pontiff can not, norcan even the whole church of 0od, make



vera facere veram nec de assertione non falsa

facere falsam, ita non potest de assertionenon catholica facere catholicam nec de

assertione non heretica facere hereticam et

ideo non potest novum articulum fidei facere

nec de non haeresi potest facere haeresimquoquo modo, quia sicut catholicae veritates

absque omni approbatione ecclesiae e%

natura rei sunt immutabiles et immutabiliterverae, ita immutabiliter sunt catholicae

reputandae et consimiliter sicut haereses

absque omni damnatione ecclesiae suntfalsae ita absque omni damnatione ecclesiae

sunt haereses.

true an assertion that is not true nor false an

assertion that is not false, so he can notmake 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 allmake a heresy of what is not a heresy,

because 'ust as without any approval by the

church catholic truths are immutable andimmutably true by the very nature of things

so they should be regarded as immutably

catholic, and similarly 'ust as heresies arefalse without any condemnation by the

church so they are heresies without any

condemnation by the church.

Discipulus Ista sententia magis me allicit etideo si potest rationibus confirmari eas non

differas allegare.

!tudent *hat opinion attracts me more, andso if it can be confirmed by arguments do

not hesitate to bring them forward.

/agister Ista sententia rationibus paucisostenditur quarum prima est haec. -i aliqua

veritas est catholica aut est dicenda catholica

quia a /eo revelata vel quia in -cripturis/ivinis contenta vel quia ab ecclesia

universali recepta vel quia sequitur e% illis

aut e% aliquo illorum quae sunt divinitusrevelata et in -cripturis /ivinis inventa et ab

ecclesia universali recepta vel quia a summo

pontifice approbata.

/aster *hat opinion is shown by a fewarguments of which the first is this. !#" If

any truth is catholic it should be called

catholic !#i" either because it has beenrevealed by 0od, !#ii" or because it is

contained in the divine scriptures, !#iii" or

because it has been accepted by theuniversal church, !#iv" 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, !#v" or because it

has been approved by the highest pontiff.

-i aliqua veritas ideo est catholica quia est a/eo revelata et revelatio divina nullatenus

dependet e% approbatione summi pontificis

nec e% approbatione totius ecclesiae, ergoapprobatio summi pontificis nihil facit ad

hoc quod talis veritas sit vere catholica.

!#i" Cow if some truth is catholic because ithas been revealed by 0od 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.

-i detur secundum, scilicet quod aliquaveritas est catholica quia in /ivinis

-cripturis inserta, et constat quod talem

veritatem inseri in -cripturis /ivinis e% nullaapprobatione ecclesiae vel papae dependet,

ergo talis veritas absque omni approbatione

tali inter veritates catholicas est numeranda.

!#ii" If the second is granted, namely thatsome truth is catholic because it is inserted

in the divine scriptures, and it is certain that

the insertion of such a truth in the divinescriptures does not depend on any approval

by the church or pope, that truth should

therefore be numbered among catholictruths without any such approval.

-i detur tertium, scilicet quod aliqua veritas !#iii" If the third is granted, namely that



est catholica quia ab ecclesia universali

recepta, quaerendum est quare ecclesiauniversalis talem recipit veritatem8 aut quia

sibi divinitus revelatur vel etiam inspiratur,

et tunc absque tali receptione ecclesiae vere

est catholica quia divinitus revelatur veletiam inspiratur aut eam recipit universalis

ecclesia quia eam in /ivinis -cripturis

invenit, et tunc adhuc absque tali receptioneest catholica iudicanda aut recipit eam

universalis ecclesia quia per e%perientiam

vel rationem naturalem eam cognoscit, quodde multis veritatibus catholicis nullatenus

dici potest, et tunc etiam ecclesia in faciendo

aliquam veritatem catholicam rationi vel

e%perientiae inniteretur, quod dici non potest.-equeretur enim quod ecclesia universalis

omnem veritatem geometricam et omnes

alias quarumcunque scientiarumdemonstrative probatas posset veritatibus

catholicis aggregare e% quo sequeretur quod

omnes assertiones falsas huiusmodiveritatibus naturaliter notis contrarias posset

ecclesia universalis inter haereses computare

et omnem assertorem cuiuscunqueassertionis falsae veritati naturaliter notae

contrariae tanquam haereticum condemnare,

quod est inconveniens reputandum. #ut

talem veritatem recipit universalis ecclesiaquia sibi placet, quod dici non potest quia

tunc ecclesia universalis in recipiendo

aliquam veritatem et faciendo eamcatholicam inniteretur solummodo humanae

voluntati, et ita fides nostra esset in voluntate

hominum. (um tamen asserat #postolusquod fides nostra non est in sapientia

hominum ? ad (orinthios 7 et multo fortius

non est in voluntate hominum. $cclesia

igitur universalis nullam recipit veritatemtanquam catholicam nisi quia divinitus

revelatur vel quia in sacris literis invenitur.

*alis autem veritas etiam si nulla essetecclesia vere esset catholica.

some truth is catholic because it has been

accepted by the universal church, it should be asked why the universal church receives

such a truth8 !#iiia" either because it is

divinely revealed to it or also inspired in it,

and then it is truly catholic without suchacceptance by the church because it is

divinely revealed or even inspired !#iiib"

or the universal church accepts it because itfinds it in the divine scriptures, and then

again it should be 'udged as catholic

without any such acceptance !#iiic" or theuniversal church accepts it because it knows

it by e%perience or natural reason : which

can not be said about many catholic truths :

and then also in making some truth catholicthe church would be relying on reason or

e%perience, and this can not be said. For it

would follow that the universal churchcould add every geometrical truth and

everything else proved demonstratively by

any science at all to catholic truths fromthis it would follow that the universal

church could count as among the heresies

all false assertions of this kind that werecontrary 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 knowntruth, and this should be regarded as

irrational. !#iiid" +r 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 itcatholic, and so our faith would rest on on

human will. &et since the apostle affirms in

? (or. 7!89" that our faith does not rest on

human wisdom, much more is it so that itdoes not rest on human will. *he universal

church accepts no truth as catholic,

therefore, unless it is revealed divinely or isfound in the sacred writings. -uch a truth,

however, would be truly catholic even if

there were no church.-i detur quartum, scilicet quod aliqua veritas

est catholica quia sequitur e% illis vel aliquo

!-ee -ignificant Variants, para. 9." !#iv" If

the fourth is granted, namely that some





illorum quae sunt divinitus revelata et in

-cripturis /ivinis inserta et ab ecclesiauniversali recepta, et palam est quod propter

approbationem ecclesiae non magis potest e%

eis inferri. $rgo per talem approbationem

non fit catholica, sed ante fuit catholica.

truth is catholic because it follows from

those things or some of those things whichhave 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 ofthe churchDs approval. It would not be made

catholic because of such approval,

therefore, but it was catholic before that.-i detur quintum, scilicet quod ideo aliqua

veritas est catholica quia est a summo

pontifice approbata, tunc quaerendum est ansummus pontife% veritatem aliquam

approbando innititur revelationi divinae vel

-cripturis -acris aut doctrinae universalis

ecclesiae, et quodcunque istorum detursequitur quod summus pontife% per

approbationem suam non facit talem

veritatem esse catholicam sed talemveritatem fuisse et esse catholicam

determinat et diffinit. Vel summus pontife%

approbando aliquam veritatem propriae prudentiae vel voluntati innititur, et si hoc

dicatur sequitur quod propter talem

approbationem summi pontificis non estaliqua veritas pro catholica acceptanda, quia

fides nostra nec in sapientia nec in voluntate

hominis potest consistere.

!#v" If the fifth is granted, namely that

some truth is catholic because it has been

approved by the highest pontiff, then itshould 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, andwhichever of these is granted it follows that

the highest pontiff does not make such a

truth catholic by his approval, but hedetermines and defines that such a truth was

and is catholic. +r 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 thehighest pontiff because our faith can not

rest on the wisdom or will of a man.

2atet igitur quod nulla veritas est catholicanisi quia divinitus revelata vel quia in

-cripturis /ivinis inserta vel quia per

certitudinem ecclesiae universali innotuit velquia e% aliquo illorum necessario argumento

concluditur. Cullum autem praedictorum e%

approbatione summi pontificis vel etiamecclesiae noscitur dependere. $rgo per

approbationem talem nulla veritas catholica

fieri potest, sed per talem approbationem

aliqua veritas fuisse et esse catholicadiffinitur. $t ita summus pontife% non facit

aliquam assertionem esse catholicam vel

haerticam, sed per approbationem suamdeterminat et diffinit veritates quas approbat

esse et fuisse catholicas et per

condemnationem suam determinat et diffinitassertiones quas reprobat esse et fuisse

haereticas. $t ita non facit novum articulum

It is clear therefore that no truth is catholicunless it has been divinely revealed or has

been inserted in the divine scriptures or has

become known to the universal church as acertainty or because it is inferred by

necessary argument from any of those.

Cone of these, however, is known to dependon the approval of the highest pontiff or

also of the church. *herefore no truth can

be made catholic through such approval, but

through such approval a truth is designatedas having been and being catholic. #nd so

the highest pontiff does not make any

assertion catholic or heretical, but by hisapproval he determines and defines truths

that he approves as being and having been

catholic and by his condemnation hedetermines and defines assertions that he

condemns as being and having been



fidei sed noviter diffinit aliquem articulum

pertinere et pertinuisse ad catholicamveritatem, et ita talis veritas, quamvis noviter

diffiniatur esse catholica, prius tamen fuit

catholica.

heretical. #nd so he does not make a new

article of faith but newly defines somearticle 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.-ecunda ratio est hec. -i aliqua veritas est

catholica solummodo quia est a =omano

pontifice approbata, aut ergo est catholicaquia est a =omano pontifice sive e%plicite

sive implicite approbata aut est tantummodo

catholica quia est a =omano pontificee%plicite approbata. -i detur primum sequitur

quod pontife% =omanus non potest facere

novum articulum fidei de aliqua veritate

quae antea necessaria e%istebat quia omnesveritates divinitus revelatae, in -cripturis

-acris insertae et quas unversalis ecclesia

recipit et quae sequuntur e% aliqua velaliquibus praedictarum fuerunt antea e%plicte

vel implicite per =omanos pontifices

approbatae. Ipsi enim totam fidem ecclesiaeapprobaverunt et per consequens implicite

approbaverunt omnia quae sequuntur quia,

sicut qui unum dicit dicit omnia quaesequuntur e% illo, ita qui unum approbat

approbat omnia quae sequuntur e% illo. -i

detur secundum, scilicet quod ideo aliqua

veritas solummodo dicitur catholica quia esta =omano pontifice e%plicite approbata, ergo

tales veritates (hristus mortuos suscitavit,

(hristus fuit /eus et homo, /eus omnia praescit, et huiusmodi non essent catholicae

reputandae nisi essent a =omano pontifice

e%plicite approbatae, quod pro inconvenientividetur habendum.

!" # second argument is this. If some truth

is catholic only because it has been

approved by the =oman pontiff, it is as aresult catholic !i" either because it has

been approved either e%plicitly or implicitly

by the =oman pontiff or !ii" it is catholiconly because it has been approved e%plicitly

by the =oman pontiff. !i" If the first is

granted, it follows that the =oman pontiff

can not make a new article of faith from anytruth that was necessary beforehand,

because all truths divinely revealed, inserted

in the sacred scriptures, accepted by theuniversal church and following from some

one or some of those have been e%plicitly or

implicitly approved earlier by =oman pontiffs. For they have approved the whole

faith of the church and, as a consequence,

have approved implicitly everything whichfollows !from it", because 'ust as he who

says one thing says everything which

follows from it, so he who approves one

thing approves everything which followsfrom it. !ii" If the second is granted,

however, namely that some truth is said to

be catholic only because it has beene%plicitly approved by a =oman pontiff,

such truths as (hrist raised the dead,

(hrist was 0od and man, 0odforeknows everything, and the like should

not have been regarded as catholic unless

they had been e%plicitly approved by a

=oman pontiff, and it seems that this should be considered irrational.

2er istas itaque rationes ostenditur quod

summus pontife% non potest facere novumarticulum fidei nec de veritate non catholica

potest facere catholicam. $% quo concludunt

isti quod =omanus pontife% de assertionenon haeretica non potest facere haereticam

quia omni assertioni catholicae contradicit

#nd so it is shown by these arguments that

the highest pontiff can not make a newarticle of faith and can not make catholic a

truth that is not catholic. *hey conclude

from this that a =oman pontiff can not makeheretical an assertion that is not heretical

because an heretical assertion contradicts



assertio haeretica et econverso quia, sicut si

una contradictoriarum est vera altera est falsaet econverso, ita si una contradictoriarum est

catholica altera est haeretica sed sicut

probatum est =omanus pontife% non potest

de veritate non catholica facere catholicam,ergo nec de assertione non haeretica potest

facere haereticam.

every catholic assertion, and vice versa,

because 'ust 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. ut 'ust as

it has been proved that a =oman pontiff cannot make catholic a truth that is not

catholic, nor can he, therefore, make

heretical an assertion that is not heretical.*ertia ratio est ista. -i ideo solummodo

aliqua assertio est inter haereses computanda

quia est a =omano pontifice vel etiam abecclesia condemnata, aut ergo quia damnata

sive implicite sive e%plicite aut solum quia

damnata e%plicite. -i detur primum, sequitur

quod omnis assertio quae potest licitedamnari est modo haeresis, quia omnis talis

est iam per ecclesiam et =omanos pontifices,

qui totam fidem approbando omnemfalsitatem contrariam damnaverunt, implicite

vel e%plicite condemnata. -i detur

secundum, scilicet quod aliqua assertio ideosolummodo est haeretica quia e%plicite

condemnata, ergo ista assertio, (hristus non

est homo, non erat haeretica antequam esset per ecclesiam condemnata, quod isti pro

manifesto ma%imo inconvenienti habent.

!(" # third argument is this. If an assertion

is reckoned among the heresies only

because it has been condemned by a =oman pontiff or also by the church, this is

therefore !(i" because it has been

condemned either implicitly or e%plicitly or

!(ii" only because it has been condemnede%plicitly. !(i" 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 e%plicitly by

the church and by the =oman pontiffs who by approving the whole of faith have

condemned every contrary falsity. !(ii" If

the second is granted, namely that anyassertion is heretical only because it has

been e%plicitly condemned, then the

assertion, (hrist is not a man, was not

heretical before it was condemned by thechurch, and they hold this as clearly

irrational.

Quarta ratio quae eis demonstrativa videturest haec. +mnis assertio cuius pertina%

defensator est vere haereticus est vere

haeresis sed omnes pertinaces defensatoresassertionum quae possunt per ecclesiam rite

et legitime tanquam haereses condemnari

sunt vere haeretici, licet eorum assertiones

non sint de facto e%plicite et sub forma propria ab ecclesia condemnatae ergo tales

assertiones ante damnationem huiusmodi

vere sunt inter haereses numerandae. 1aiorest manifesta quia nemo est haereticus nisi

propter haeresim cui adhaeret. 1inor

auctoritatibus beati #ugustini probatur, qui,ut habetur 76, q. 4, c. Di%it apostolus et c.

Qui in ecclesia, asserit manifeste quod qui

!/" # fourth reason, which seemsdemonstrative to them, is this. $very

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 beencondemned e%plicitly and in that e%act form

by the church such assertions, therefore,

should truly be reckoned among theheresies before a condemnation of this kind.

*he ma'or !premise" is manifest because no

one is a heretic e%cept on account of aheresy to which he adheres. *he minor

!premise" is proved by te%ts from blessed



sententiam falsam ac perversam et qui

morbidum aliquid et pravum sapiunt etcorrigi nolunt sunt heretici sed omnis

assertio que potest per ecclesiam rite

damnari est falsa, perversa, morbida et

prava ergo omnis pertina% defensator talisassertionis, licet non sit de facto e%plicite per

ecclesiam condemnata, est vere hereticus. $%

his concludunt isti quod ecclesia non potestfacere de assertione non heretica hereticam,

sed ecclesia aliquam heresim condemnando

determinat et diffinit eam fuisse et essehereticam.

#ugustine who manifestly affirms, as we

find in 76, q. 4, c. Di%it apostolus !col.>>B"and c. Qui in ecclesia !col.>>B", that those

who hold a false and perverse opinion and

those who hold something unwholesome

and evil and refuse to be corrected areheretics 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

e%plicitly condemned by the church, is trulya heretic. *hey conclude from this that the

church can not make heretical an assertion

that is not heretical, but, by condemning

any heresy, the church determines anddefines that it has been and is heretical.


Discipulus Istae ultimae rationes apparent

mihi fortes et tamen rationes pro prima

sententia videntur difficiles et ideo referquomodo respondetur ad ipsas.

!tudent *hose last arguments seem strong

to me, and yet the arguments for the first

opinion seem difficult. -et forth, therefore,how reply is made to them.

/agister #d primam illarum respondent

secundae sententiae assertores dicentes quodsicut saepe aliquis est haereticus et tamen

quia est tantummodo occultus haereticus non

debet tanquam haereticus iudicari, ita saepealiquis est haereticus quia haeresi

pertinaciter adhaeret et tamen quia non est

certum e%plicite quod assertio sua est et fuithaeretica, antequam e%plicite innotuerit

ecclesiae quod assertio sua est et fuit

haeretica, non debet tanquam haereticus

condemnari. 2ostquam autem per diligentemconsiderationem innotuerit ecclesiae quod

assertio sua est haeretica si pertina% invenitur

debet tanquam haereticus condemnari.

/aster In response to the first of them

those who affirm the second opinion saythat, 'ust as often someone is a heretic and

yet ought not be 'udged as a heretic because

he is only a secret heretic, so often someoneis a heretic because he clings pertinaciously

to a heresy and yet because it is not

e%plicitly certain that his assertion is andwas heretical he should not be condemned

as a heretic before it has become e%plicitly

known to the church that his assertion is

and was heretical. #fter it has becomeknown 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 istiloquuntur.

!tudent *hat reply seems clear to me,

e%cept that I am uncertain of which churchthey are speaking about.

/agister Ipsi loquuntur de ecclesia quae est

concilium generale vel papa quia non sufficit

in hoc casu ad damnationem alicuius quodinnotescat alicui alteri quam concilio

/aster *hey are speaking about the church

which is a general council or a pope,

because in this case it does not suffice forsomeoneDs condemnation that it becomes

http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t1d2a.html#a1





generali vel papae quod talis assertio fuerit et

sit haeretica.

known to anyone other than a general

council or a pope that such an assertion wasand is heretical.

Discipulus /ic quomodo respondent ad

e%empla de 0raecis et Ioachim et illis qui

di%erunt (hristum non esse aliquidsecundum quod homo.

!tudent *ell me how they reply to the

e%amples of the 0reeks and <oachim and

those who have said that (hrist is nothingas a man.

/agister /icunt quod assertiones illae antea

fuerunt haereticae, pertinaces etiamassertores earum fuerunt haeretici, quia

tamen antea non innotuerat ecclesiae quod

eorum assertiones erant haereticae nondebuerunt tanquam haeretici condemnari,

sed postea debuerunt tamquam haeretici

condemnari.

/aster *hey say that those assertions were

heretical before, and those who affirmedthem pertinaciously were also heretics, yet

because it had not earlier become known to

the church that their assertions wereheretical they should not have been

condemned as heretics, but afterwards they

should have been condemned as heretics.

Discipulus Intelligo responsionem eorum adrationem illam. /icas ergo quomodo

respondent ad secundam.

!tudent I understand their reply to thatargument. Would you tell me therefore how

they reply to the second.

/agister =espondent quod licet adsummum pontificem non solum per modum

doctrinae sed etiam autentice pertineat

diffinire quae assertio catholica, quaehaeretica est censenda, non tamen potest

facere de veritate non catholica veritatem

catholicam nec de assertione non haereticahaereticam 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. #liudetiam operatur quia post diffinitionem rectam

summi pontificis licet cuilibet episcopo et

inquisitori haereticae pravitatis contratenentes contrarium illius quod rite per

summum pontificem diffinitum e%titit

procedere iu%ta canonicas sanctiones, nisi

tales offerrent se ad probandum summum pontificem erronee diffinisse, in quo casu

esset ad generale concilium recurrendum.

2ost determinationem autem cuiuscumquedoctoris non licet episcopis et inquisitoribus

pravitatis haereticae contra tenentes

contrarium procedere magis quam ante.

/aster *hey reply that although it pertainsto the highest pontiff to define not only by

means of teaching but also by authority

which assertion should be consideredcatholic and which heretical, yet he can not

make catholic a truth which is not catholic

nor is he able to make heretical an assertionwhich is not heretical. Cevertheless,

notwithstanding this, his definition has

more effect than the determination of a

doctor because after the determination of adoctor anyone at all is permitted, 'ust 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 bythe highest pontiff any bishop or inquisitor

into heretical wickedness is permitted to

proceed in accord with canonical laws

against those holding the opposite of whathas been rightly defined by the highest

pontiff, unless such people bring themselves

forward to prove that the highest pontiff hasmade an erroneous definition, in which case

recourse should be had to a general council.

#fter 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.


Discipulus )icet quaedam retuleris de

quibus admiror, unde et de eis posteainterrogationem habebo, tamen conclusio

principalis secundae sententiae videtur mihi probabilis, et miror quod aliquis tenet quod

papa potest facere novum articulum fidei.

*amen qualiter respondetur ad c. $%tra, De

haereticis, Cum Christus indica mihi.

!tudent #lthough you have recounted some

things at which I wonder : and I will as aresult question you about them later : the

main conclusion of this second opiniondoes 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 thechapter Cum Christus in $%tra, De hereticis

!col.@@>".

/agister Volo te scire quod illa allegatio estquorundam canonistarum, de quibus nonnulli

theologi scandaliGantur quando vident eos detheologicis difficultatibus se intromittereultra verba theologorum quae in scriptis suis

inveniunt aliquid e% suo ingenio proferendo.

Quia enim in theologia sunt minime eruditi

ideo auctoritates theologiae quas in suislibris reperiunt non debent e%ponere ultra

sensum grammaticalem, nec e% eis debent

aliquas conclusiones inferre, nisi sequanturtam patenter quod quilibet illiteratus utens

ratione possit advertere, quia cum saepe

verum auctoritatum theologiae non habeantintellectum si e% eis voluerint alias

conclusiones inferre facile incident in

errores, quod in istis canonistis qui e% praedicto capitulo #le%andri 4 Cum Christus

volebant inferre quod papa potest facere

novum articulum fidei sine difficultate potest

adverti. Cam e% illo capitulo credebant posseconcludi quod ante illam constitutionem

licebat dicere (hristum non esse /eum et

hominem, cum tamen non dicat nec ibi

inhibeat dicere (hristum non esse /eum ethominem, sed inhibet dicere (hristum non

esse aliquid secundum quod homo. (uiuscausam assignat quia (hristus est verus /eus

et verus homo. Istae autem sunt assertiones

distinctae, (hristus est verus /eus et verus

homo et (hristus est aliquid secundumquod homo, una tamen sequitur e% alia.

/aster I want you to know that thatargument is adduced by certain canonists by

whom some theologians are scandalisedwhen they see them concern themselveswith 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 ownwritings. For because they are not learned

in theology they should as a result not

e%pound the theological authorities thatthey find in their own books in more than a

grammatical sense, nor should they infer

any conclusions from them unless theyfollow so clearly that any unlearned person

at all using his reason can observe them

because, since they often do not have a trueunderstanding of theological te%ts, they will

easily fall into errors if they want to infer

other conclusions from them. *his can be

observed without difficulty in thosecanonists who were wanting to infer from

the above chapter of #le%ander 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

!#le%anderDs" constitution it was permissible to say that (hrist is not 0od

and man, although he does not say, nor in

that place restrain !anyone" from saying,

that (hrist is not 0od and man, but restrains!anyone" from saying that (hrist is nothing





as a man. *he reason he adduces for this is

that (hrist is true 0od and true man.3owever those assertions, (hrist is true

0od and true man and (hrist is something

as a man, are distinct yet one follows from

the other.Discipulus (lare video quod praedicti

canonistae dictum capitulum Cum Christus

male allegant ad probandum quod antetempora #le%andri licebat dicere (hristum

non esse /eum et hominem. -ed videtur

quod bene allegaverunt ad probandum papam posse facere novum articulum fidei,

quia quod (hristus est aliquid secundum

quod homo ante tempora #le%andri 4 non

fuit articulus fidei, imo licebat contrariumopinari ipse autem fecit quod esset articulus

fidei et quod non licet dicere contrarium.

$rgo ipse fecit novum articulum fidei.

!tudent I see clearly that the aforesaid

canonists wrongly adduce the said chapter

Cum Christus to prove that before the timeof #le%ander it was permissible to say that

(hrist is not 0od and man. ut it seems that

they have adduced it correctly to prove thata pope can make a new article of faith,

because before the time of #le%ander III it

was not an article of faith that (hrist 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 theopposite. *herefore he made a new article

of faith.

/agister #d istam tuam obiectionemrespondent secundae sententiae assertores

dicentes quod articulus fidei accipitur stricte,

pro veritate catholica in symbolo autenticosub propria forma inserta, et sic non

loquimur nunc de articulo fidei. #liter potest

accipi articulus fidei large, pro omni

catholica veritate, et isto modo est nuncsermo de articulo fidei. $t sic non potest

papa facere novum articulum fidei, nec

#le%ander fecit talem novum articulum fideiquia non fecit novam catholicam veritatem

sed fecit quod nec asserendo nec opinando

liceret dicere contrarium illius quod ante fuitcatholica veritas et quod dicentes contrarium

e%communicationis sententiae subderentur.

$t ita ista, (hristus secundum quod homo est

aliquid, ante #le%andrum 4 fuit verecatholica veritas, sed ante tempora #le%andri

non innotuit ecclesiae quod esset catholica.

$% illis enim quae in -cripturis /ivinishabentur veritates multae sequuntur quae

tamen latent ecclesiam, et ideo catholicae

sunt, licet ecclesia nondum discusserit ancatholicam sapiant veritatem.

/aster *hose who affirm the secondopinion reply to that ob'ection of yours by

saying that article of faith is taken strictly,

as a catholic truth inserted in the authenticcreed in that e%act form, and we are not

now speaking about an article of faith in

that sense. +therwise article of faith can

be taken broadly, as any catholic truth, andthe discussion now is about an article of

faith in that sense. #nd in this sense a pope

can not make a new article of faith, and#le%ander did not produce such a new

article of faith because he did not produce a

new catholic truth but brought it about thatneither 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 besub'ected to a sentence of

e%communication. #nd so before #le%ander

III it was truly a catholic truth that (hrist asa man is something, but before his time it

was not known to the church that it was

catholic. For from what we find in thedivine 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.


Discipulus Quia diffinitio haeresis de quadisseruisti plura conveniens mihi videtur, nec

tamen e% ea intelligo an haeresis sit speciesspecialissima vel sub se plures species

habens, de hoc quid sentiant literati non

postponas e%primere.

!tudent ecause the definition of heresyabout which you have spoken much seems

reasonable to me, and yet I do notunderstand 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.

're there se5eral kinds of heresies.

/agister /e diffinitione specifica sunt plures opiniones. Quidam enim dicunt quod

eadem res sub diversis speciebus collocarinon potest, quidam dicunt contrarium.

/aster *here are several opinions on thedefinition of a species. For some people say

that the same thing can not be put underdifferent species, while some say theopposite.

Discipulus /e talibus difficultatibus te

nullatenus intromittas. Cam ad philosophicasscientias spectant quarum difficultates

proprias quantum potes evita. -ed dic mihi

nunc quid tenetur de haeresibus, an omnessub uno modo vel nomine aut specie

continentur vel sub pluribus.

!tudent 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. ut tell me now what isheld about heresies, whether they are all

comprehended under the one mode or name

or species, or under several.

/agister Intentionem tuam adverto et ideoad mentem tuam volo tibi opiniones

contrarias recitare. -i recolis, de veritatibus

catholicis opiniones narravi, quia quidamdicunt quod illae solae veritates sunt

catholicae reputandae quae e%plicite vel

implicite in -cripturis /ivinis habentur. #liiautem asserunt quod praeter illas veritates

sunt nonnullae aliae inter catholicas veritates

numerandae. Iu%ta istas opiniones sunt etiam

de haeresibus opiniones contrariae. Quidam

enim tradunt quod haeresis habetsolummodo sub se tres species sive tres

modos haeresum diversarum propter quassolummodo debet quis puniri. 2rima species

vel primus modus haeresum est illarum quae

veritatibus sub forma propria in -criptura/ivina repertis non solum quomodolibet

adversantur sed etiam in eisdem terminis

/aster I advert to your intention and so Iwant to record the opposing opinions for

you according to your thoughts. If you

remember, I reported opinions aboutcatholic truths, because some people say

that only those truths should be regarded as

catholic which are found e%plicitly orimplicitly in the divine scriptures. 3owever,

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. Forsome people teach that there are only three

species of heresy or three modes ofdifferent heresies on account of which alone

someone should be punished. *he first

species or mode of heresy is those whichnot only in some way oppose truths found

in divine scripture in that e%act form but





contradicunt. *ales sunt istae Verbum non

est caro factum, /eus non creavit in principio coelum et terram, (hristus non

est assumptus in coelum, et huiusmodi.

#liae sunt haereses quae patenter omni

intelligenti, etiam illiterato, his quae in-cripturis /ivinis habentur obviant et

repugnant. Quales sunt tales, (hristus non

fuit natus pro salute nostra, Culla est vita beata, et consimiles. #liae sunt haereses

quae non patenter omnibus sed solummodo

literatis et sapientibus eruditis in -cripturis/ivinis per magnam et subtilem

considerationem patent sacris literis

adversari. (uiusmodi sunt tales, (hristus

non est aliquid secundum quod homo,/uae personae sunt in (hristo, et

huiusmodi multae.

even contradict them using the same terms.

*he following are of this kind, *he worddid not become flesh, 0od did not create

heaven and earth in the beginning, (hrist

was not taken up into heaven, and the like.

*here are other heresies which in a wayclear to anyone with understanding, even to

the unlearned, oppose and conflict with

those things that are found in the divinescriptures. *he following are of this kind,

(hrist was not born for our salvation,

*here is no life of beatitude, and otherslike this. *here 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 thedivine scriptures after long and subtle

investigation. *he following are of this

kind, (hrist is nothing as a man, *hereare two persons in (hrist, and many like

this.

#lii autem sunt qui praedictos modoshaeresum asserentes dicunt quod praeter

haereses iam dictas sunt aliae, illae videlicet

quae doctrinae apostolicae, quae doctrinaabsque scriptis apostolicis per relationem

fidelium sibi succedentium vel per scripturas

fidelium ad nos pervenit, quomodolibet

adversantur. -i etiam aliqui errores alicuiveritati post tempora apostolorum ecclesiae

revelatae repugnant, omnes illi sunt inter

haereses computandi.

*here are others, however, who affirm theabove modes of heresy but say that besides

the heresies already mentioned there are

others, namely those which oppose in someway 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.#lso if some errors conflict with any truth

revealed to the church after apostolic times,

they should all be reckoned among theheresies.

=eturn to *able of (ontents

http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/wtc.html#part1

http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/wtc.html#part1

William of Ockham02!01!16

Documents

Transcript of William of Ockham02!01!16