William of Ockham02-17-34.doc

8/10/2019 William of Ockham02-17-34.doc

1/63

William of Ockham, Dialogus,part 1, book 2, chapters 17-34

Text an translation b! "ohn #cott$

%op!right & 1''', The (ritish )caem!

%apitulum 17 %hapter 17

DiscipulusIsta secunda sententiamagis mihi apparet consona

veritati, sed dic mihi an istiassertores omnes errores pestiferosquos nulli licet Christiano deliasserere sub istis modis haeresumcomprehendant.

#tuentThat second opinionseems more in accord with the

truth to me, but tell me whetherthose who arm it include underthose modes of heresy all thepestiferous errors which nobelieving christian is permitted toarm.

*agisterPraeter haeresessupradictas armant essequosdam alios errores mortiferosqui tamen non debent stricte

haereses appellari. Tales erroresdicunt esse illos qui cronicis ethistoriis ecclesiasticis de dignis acprobatis gestis delium obviarinoscuntur. lii adhuc sunt erroresqui veritatibus catholicis et cronicisvel historiis ecclesiasticis de dignisac gestis quae rationabiliter negarinon possunt incompossibilesdemonstrantur. Cuiusmodi sunttales, !"egulae religiosorum non

sunt catholicae!, !#ides beatiugustini non fuit vera nec delis !,et huiusmodi, et istos erroresquamvis stricte accipiendovocabulum haeresis non reputentinter haereses computandos, dicunttamen quod sapiunt haeresim

*asterThey say that besides theafore$mentioned heresies there aresome other deadly errors whichnevertheless should not strictly be

called heresies. They say thaterrors of this %ind are those whichare %nown to be opposed toecclesiastical chronicles andhistories worthy of trust and todemonstrated deeds of believers.There are still other errors whichare shown to be incompatible withcatholic truths together withecclesiastical chronicles orhistories worthy of trust and deeds

which can not reasonably bedenied. The following are of this%ind, !The rules of religious are notcatholic!, !The faith of blessedugustine was not true or sincere!,and the li%e& and although ta%ingthe word !heresy! strictly they do


2/63

manifestam, quod non est aliudquam dicere quod e' eis et aliisveris quae negari non possuntsequuntur haereses proprie dictae.(t ideo dicunt quod isti errores

possunt large haereses appellari.

not rec%on that those errors shouldbe counted among the heresies,they say nevertheless that theysmac% of manifest heresy, which isonly to say that heresies properly

so called follow from them and )i.e.together with* other truths whichcan not be denied. nd thereforethey say that those errors canbroadly be called heresies.

Discipulus(numera generalesmodos pestiferorum errorum quossecundum istam secundamsententiam nulli licet catholico etdeli pertinaciter defensare.

#tuent(numerate the generalmodes of pestiferous errors which,according to that second opinion,no catholic believer is permitted todefend pertinaciously.

*agisterTales modi generales,quorum aliqui plures sub se modoscontinent speciales, sunt quinque.+uorum primus est eorum qui soliscontentis in criptura -ivinarepugnant et iste plures modoscontinet speciales, sicut e'praedictis apparet, et omnes istierrores debent haereses appellari.ecundus est eorum qui doctrinaeapostolicae e'tra scripta eorumquoquomodo repugnant, et isteetiam continet plures modos.Tertius est eorum qui revelatis velinspiratis ecclesiae post apostolosquomodolibet obviarent. +uartusest eorum qui cronicis, historiis etgestis ab ecclesia approbatiscontrariantur. +uintus est eorumqui cripturae -ivinae vel doctrinae

apostolicae e'tra scripta eorum velinspiratis seu revelatis ecclesiae etaliis veris quae negari non possuntincompossibiles demonstrantur,licet e' forma propositionum soliscontentis in criptura -ivina etdoctrina apostolica et revelatis seuinspiratis ecclesiae incompossibiles

*asterThere are ve of thesegeneral modes, some of whichcontain several particular modeswithin them. The rst of theseconsists of those )errors* whichconict with things containedsolely in divine scripture, and itcontains several particular modes,as is clear from what has been saidabove, and all those errors shouldbe called heresies. The secondconsists of those )errors* whichconict in some way with apostolicteaching which is outside theirwritings, and that )mode* alsocontains several modes. The thirdconsists of those )errors* whichwould in some way be opposed tothings revealed to or inspired inthe church after the apostles. The

fourth consists of those )errors*which are contrary to chronicles,histories and deeds approved bythe church. The fth consists ofthose )errors* which are shown tobe incompatible with divinescripture, or with the teaching ofthe apostles outside their writings,


3/63

nequaquam appareant, et istierrores proprie possunt dici saperehaeresim manifestam, licet strictesumendo nomen haeresis non sinthaereses nuncupandae. Talis est

iste error, !Castitas monachorumcastitati non praeeminet coniugali!./am iste error e' formapropositionis non repugnat alicuicontento in criptura -ivina veldoctrina apostolica, si tunc nonfuerunt tales monachi qulaes modosunt, nec etiam repugnat, utvidetur, alicui revelato vel inspiratoecclesiae. Contentis tamen incriptura -ivina et isti vero quod

nulla potest tergiversatione negari,!0onachi vovent et servantperpetuam continentiam propter-eum!, incompossibilis essedinoscitur, et ideo iste error, licetnon videatur stricte sumptovocabulo haeresis appellanda, sapittamen haeresim manifestam quiae' ipso et quodam vero apertosequitur haeresis manifesta.

or with things inspired in orrevealed to the church and )i.e.together with* other truths whichcan not be denied, even if by theform of the propositions they do

not appear to be incompatible withthings solely contained in divinescripture and apostolic teachingand things revealed to and inspiredin the church, and those errors canproperly be said to smac% ofmanifest heresy, even if theyshould not be called heresiesta%ing the word !heresy! strictly.n e'ample of the latter is thefollowing error, !The chastity of

mon%s does not e'cel con1ugalchastity!. #or in the form of itsproposition that error does notconict with anything contained indivine scripture or in apostolicteaching, if there were not mon%sthen such as there are now, nor, asit seems, does it, also, evenconict with anything revealed toor inspired in the church. 2et it is%nown to be incompatible withthings contained in divine scriptureand indeed with the following,which can not be denied with anyshifting, !0on%s vow and observeperpetual continence for the sa%eof 3od!, and therefore that error,even if it does not seem that itshould be called a heresy ta%ingthat word strictly, doesnevertheless smac% of manifestheresy because from it and acertain clear truth manifest heresydoes follow.

%apitulum 1+ %hapter 1+


4/63

Discipulus/unc adverto quamutile fuit inquirere quae veritatesdebeant catholicae iudicari, quia e'solutione quaestionis illius potestintelligenti patere qui errores

debent haereses reputari. ('investigatis etiam circa catholicasveritates sequi videtur quod omnishaeresis sit damnata, quia, si omnisveritas catholica est per ecclesiamapprobata, videtur quod pereandem ecclesiam omnis haeresisest damnata cum omnis haeresisalicui veritati catholicae adversetur.pprobato autem uno contrariorumconstat aliud reprobari et damnari.

n ergo aliqui literati teneantomnem haeresim esse damnatamnequaquam occultes.

#tuentI now observe how usefulit was to as% which truths shouldbe ad1udged catholic, becausefrom the e'planation of thatquestion it can be clear to

someone with understandingwhich errors should be regarded asheresies. It seems also to followfrom what has been investigatedabout catholic truths that everyheresy has been condemnedbecause if every catholic truth hasbeen approved by the church itseems that every heresy has beencondemned by the same church,since every heresy is opposed to

some catholic truth. 4hen one of)two* contraries is approved,however, it is certain that theother is re1ected and condemned.Therefore do not conceal )fromme* whether any learned men holdthat every heresy has beencondemned.

as eer! heres! been conemnealrea!.

*agister0ulti tenent et probareconantur quod omnis haeresis estdamnata. 5oc enim conciliumgenerale sub Innocentio 6celebratum, de quo habetur ('tra,De haereticis, c. Excommunicamus,sentire videtur. it enim,

!('communicamus etanathematisamus omnemhaeresim, e'tollentem se adversushanc sanctam, catholicam etorthodo'am dem quam superiuse'posuimus.! (' quibus verbispatenter habetur quod omnishaeresis est e'communicata et

*aster0any hold and try toprove that every heresy has beencondemned. #or the generalcouncil celebrated under InnocentIII, about which we read in ('tra,De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus)col.787*, seems to thin% this. #or

it says, !4e e'communicate andanathematise every heresy thate'alts itself against this holy,catholic and orthodo' faith that wee'pounded above.! It is clearlyestablished from these words thatevery heresy has beene'communicated and


5/63

anathematisata, et per consequensomnis haeresis est damnata.

anathematised, and as aconsequence every heresy hasbeen condemned.

Discipulus(' hac auctoritate non

videtur quod omnis haeresis sitdamnata sed solummodo quodomnis haeresis e'tollens seadversus dem quam supragenerale concilium e'posuit incapitulo quod habetur ('tra, Desumma trinitate et fde catholica, c.Firmiter, sit damnata.

#tuentIt does not seem from

this te't that every heresy hasbeen condemned, but only thatevery heresy e'alting itself againstthe faith that the general councile'pounded earlier in the ChapterFirmiterfound in ('tra, De summatrinitate et fde catholica)col.9*has been condemned.

*agisterIsti probant quod perdictum capitulumExcommunicamusomnis haeresissimpliciter sit damnata e' hoc ipsoquod omnis haeresis e'tollens seadversus dem e'positam in dictocapitulo Firmitersit damnata. /amin dicto capitulo Firmitertota descatholica approbatur. (rgo omnishaeresis simpliciter per capitulumExcommunicamusquod damnatomnem haeresim e'tollentem seadversus dem quam e'posuit etapprobavit in c. Firmiterreprobaturet damnatur. +uod autem c.Firmiterapprobet simpliciter totamdem catholicam patet e'pressecum asserendo et approbando dicat!5aec sancta Trinitas, secundumcommunem essentiam individua etsecundum personales proprietatesdiscreta, primo per 0oysen etsanctos prophetas aliosque famulos

suos iu'ta ordinatissimamdispositionem temporum humanogeneri doctrinam tribuit salutarem.(t tandem unigenitus -ei liusIesus Christus, a tota Trinitatecommuniter incarnatus e' 0ariasemper virgine piritu anctocooperante conceptus, verus homo

*asterThey prove that everyheresy has simply beencondemned by the said chapterExcommunicamusfrom the factthat every heresy e'alting itselfagainst the faith e'pounded in thesaid chapter Firmiter has beencondemned. #or in that chapterFirmiterthe whole of catholic faithis approved. Therefore everyheresy is re1ected and condemnedsimply by the chapterExcommunicamuswhichcondemns every heresy that e'altsitself against the faith that ise'pounded and approved in thechapter Firmiter. That the ChapterFirmiterapproves simply the wholeof catholic faith is e'pressly clearsince in its assertion and approvalit says: !This holy Trinity, individualaccording to a common essenceand distinct according to their

personal properties, has bestowedits salvic teaching on the humanrace rstly through 0oses, the holyprophets and their other servantsaccording to the very well orderedarrangement of time. nd atlength the only begotten son of3od, ;esus Christ, made esh by


6/63

factus, e' anima rationali ethumana carne compositus, una induabus naturis persona, viam vitaemanifestius demonstravit.! (' hisverbis datur intelligi quod totam

doctrinam Christi et famulorumsuorum qui veritates catholicashumano generi tradideruntpraedictum concilium approbatmanifeste. (rgo et per capitulumExcommunicamussimpliciter omnishaeresis est damnata, et hoc glossa, para. >. notat, apertedicens, !?mnis haeresis estdamnata et omnis haereticus este'communicatus quantumcunque

sit occultus.!

the whole Trinity together, wasconceived of 0ary, ever virgin,with the cooperation of the 5olypirit, became a true man, madeup of a rational soul and human

esh, one person with two natures,and very clearly demonstrated theway to life.! 4e are given tounderstand by these words thatthe aforesaid council clearlyapproves the whole teaching ofChrist and his servants whohanded on catholic truths to thehuman race. Therefore simplyevery heresy is also condemned bythe chapter Excommunicamus,

and the gloss on , para. >)s. v. qui vero& col.>68)col.ABB*, 3ratian too seems to

approve to approve thisdistinction, saying, !#or everyheretic either follows an alreadycondemned heresy or invents anew one.! 5e follows up the rstpart of this distinction at once,while he follows up the second part


7/63

novam haeresim conngit ! etc.+uocirca dic an praedicti assertoreseandem distinctionem simpliciternegent

in the same causa and quaestio,para. Si autem)col. AB7*,!5owever, if someone invents anew heresy out of his own heart!,etc. Tell me, therefore, do those

who ma%e that assertion simplydeny that distinction

*agister/on omnino negantdictam distinctionem sed cumdistinctione concedunt, dicentesquod quaedam haereses suntdamnatae e'plicite, quaedam verosolum damnatae sunt implicite& etideo concedunt dictamdistinctionem sub isto intellectu:quaedam haereses sunt damnataee'plicite et quaedam non suntdamnatae e'plicite.

*asterThey do not wholly denythat distinction but grant it with adistinction, saying that someheresies have been condemnede'plicitly, but some have beencondemned only implicitly& andtherefore they grant the saiddistinction with the followingmeaning: some heresies havebeen condemned e'plicitly andsome have not been condemnede'plicitly.

%onemnation ma! be explicit or implicit

Discipulus+uas vocant haeresesdamnatas e'plicite

#tuent4hich heresies do theycall e'plicitly condemned

*agister5aeresum damnatarume'plicite ponunt quatuor modos.Primus est earum quae damnationespeciali in qua de ipsis haeresibussub forma propria t mentiospecialis condemnatur. Isto modohaereses rrii, /estorii, 0acedonii,(uticis et -ioscori damnataefuerunt, sicut e' dist. >9, c. > et c.Sicut sanctiet c. Sancta Romana

patenter habetur. ic etiamdamnatus est error Ioachim ('tra,De summa trinitate et fdec.Damnamuset error dicentiumChristum non esse aliquidsecundum quod homo ('tra, Dehaereticis, c. Cum Christus.

*asterThey lay down four modesof e'plicitly condemned heresies.The rst is of those which arecondemned by a particularcondemnation in which particularmention is made of those heresiesin that e'act form. The heresies ofrius, /estorius, 0acedonius,(uticis and -ioscorus have beencondemned by that mode, as we

clearly nd in dist. >9, c. > )col.6=*,c. Sicut sancti)col.69* and c.Sancta Romana)col.6B*. lsocondemned in this way are;oachimDs error E('tra, De summatrinitate et fde catholica, c.Damnamus)col.B*F and the error of


8/63

those who say that Christ isnothing as a man E('tra, Dehereticis, c. Cum Christus)col.77A*F.

ecundus modus haeresumdamnatarum e'plicite est earumquarum contradictoriae sub formapropria asseruntur seuapprobantur, quia unacontradictoriarum approbatae'plicite, altera e'plicite intelligiturreprobata. Tales sunt omneshaereses quae contradicuntveritatibus catholicis quae insymbolis, conciliis generalibus acdecretis et decretalibus epistolissummorum ponticum tanquamcatholicae approbantur. @nde istahaeresis, !-eus non est factoromnium visibilium et invisibilium!,est haeresis e'plicite condemnatapro eo quod per symbolum, !Credoin unum -eum!, e'pliciteapprobatur -eum esse factoremomnium visibilium et invisibilium.

The second mode of e'plicitlycondemned heresies is of thosethe contradictories of which havebeen approved in that e'act form,because with the e'plicit approvalof one of )two* contradictories theother is understood to have beene'plicitly condemned. ?f this modeare all heresies which contradictthe catholic truths which areapproved as catholic in the creeds,in general councils and in decreesand decretal letters of the highestpontiGs. 4hence the heresy, !3odis not the ma%er of all thingsvisible and invisible!, is ane'plicitly condemned heresybecause through )the article of*the creed, !I believe in one 3od!, itis e'plicitly approved that 3od isthe ma%er of all things visible andinvisible.

Tertius est earum quarumcontradictoriae in aliquo voluminevel libro aut tractatu specialiterapprobato tanquam catholico subforma propria continentur. (t istomodo omnes haereses quarumcontradictoriae in canone Hibliaeconrmato sub forma propriacontinentur haereses damnatae

e'plicite sunt censendae, quia eoipso quod canon Hibliae e'pliciteapprobatur omnes veritates in ipsoinserte e'plicite approbantur, et perconsequens earum contradictoriaee'plicite reprobantur et damnantur.

The third )mode* consists of thosethe contradictories of which arecontained in that e'act form insome volume, boo% or tractateparticularly approved as catholic.nd in that way all heresies thecontradictories of which arecontained in that very form in theconrmed canon of the bible

should be considered e'plicitlycondemned heresies because bythe very fact that the canon of thebible is e'plicitly approved all thetruths inserted in it are e'plicitlyapproved, and, as a consequence,their contradictories are e'plicitlyre1ected and condemned.


9/63

+uartus est earum e' quibuspatenter omnibus, etiam laicis,usum habentibus rationis sequituraliqua haeresis sub aliquo triummodorum primorum comprehensa.

The fourth )mode* consists ofthose from which some heresyincluded under any of the rstthree modes follows in a way clearto everyone having the use of

reason, even laymen.

DiscipulusContra aliquapraedictorum possem dubia multamovere, sed forsitan non essentmultum ad rem quia voces sunt adplacitum, et ideo possunt vocarehaereses damnatas e'plicite stricteet large sicut placet eis dummodohoc auctoribus non inveniature'presse contrarium. Idcirco dicquas haereses vocant damnatassolum implicite.

#tuentI could raise many doubtsabout some of the above, butperhaps they would not be muchto the point because words are amatter of opinion and so they cancall heresies e'plicitly condemnedstrictly or broadly 1ust as theyplease as long as this is not foundto be e'plicitly contrary to any)authoritative* writers. Tell metherefore which heresies they sayare condemned only implicitly.

*agister5aereses de quibussolummodo viris literatis in sacrisliteris eruditis per subtilemconsiderationem patet quomodocatholicae veritati contentae incripturis acris vel doctrinae'pressa universalis ecclesiaeadversantur et quod e' eis sequituraliqua haeresis aliquo praedictorummodorum damnata e'plicite dicuntesse damnatas implicite et none'plicite. Talis haeresis fuit haeresis3raecorum dicentium piritumanctum non procedere a #ilioantequam damnaretur e'plicite.0ultae etiam haereses de quibushabetur in decretis aliquando

fuerunt huiusmodi quae poste'plicite damnatae fuerunt. Talessunt haereses nonnullorumdoctorum modernorum. (st enimnotorium quod moderni theologicirca divina opiniones tenentcontrarias quas putant in cripturis-ivinis fundari, quarum altera in rei

*asterThey say that thoseheresies have been condemnedimplicitly and not e'plicitly aboutwhich it is clear only by subtlereection to learned men eruditein sacred letters how they areopposed to the catholic truthcontained in the sacred scripturesor in the e'press teaching of theuniversal church and that fromthem some heresy e'plicitlycondemned in any of the aforesaidmodes follows. heresy of this%ind was that of the 3ree%s whenthey were saying that the 5olypirit does not proceed from theon before that was e'plicitly

condemned. 0any heresies alsowhich we nd in the decretals wereonce of this %ind, which wereafterwards condemned e'plicitly.The heresies of some moderndoctors are of this %ind. #or it iswell %nown that about divinematters modern theologians hold


10/63

veritate cripturae -ivinaerepugnat, sicut et tenentcontrarium opinantes. @nde et eamper cripturam -ivinam improbarenituntur, sicut in scriptis eorum

patet aperte, et ita in rei veritatealtera earum est damnata implicite,cum veritas contraria sit impliciteapprobata e' hoc quod doctrinaecclesiae e' qua infertur nosciturapprobata.

opposing opinions which theybelieve to be based on the divinescripture. ?ne or other of these isin truth of fact opposed to divinescripture, as those holding these

opposing )opinions* do indeedmaintain. o it is that each tries todisprove the other through divinescripture, as is quite clear in theirwritings.Thus in truth of fact one ofthem has been implicitlycondemned, since the opposingtruth has been implicitly approvedbecause of the fact that theteaching of the church from whichit has been inferred is %nown to

have been approved.

%apitulum 2/ %hapter 2/

Discipulusive isti devient aproprio modo loquendi sive nonvideo quod inter haereses quasdicunt esse damnatas e'plicite etquas dicunt esse damnata

simplicite implicite est apertadistinctio. ed ad quam utilitatemistam distinctionem assignantignoro et tamen desidero scire.

#tuent(ither they are deviatingfrom their own way of spea%ing or Ido not see that there is a cleardistinction between the heresiesthat they say have been

condemned e'plicitly and thosethat they say have beencondemned only implicitly. Hut I donot even %now, and yet want to%now, what utility they assign tothat distinction.

Who has the authorit! to conemnheresies.

*agisterPutant istamdistinctionem esse summenecessariam episcopis etinquisitoribus haereticae pravitatis,ut sciant contra quos accusatos dehaeresi debeant procedere et

*asterThey thin% that thatdistinction is of the highestimportance to bishops andinquisitors into hereticalwic%edness so that they may %nowagainst which of those accused of


11/63

contra quos potestatem procedendinon habent. /am omnes tenentespertinaciter haeresim aliquopraedictorum modorum damnatame'plicite possunt legitime iudicare.

Tenentes vero haereses damnatastantummodo implicite iudicare nonpossunt nec de talibus haeresibus.icet eas valeant ventilare etinvestigando discutere, de eistamen nequeunt dinitivamsententiam proferre. ed huiusmodihaeresim asserens vel defendenssummi ponticis vel generalisconcilii est reservandus e'amini.

heresy they ought to proceed andagainst which they do not have thepower to proceed. #or they canlegitimately 1udge all thosepertinaciously maintaining a

heresy e'plicitly condemned in anyof the above ways. Hut they cannot 1udge those maintainingheresies condemned onlyimplicitly, nor 1udge of suchheresies. lthough they candiscuss them and inquire into themby investigation, nevertheless theycan not pronounce a denitivesentence about them. ?n thecontrary, anyone arming or

defending a heresy of this %indshould be %ept for e'amination bythe highest pontiG or a generalcouncil.

Discipulusi isti suam sententiamauctoritate vel ratione valeantconrmare non tardes ostendere.

#tuentIf they can conrm theiropinion with an authority or anargument, do not be slow to showme.

*agisterPossunt se fundare inuna ratione quae talis est. d illumsolum spectat asserentemdamnatam haeresim implicite, dequa nondum innotuit ecclesiae andebeat haeresis reputari, tanquamhaereticum condemnare ad quemspectat huiusmodi haeresessolenniter condemnare& quodvidetur ma'ime veritatem haberequando inter catholicos literatos in

sacra pagina eruditos de taliassertione an debeat censerihaeretica opiniones habenturcontrariae. ed assertionem quaeest in rei veritate haeretica, de quatamen an sit haeretica inter doctosopiniones reperiuntur contrariae,solenniter et e'plicite condemnare

*asterThey can foundthemselves on one argumentwhich is the following. Thecondemnation as a heretic ofsomeone asserting an implicitlycondemned heresy about which ithas not yet become clear to thechurch whether it should beregarded as a heresy pertains onlyto him to whom it pertainssolemnly to condemn heresies of

this %ind& this seems especially tobe true when opposing opinionsare held among learned catholicswell informed about the sacredpage about whether an assertionof this %ind should be consideredheretical. Hut the solemn ande'plicit condemnation of an


12/63

pertinet ad solum summumponticem et concilium generale etuniversalem ecclesiam. (rgo adnullum inferiorem summo ponticenec aliquod collegium inferius

generali concilio spectatassertorem haeresis tanquamhaereticum condemnare.

assertion which in truth of fact isheretical yet about which opposingopinions are found among thelearned as to whether it is hereticalpertains only to the highest pontiG

and a general council and theuniversal church. Therefore itpertains to no one inferior to thehighest pontiG nor to any collegeinferior to a general council tocondemn as a heretic one whoasserts a heresy of this %ind.

0aior istius rationis videtur certaquia qui iudicialiter pronunciataliquem haereticum potestpronunciare solenniter assertionempro qua iudicat eum essehaereticum inter haeresescomputandam.

The ma1or )premise* of thisargument seems certain becausehe who pronounces 1udicially thatsomeone is a heretic can solemnlypronounce that the assertion onaccount of which he 1udges him tobe a heretic should be rec%onedamong the heresies.

0inorem ostendunt auctoritate etratione. uctoritate primoInnocentii papae, qui, ut habetur, c. Quotiens, ait, !+uotiensdei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnesfratres et coepiscopos non nisi adPetrum, id est sui nominis ethonoris auctoritatem, referredebere.! (' quibus verbis daturintelligi quod quaestio dei adinferiorem summo pontice referrinon debet. 5inc dicit glossa ibidem,!liud est quaestionem de demotam terminare, quod nullipraeterquam "omanae sedi

permittitur, sicut hic dicitur. liudest ipsam sine dinitione ventilare,quod patriarchae facere possunt.!(t infra, glossa obiiciens, ait,!Jidetur contra ('tra, De haereticis,Ad abolendam. /am ibi innuiturquod illi vitandi sunt tanquamhaeretici quos episcopi vitandos

They show the minor )premise* byan authority and by an argument.#irstly, by the authority of PopeInnocent who says, as we nd in, c. Quotiens)col.A7K*, !soften as an argument about faith isventilated, I thin% that all ourbrothers and fellow bishops shouldrefer to no one but Peter, that is tothe authority of his name andhonour.! Hy these words we aregiven to understand that aquestion of faith should not bereferred to anyone less than thehighest pontiG. 5ence the gloss at

that place )s. v. fdei& col.>688*says, !It is one thing to determinea question raised about faith,which is not permitted to anyonee'cept the "oman see, as is saidhere. It is another to ventilate itwithout determining it, whichpatriarchs can do.! nd further on


13/63

du'erint !, et respondens ait, !eddic quod illud intelligendum estquando tale quid dicunt quodcertum est esse haeresim, hic veroubi dubium est.!

the gloss raises an ob1ection andsays, !This seems to be against('tra, De hereticis, c.Adabolendam. #or it is implied therethat those whom bishops have said

should be avoided, should beavoided as heretics.! nd in replyit says, !The response is that thisshould be understood of when theyare tal%ing about something that itis certain is a heresy& but this )acase* where there is a doubt.!

Istis concordare videtur glossa dist.8K, c.


14/63

quaerenti -omino, quem discipulidicerent ipsum esse, respondissenotabit, DTu es Christus, lius -eivivi.D! (' quibus verbis patenterhabetur quod ad sedem beati Petri

est quaestio dei referenda et itanec collegium inferius conciliogenerali nec aliquis episcopusinferior papa potest aliquamhaeresim de qua est dubium an sithaeresis condemnare et perconsequens nullum talem haeresimasserentem valet tanquamhaereticum condemnare.Irrationabile enim videtur omninoquod episcopus vel inquisitor

haereticae pravitatis, qui saepesacrae paginae imperitus e'istit,opiniones doctorum theologiaeposset tanquam haereticascondemnare.

3od!, will understand that thechurchDs greater causes, especiallythose touching on the articles offaith, should be referred to PeterDssee.! It is clearly established from

these words that a question offaith should be referred to the seeof blessed Peter, and so nogathering less than a generalcouncil and no bishop less than thepope can condemn any heresyabout which there is doubtwhether it is a heresy, and can not,consequently, condemn as aheretic anyone arming such aheresy. #or it would seem

completely irrational that a bishopor inquisitor into hereticalwic%edness, who is often ignorantof the sacred page, could condemnas heretical the opinions of doctorsof theology.


#ome problematic cases

Discipulus+uamvis ista sententiavideatur fortiter esse probata,tamen contra ipsam urgentesinstantias in mente revolvo.+uarum prima est de @niversitateParisiensi quae multas opiniones,etiam Thomae de quino, ipso

vivente, tanquam erronease'communicavit et damnavit.ecunda est de duobusarchiepiscopis Cantuariensibus,quorum primus erat doctortheologiae in ?rdine Praedicatorumet postea cardinalis, secundus eratetiam doctor theologiae de ?rdine

#tuentlthough that opinionseems to have been provedstrongly, yet I am in my mindreecting on some ob1ectionswhich urge against it. The rst ofthese concerns the @niversity ofParis which e'communicated and

condemned as erroneous manyopinions, even of Thomas quinaswhile he was still alive. )ee (.3ilson, !istor" o# Christian$hilosoph" in the iddle A%esEondon, >A99F, p. =>7* Thesecond concerns two archbishopsof Canterbury, the rst of whom


15/63

#ratrum 0inorum, qui pluresopiniones Thomee'communicaverunt etdamnaverunt. Tertia est de ?rdine#ratrum 0inorum qui doctrinam

#ratris Petri Iohannis damnavit, etita videtur quod tam ad collegiuminferius concilio generali quam adalias personas inferiores summopontice spectat errores a theologisopinatos damnare. +uamobremqualiter respondetur ad praedictasinstantias manifesta.

was a doctor of theology from the?rder of Preachers and later acardinal )"obert Lilwardby*& thesecond was also a doctor oftheology from the ?rder of #riars

0inor );ohn Pecham*& theye'communicated and condemnedmany of ThomasDs opinions. )ee3ilson, pp. =KB, 69A*. The thirdconcerns the ?rder of #riars 0inorwhich condemned the teaching ofbrother Peter ;ohn. )ee -avidHurr, &livi and Franciscan $overt"EPhiladelphia: Pennsylvania@niversity Press, >A8AF, chapter =,p. 88G and pp. >KA and >F, pp. 6AA$=9> $$ a documentthat may have been composed byHonagratia of Hergamo, writtenpost >66>A, whiche'amined the errors of Peter ;ohn?livi and condemned them andpassed sentence ofe'communication against everybrother who %nowingly held andused his boo%s.* nd so it seemsthat it pertains both to a gatheringinferior to a general council and toother persons inferior to thehighest pontiG to condemn theerrors put forward as opinions bytheologians. 0a%e clear, therefore,how reply is made to the aboveob1ections.

*agisterd primam instantiam de@niversitate Parisiensi multipliciterrespondetur. @no modo quod

*asterTo the rst ob1ection,about the @niversity of Paris, manyreplies are made. ?ne way is that
http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/#a6http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/#a6


16/63

multas assertiones temerariecondemnavit, veritates scilicetcondemnando. /ullo enim modopotest solenniter veritas absquetemeritate damnari. icet namque

absque temeritate damnabili valeatquis veritati contrarium opinari etde veritate dubitare, nunquamtamen veritas solenniter et publiceabsque damnabili temeritatedamnatur. Cum igitur multorumiudicio inter articulos damnatosParisius contineantur veritatesquamplures, sequitur quod eademuniversitas plures assertionestemerarie condemnavit. Istius

sententiae fuerunt et sunt omnesilli qui e'tra @niversitatemParisiensem opiniones damnatasParisius tenuerunt et tenent.(iusdem etiam sententiae suntomnes illi qui post revocationempraedictae sententiae quantum adopiniones Thomae easdemopiniones Thomae prius damnatasnunc Parisius tenent et approbantpublice vel occulte.

it has condemned many assertionsrashly, that is, by condemningtruths. #or in no way can the truthbe solemnly condemned withoutrashness. #or although anyone can

without culpable rashness oGer anopinion which is opposed to a truthand can doubt its truth, yet a truthis never solemnly and publiclycondemned without culpablerashness. Therefore since verymany truth are, according to the1udgement of many, containedamong the articles condemned atParis, it follows that that universitycondemned many assertions

rashly. ?f that opinion have beenand are all those outside the@niversity of Paris who have heldand hold the opinions condemnedat Paris. lso of that way ofthin%ing are all those who, sincethe revocation of the aforesaidsentence in respect of ThomasDsopinions, now publicly or secretlymaintain and approve at Paristhose same opinions of his thatwere earlier condemned.

Discipulus0iror quod dicis aliquosante revocationem sententiaeParisiensis assertiones damnatasParisius tenuisse, nisi forsitanignoranter nescientes assertionesfuisse damnatas ibidem.

#tuentI wonder at your sayingthat before the revocation of thatsentence of Paris some people hadmaintained the assertionscondemned at Paris, unlessperhaps in their ignorance they didnot %now that the assertions hadbeen condemned there.

*agisterJolo te scire quod multiscienter nonnullas assertionesdamnatas Parisius occulte etpublice docuerunt. @nde et percertitudinem scio quendamdoctorem de ?rdine Praedicatorumassertionem damnatam Parisius

*asterI want you to %now thatmany people have %nowinglytaught secretly and publicly anumber of assertions condemnedat Paris. 4hence I %now as acertainty that a certain doctor ofthe ?rder of Preachers had publicly


17/63


18/63

5anc assertionem triplici rationeprobare nituntur, quarum prima esthaec. ecundum Innocentium 6, uthabetur ('tra, De sententiaexcommunicationis, c. $er tuas,

sententia e'communicationiscontinens intolerabilem erroremnon ligat& sed e'communicareassertionem catholicam estintolerabilis error& ergo talissententia nullum ligat.

They try to prove this assertion bythree arguments of which this isthe rst. ccording to Innocent III,as we nd in ('tra, De sententiaexcommunicationis, c. $er tuas

)col.AKB*, a sentence ofe'communication that contains anintolerable error is not binding& butto e'communicate a catholicassertion is an intolerable error&therefore such a sentence binds noone.

ecunda ratio est haec: nulluspotest cogi ad malum& negareautem assertionem catholicam estde se malum& ergo ad hoc pernullam sententiam potest quis cogi,et per consequens sententia ad hoccogens est nulla. ententia auteme'communicationis quae'communicatur catholica veritas,quantum est e' forma sententiae,cogit negare catholicam veritatem&ergo talis sententia nulla est, et perconsequens neminem ligat.

The second argument is this: noone can be forced to evil& to denya catholic assertion, however, is ofitself evil& therefore no one can beforced to this by any sentence, andconsequently a sentence forcingsomeone to this is null. 5owever, asentence of e'communication bywhich a catholic truth ise'communicated forces the denialof a catholic truth, as far as aformal sentence can do& thereforesuch a sentence is null andconsequently is not binding onanyone.

Tertia ratio est haec: sententiahaeretici neminem ligat, ut habetur, c.Audivimus& sed si dictasententia e'communicationis see'tendebat ad catholicas veritates,ferentes eandem sententiamfuerunt haeretici, quia si dubius inde est indelis multo fortius

damnans sententialiter veritatemcatholicam haereticus estcensendus& si autem ferentesdictam sententiam fuerunt haereticiipsa nullum omnino ligavit.

The third argument is this: thesentence of a heretic is binding onno one, as we nd in , c.Audivimus)col.AB7*& but if the saidsentence of e'communicatione'tended to catholic truths thoseimposing that sentence wereheretics because, if someone who

doubts in a matter of faith is anunbeliever, much more is it thecase that he who condemns acatholic truth in a sentence shouldbe considered a heretic& if thoseimposing the said sentence wereheretics, however, it did not bindanyone at all.


19/63


Discipulusn e'communicantes

ignoranter assertionem catholicamsint censendi haeretici posteadiligenter inquiram, et ideo adpropositum revertaris et quomodoad praefatam instantiam de@niversitate Parisiensi aliterrespondetur enarra.

#tuentI will carefully inquire

later whether those un%nowinglye'communicating a catholicassertion should be consideredheretics, and so would you returnto the argument and tell me inwhat other way reply is made tothe above ob1ection about the@niversity of Paris.

*agisterunt quidam dicentesquod dicta universitas multas

assertiones temerariee'communicavit, non quia illasassertiones putent saperecatholicam veritatem sed quiaquomodo repugnent deiorthodo'ae non apparet. lii dicuntquod ideo dicta e'communicatiofuit temeraria reputanda, quiae'communicantes potestatemquam non habebant indebiteusurparunt, et ideo iuste fuit postea

eadem sententia revocata. dhucest quarta responsio, quodepiscopus Parisiensis auctoritateapostolicae sedis rite eandem tulitsententiam. -amnare autemassertionem catholicam auctoritatesedis apostolicae ad inferioremsummo pontice potest licitepertinere.

*asterThere are some peoplewho say that the said university

e'communicated many assertionsrashly, not because they thin% thatthose assertions smac% of catholictruth but because it is not clearhow they are opposed to orthodo'faith. ?thers say that the saide'communication should havebeen considered rash becausethose who pronounced thee'communication usurped without1ust cause a power that they did

not have, and so it was 1ust thatthe sentence was later revo%ed.There is yet a fourth response, thatthe bishop of Paris rightly imposedthat sentence with the authority ofthe apostolic see. To condemn acatholic assertion with theauthority of the apostolic see,however, can licitly pertain tosomeone inferior to the highestpontiG.

Discipulusi tam damnanssolenniter assertionem catholicamquam revocans ritam et iustamdamnationem haereticae pravitatissit iudicandus haereticus, de quoinferius interrogationes tibi

#tuentIf both someonecondemning solemnly a catholicassertion and someone revo%ing aright and 1ust condemnation ofheretical wic%edness should be1udged heretical $ and I will


20/63

proponam, videtur necessarioconcedendum vel ferentes dictamsententiam e'communicationiscontra opiniones Thomae velpostea revocantes eandem sunt

inter haereticos computandi.

propose some questions to youabout this later $ it seems that itshould be granted necessarily thateither those imposing the saidsentence of e'communication

against the opinions of Thomas orthose revo%ing it later should berec%oned among the heretics.

*agister+uibusdam videtur quodtantum ferentes, aliis quodrevocantes sunt haereticireputandi, sed qui verius dicantsciri non potest nisi praecognito anassertiones damnatae et postearevocatae haereticae vel catholicaesint censendae.

*asterIt seems to some peoplethat only the sentencers, to others)only* the revo%ers are beregarded as heretics,but it can notbe %nown who is spea%ing moretruly unless it is rst %nownwhether the assertions condemnedand later revo%ed should beconsidered heretical or catholic.


Discipulus-e ista instantia adpraesens te non ampliusintromittas, sed dic quomodo adsecundam instantiam respondetur.

#tuent-o not involve yourselfany further with that ob1ectionnow, but tell me how reply is madeto the secondob1ection.

*agisterInstantia illacomprehendit duas, quarum primaest de primo archiepiscopo qui fuit?rdinis Praedicatorum. ecunda estde secundo archiepiscopo qui fuit?rdinis 0inorum. -e primodiversimode dicitur a diversis.-icunt enim quidam quod damnatiosua temeraria e'istebat eo quodveritates, ut dicunt, condemnavit.

@nde et quidam aliusarchiepiscopus ipsum de dictadamnatione acriter reprehendit,scribens eidem epistolam in quamanifeste asseruit quod veritatesdamnaverat. 0ulti tamen putantesipsum veritates plures temere

*asterThat ob1ection comprisestwo )parts*, of which the rstconcerns the rst archbishop whowas of the ?rder of Preachers. Thesecond concerns the secondarchbishop who was of the ?rderof 0inorites. -iGerent peoplespea% in diGerent ways about therst. #or some say that hiscondemnation was rash in that he

condemned what they say aretruths. Thus also a certain otherarchbishop )Peter of Conans*censured him ercely for thatcondemnation, writing a letter tohim in which he clearly armedthat he had condemned truths. 2et


21/63

condemnasse quod fuerithaereticus nequaquam armant,quia, ut dicunt, nullam veritatemcatholicam sed plures veritatesphilosophicas condemnavit. -e

assertionibus enimgrammaticalibus, logicalibus etpure philosophicis in eademdamnatione se, ut asserunt, temereintromisit.

many people who thin% that herashly condemned many truths donot assert that he was a hereticbecause, as they say, he did notcondemn any catholic truth but

many philosophical truths. #or theyarm that in that condemnationhe rashly involved himself withgrammatical, logical and purelyphilosophical assertions.

Discipulusn iste propter dictamdamnationem fuerit haereticusreputandus vel non sciri non possetnisi assertiones discuterentur quasdamnavit, quod ad praesens nonintendo. ed posito quoddamnasset aliquam assertionemquae in rei veritate est purephilosophica tanquam haereticam,nunquid fuisset haereticus

#tuent4hether he should havebeen regarded as a heretic or notbecause of that condemnationcould not be %nown unless theassertions which he condemnedwere discussed, and I do notintend to do this now. Hut if it isassumed that he had condemnedsome assertion as heretical whichin truth of fact is purelyphilosophical, would he have beena heretic

*agister+uidam dicunt quod sic,quia pertinaciter asserens aliquidesse de substantia dei quod addem non pertinet est haereticusiudicandus.

*asterome people say DyesD,because someone who armspertinaciously that somethingwhich does not pertain to the faithconcerns the substance of faithshould be 1udged a heretic.

Discipulus-e hoc posteaperscrutabor, et ideo ad propositumrevertere principale et dic an aliquialii praeter archiepiscopum de quodi'isti censuerint fuisse temerariamdamnationem praedictam.

#tuentI will investigate thislater, and so return to the mainargument and say whether anyoneelse besides the archbishop youspo%e about )i.e. Peter of Conans*considered that the aforesaid

condemnation was rash.

*agisterPlures alii ipsam fuissetemerariam reputarunt. Plures enimdoctores et scholares Parisiensesassertiones damnatas a dictoarchiepiscopo publice tenuerunt./am opinionem Thomae de unitate

*aster0any others rec%oned thatit was rash. #or many doctors andstudents at Paris publicly held theassertions condemned by the saidarchbishop )i.e. "obert ofLilwardby*. #or among other


22/63

formae in homine inter aliascondemnavit, et tamen tu scis quodplures Parisius ipsam publice tenentet defendunt ac docent, et ita estde multis aliis.

opinions of Thomas, hecondemned the one about theunity of form in a man, and yet you%now that many people in Parispublicly hold, defend, and teach it&

and so it is with many others.

Discipulus-ic aliam responsionemad instantiam secundam.

#tuentTell me another responseto the second ob1ection.

*agisterlii dicunt quod dictusarchiepiscopus articulos illostemere condemnavit non quia interillos veritates aliquae sintdamnatae sed quia sibi potestatemdamnandi quam non habuitusurpavit.

*aster?thers say that the saidarchbishop condemned thosearticles rashly not because amongthem some truths werecondemned but because heusurped to himself a power ofcondemning that he did not have.

DiscipulusIsti reprehendendodictam damnationem primofundamento solummodo, scilicetquod nullus inferior summopontice habet potestatem aliquamassertionem tanquam haereticamcondemnandi, inniti videntur.

#tuentIn censuring hiscondemnation they seem to berelying on this one principle only,namely that no one inferior to thehighest pontiG has the power tocondemn any assertion asheretical.

*agister/on est, ut dicis, quia istinon solum innituntur fundamentopraefato, sed etiam asserunt quodassertiones pure philosophicaequae ad theologiam non pertinentnon sunt ab aliquo solennitercondemnandae seu interdicendae,quia in talibus quilibet esse debetliber ut libere dicat quid sibi placet&et ideo quia dictus archiepiscopusdamnavit et interdi'it opiniones

grammaticales, logicales et purephilosophicas sua sententia fuittemeraria reputanda.

*asterIt is not as you say,because they do not rely only onthe aforesaid principle, but theyalso arm that purelyphilosophical assertions which donot pertain to theology should notbe solemnly condemned orforbidden by anyone, because inconnection with such )assertions*anyone at all ought to be free tosay freely what pleases him& and

therefore because the saidarchbishop condemned and forbadgrammatical, logical and purelyphilosophical opinions his sentenceshould be regarded as rash.

Discipulusn liceat alicui talesassertiones damnare nolo ad

#tuentI do not want to inquirenow whether anyone is permitted


23/63

praesens inquirere, sed indica si adsaepe dictam instantiam aliterrespondetur.

to condemn such assertions, butindicate if any other reply is madeto the often$cited ob1ection.

*agisterunt quidam dicentes

quod quilibet episcopus habetpotestatem damnandi haereses, e'quo sibi patenter innotescit quoddei obviant orthodo'ae.

*asterome people say that any

bishop has the power to condemnheresies from the fact that it isclear to him that they are opposedto orthodo' faith.

DiscipulusIsti negant quod priusprobasti, scilicet quod solaapostolica sedes potest terminarequaestionem motam de de. @ndenon curo quod plus loquaris de istoarchiepiscopo, sed dic quid diciturde alio.

#tuentThey deny what youproved before, that is, that onlythe apostolic see can determine aquestion raised about faith.Therefore I do not care for you tospea% further about thatarchbishop, but set out what issaid about the other one )i.e. ;ohnPecham*.

*agister+uidam putant ipsumtemerarie condemnasse opinionesThomae quia continent veritatem,quidam autem quia ad eumquamcunque assertionem damnareminime pertinebat. +uidam vero

dicunt quod rite damnavit quia illaeopiniones dei obviant orthodo'ae,eo quod tota opinio de unitateformae in homine doctrinaeecclesiae manifeste repugnat quaedocet quod idem fuit corpus Christivivum et mortuum. (t quilibetepiscopus habet potestatemdamnandi assertiones doctrinaeecclesiae repugnantes.

*asterome people thin% that hecondemned ThomasDs opinionsrashly because they contain thetruth, some, however, because itdid not pertain to him to condemnany opinion at all. Hut indeed some

say that he condemned themrightly because those opinions areopposed to orthodo' faith in thatthe whole opinion about the unityof form in a man is clearly opposedto the teaching of the churchwhich teaches that ChristDs bodywas the same alive and dead. ndany bishop at all has the power tocondemn assertions opposed tothe teaching of the church.


Discipulus/arra quomodorespondetur ad tertiam instantiamde ?rdine 0inorum qui damnauit

#tuentTell me how reply ismade to the third ob1ection aboutthe ?rder of 0inorites which
http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/#a9http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/#a8http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/#a9http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/#a8


24/63

doctrinam Petri Iohannis. condemned the teaching of Peter;ohn.

*agisterd illam multipliciterrespondetur. d cuius evidentiam

debes scire quod de doctrina PetriIohannis diversi diversimodesentiunt. +uidam enim putanttotam doctrinam suam essecatholicam. +uidam aestimantquod nihil in ea invenitur quodhaeresim sapiat manifestam, multatamen falsa et fantastica continetet praecipue cum futura praedicit.lii reputant quod haeresescontinet manifestas.

*asterThere are many replies tothis. To ma%e this clear you should

%now that diGerent people thin%diGerently about Peter ;ohnDsteaching. #or some people thin%that all his teaching is catholic.ome thin% that nothing is found init which smac%s of manifestheresy, yet that it contains manyfalse and fantastic features,especially when he predicts futureevents. ?thers rec%on that itcontains manifest heresies.

Primi et secundi tenent quod ?rdo0inorum dictam doctrinamtemerarie condemnavit, immononnulli putant quod damnantesincurrerint haereticam pravitatemquia sententialiter damnarecatholicam veritatem ecitdamnantem haereticumpertinacem. Tertii variantur, quidamenim licet reputent doctrinam PetriIohannis esse haereticam, tamenasserunt quod ?rdo antedictustemere condemnavit eandempotestatem quam non habuitusurpando. lii dicunt quodcondemnantes nequaquam temereprocesserunt quia processeruntauctoritate papae. -icunt enimquod /icolaus = eandem doctrinammandaverit condemnari. Tertii

dicunt specialiter de capitulo0assiliensi quod non temerecondemnavit praefatam doctrinamquia solum damnavit, vel potiusdamnatam declaravit seupronunciavit, illa quae prius perconcilium generale vel per aliquemponticem "omanum damnata

The rst and second groups holdthat the ?rder of 0inoritescondemned the said teachingrashly, indeed some of them thin%that the condemners fell intoheretical wic%edness because tocondemn a catholic truth in asentence ma%es the condemner apertinacious heretic. The thirdgroup is diversied, for althoughsome of them regard Peter ;ohnDsteaching as heretical, yet theyassert that the aforesaid ?rdercondemned it rashly in usurping apower which it did not have.?thers say the condemners did notproceed rashly because theyproceeded with the authority ofthe pope. #or they say that/icholas IJ ordered that his

teaching be condemned. thirdgroup says about the chapter at0arseilles in particular that it didnot condemn that teaching rashlybecause it condemned, or ratherdeclared or pronouncedcondemned, only those thingswhich had been condemned


25/63

fuerunt vel quae apertecontradicebant cripturae -ivinae.

previously by a general council orby some "oman pontiG or whichwere clearly in contradiction withdivine scripture.

DiscipulusIsta ultima sententiamagis mihi placet pro eo praecipuequod nec ?rdini antedicto attribuitusurpasse potestatem quam nonhabuit nec damnationi dominiIohannis papae


26/63

inferior summo pontice valeatlicite quamcumque assertionemnon damnatam e'plicite tamquamhaereticam e'communicare veldamnare, licet tamen collegiis aliis

et praelatis inferioribus papaassertiones erroneas e' causarationabili interdicere et praeciperequod nullatenus publicedefendantur. (t ideo dicunt quod si@niversitas Parisiensis etCantuarienses archiepiscopisaepefati e' causa rationabiliopiniones Thomae interdi'issent,tantummodo praecipiendo quodpublice eas nullus defenderet aut

doceret Parisius et ad sententiame'communicationis et damnationisopinionum earundem nullatenusprocessissent nil temerariumcommisissent.

inferior to the highest pontiG canlicitly e'communicate or condemnas heretical any assertion that hasnot been e'plicitly condemned, yetother gatherings and prelates

inferior to the pope are permittedfor a reasonable cause to forbiderroneous assertions and to orderthat they not be defended publicly.nd therefore they say that if the@niversity of Paris and the oft$mentioned archbishops ofCanterbury had forbiddenThomasDs opinions for a reasonablecause, only ordering that no onewas to defend or teach them

publicly at Paris, and had notproceeded to a sentence ofe'communication andcondemnation of those opinions,they would have done nothingrash.

Discipulus+uae potest esse causarationabilis praecipiendi opinionesaliquas publice non teneri

#tuent4hat can be areasonable cause for ordering thatsome opinions not be heldpublicly

*agister-icunt quod pro scandaloet schismate aliisque malis etpericulis evitandis possuntopiniones aliquae etiam veraequandoque rationibiliter interdici.

*asterThey say that anyopinions, even sometimes trueones, can be reasonably forbiddenfor the purpose of avoidingscandal, schism and other evilsand dangers.

Discipulus/unquid fuit unquamaliquod scandalum de opinionibus

Thomae

#tuent4as there ever anyscandal about ThomasDs opinions

*agisteraepe audivi a multisnglicis enarrari quod de opinioneThomae de unitate formae quandoconclusiones quae sequuntur e'ipsa e'plicabantur scandalum fuitin nglicano populo innitum.

*asterI have often heard it saidby many (nglishmen that whenconclusions which follow fromThomasDs opinion about the unityof form were e'plained there wasendless scandal among the (nglish


27/63

people.

Discipulus+uae fuerunt illaeconclusiones sequentes e' opinionede unitate formae quae e'presse

scandaliOabant populum

#tuent4hat were thoseconclusions following from thatopinion about the unity of form

which e'pressly scandalised thepeople

*agisterecundum istossubscriptae sunt. +uod corpusChristi non fuit idem numero vivumet mortuum& quod corpus quodiacuit in sepulchro Christi triduonunquam fuit corpus Christi dumviveret& quod corpora et reliquiaequae a delibus pro corporibussanctorum et reliquiis veneranturnunquam fuerunt corpora necpartes sanctorum dum viverent&quod corpora mortua nunquamfuerunt corpora viventium& quodcaro mortua nunquam fuit viva.

*asterccording to them, theyare those written below. ThatChristDs body was not the same innumber alive and dead& that thebody that lay in ChristDs tomb overthe three days was never ChristDsbody when he was alive& that thebodies and relics that arevenerated by believers as thebodies and relics of saints werenever the bodies and parts of thesaints when they were alive& thatdead bodies were never the bodiesof people alive& that dead eshwas never living.

Discipulusatis e'emplicasti deconclusionibus sequentibus e'

opinione de unitate formaesubstantialis, et ideo ad propositumredeundo e'plica rationes, si quaesunt, pro assertione praedicta.

#tuent2ou have sucientlye'emplied the conclusions which

follow from that opinion about theunity of substantial form, and soreturning to our plan set out thearguments for the aboveassertion,if there are any.

*agisterssertionem suamprobant isti tali ratione. ?mne illudquod potest licite praetermitti asubditis potest e' causa rationabilia praelatis et iurisdictionem

habentibus super subditos interdici&nam qui praeest potest et debet inomnibus utilitati omnium providereet periculis obviare, et in talibuslicitis et honestis oportet subditosobedire, ut colligitur e' sacriscanonibus >>, q. 6, c. Si autemet c.Si quiset c.Absit& sed opiniones

*asterThey prove their assertionby the following argument.(verything that can licitly beomitted by sub1ects can for areasonable cause be forbidden by

prelates and by those having1urisdiction over the sub1ects& forhe who is in command can andshould ma%e provision foreveryoneDs benet in all mattersand prevent dangers, and itbehoves their sub1ects to obeythem in permitted and honest


28/63

aliquas non defendere nec docereest licitum, imo quandoquenecessarium et e'pediens, ergo etpotest a praelatis et collegiisiurisdictionem habentibus e' causa

rationabili interdici.

matters of this %ind, as we gatherfrom the sacred canons, >>, q. 6, c.Si autem)col.B=B*, c. Si quis)col.B=B* and c.Absit)col.B=7*& butthere are some opinions which it is

permissible, indeed sometimes it isnecessary and e'pedient, not todefend or teach, and therefore thiscan also be forbidden for areasonable cause by prelates andcolleges having 1urisdiction.

Discipulusecundum hancrationem liceret quandoquepraelatis interdicere veritates. /amquandoque tacere veritatem este'pediens.

#tuentccording to thisargument prelates wouldsometimes be permitted to forbidtruths, for it is sometimese'pedient to be silent about thetruth.

*agisterInterdicere veritatemomnibus et pro omni temporenemini licet secundum istos,aliquibus tamen et pro aliquotempore imperare ne aliquasveritates docere praesumant licet,sicut di'it postolus, !0ulieridocere non permitto!, et -ominusin evangelio ait, !/olite daresanctum canibus& neque mittatismargaritas ante porcos.! (' quibuscolligitur quod nec omnibus necomni tempore veritatem e'peditpraedicare aut docere veldefensare.

*asterccording to them no oneis permitted to forbid the truth toeveryone and for all time, yet it ispermissible to order some peoplefor some time not to presume toteach some truths, 1ust as thepostle said )> Tim.


29/63

quod e' causa rationabili licetinferioribus aliquas assertionesinterdicere, per hoc insinuantesquod cessante causa cessetinterdictum.

they say that inferiors arepermitted to forbid someassertions !for a reasonablecause!,implying by this that whenthe cause ceases the forbidding

ceases.


Discipulusicet circa praedictamihi multae dubitationes occurrant,illis tamen omissis ad intentumprincipale revertor. 0ihi autemvidetur probabile quod nullus

inferior papa potest aliquamassertionem non damnatame'plicite tanquam haereticame'communicare vel damnaree'plicite, sed adhuc ignoro cuifundamento papa vel conciliumgenerale in damnando e'plicitealiquam assertionem tanquamhaereticam debet inniti. @nde dehoc quid sentiunt literati dicere nonpostponas.

#tuentlthough many doubtsabout the foregoing occur to me,nevertheless I will put them asideand return to the main argument.It seems probable to me, however,

that no one inferior to the popecan e'communicate or condemne'plicitly as heretical any assertionnot e'plicitly condemned, but I stilldo not %now on what principle apope or a general council shouldrely in e'plicitly condemning someassertion as heretical. 4ould youtherefore not delay telling me whatthe learned thin% about this.

On hat basis can a octrine beconemne as heres!.

*agisterCirca interrogationemtuam opiniones contrarias recitabo.unt enim quidam dicentes quodtantae auctoritatis est papa quodad placitum potest quamcunque

assertionem tanquam haereticamcondemnare, et isti videntur esseimitatores sequacium ergii papae,persecutoris papae #ormosi, qui, utin quodam libro antiquissima literalegitur, in tantum volebant papame'tollere quod asserebant papam

*asterI will recite opposingopinions about your question. #orthere are some people who saythat the pope is of such greatauthority that as it pleases him he

can condemn any assertion asheretical, and they seem to beimitators of the followers of Popeergius, the persecutor of Pope#ormosus. s we read in a certainboo% with a very old script, theywanted to e'alt the pope so much


30/63

non posse damnari sed quodquicquid faceret salvaretur. Ita istidicunt quod quicquid papa dinitesse tenendum omnes catholicosoportet credere et tenere. 5inc dicit

glossa dist. >A, c. Si Romanorum,!Illud quod papa approbat velreprobat, nos approbare velreprobare debemus.!

that they asserted that a pope cannot be damned but would be savedwhatever he did. Thus they saythat it is necessary for all catholicsto believe and hold whatever a

pope denes should be held.5ence, the gloss on dist. >A, c. SiRomanorum)s. v. reprobantur&col.8K* says, !That of which a popeapproves or disapproves, we oughtto approve or disapprove.!

DiscipulusIsta assertio sonat quodpapa non potest haereticari, de quopostea interrogationem specialemhabebo. Ideo de hoc pro nunctranseas, et narra ut promisistiassertionem contrariam.

#tuentThat assertion suggeststhat the pope can not be a heretic,a matter about which I will have aparticular question later. 4ouldyou pass over this now, therefore,and set out the opposing assertion,as you promised.

*agisterlii asserunt manifestequod papa et concilium generale acetiam universalis ecclesia, si rectedamnet aliquam assertionemtanquam haereticam stricteloquendo, de assertione haereticauni vel pluribus de tribusfundamentis debet inniti et sepatenter fundare.

*aster?thers assert clearly thatif a pope, a general council andalso the universal church rightlycondemn some assertion asheretical strictly spea%ing, theyshould rely and clearly basethemselves in connection with thatheretical assertion on one or moreof three principles.

Primum est criptura acra et istifundamento innitebantur conciliageneralia principalia haereses rrii,0acedonii, /estorii, (uticis et-iostori condemnando. icut enimaliqua illorum conciliorum,condendo symbola, in auctoritate

cripturae -ivinae se fundabant,testante Isidoro qui, ut habetur dist.>9, c. >, ait, !ancti patres inconcilio /iceno de omni orbeterrarum convenientes iu'ta demevangelicam et apostolicamsecundum post apostolossymbolum tradiderunt!, ita

The rst is sacred scripture, andthe earliest general councils reliedon this principle in condemning theheresies of rius, 0acedonius,/estorius, (uticis and -iostorus.#or 1ust as some of those councilsbased themselves on the authority

of divine scripture in producing thecreeds, as Isidore attests when hesays, as we nd in dist >9, c. >)col.6=*, !The holy fathers comingtogether at the council of /iceafrom all the lands on earth handedon the second creed after theapostles in accordance with


31/63

haereses damnando profundamento sacras literasposuerunt. ic etiam le'ander 6damnando assertionem dicentemquod Christus non est aliquid

secundum quod homo in hacveritate a criptura -ivina accepta,!Christus est verus -eus et homo!,se fundavit. ic etiam sanctidoctores haereses reprobando ipsasper cripturas acras convincereconabantur, sicut e' libris eorumpatenter habetur. @nde et Isidorus,ut habetur


32/63

vel inspiratio nova divina. i enimaliqua veritas aeterna de his quaepertinent ad salutem de novorevelaretur ecclesiae, illa essettanquam catholica approbanda et

omnem falsitatem ei contrariamposset ecclesia et etiam papatanquam haereticam condemnare.(t quamvis isti e'emplum nesciantinvenire, quod unquam ecclesiaaliquam haeresim condemnando sein tali revelatione vel inspirationefundaverit, tamen dicunt quod hocnon est impossibile quia posset-eus, si sibi placeret, multasveritates catholicas noviter revelare

vel inspirare.

revelation or inspiration. #or if anyeternal truth about those thingsthat pertain to salvation werenewly revealed to the church itwould be approved as catholic, and

the church, and also the pope,could condemn as heretical everyfalsity opposed to it. nd althoughthey do not %now how to nd ane'ample, that in condemning someheresy the church has ever baseditself on such a revelation orinspiration, yet they say that this isnot impossible because if it werepleasing to him 3od could newlyreveal or inspire many catholic

truths.

Discipulus+uid si papa velgenerale etiam concilium dicat sibialiquam veritatem esse revelatam a-eo vel etiam inspiratam /unquidalii deles credere astringuntur

#tuent4hat if a pope or even ageneral council says that sometruth had been revealed to it, or,also, inspired in it, by 3od reother believers bound to believe

*agister-icunt isti quod absquemiraculo manifesto non est eiscredendum quia non sucit nudeasserere quod est eis veritasrevelata vel etiam inspirata, sedoportet quod talem revelationemseu inspirationem miraculioperatione conrment aperta.

*asterThey say that they shouldnot be believed without an obviousmiracle, because it is not enoughto assert barely that a truth hasbeen revealed to them or eveninspired in them, but it isnecessary that they conrm arevelation or inspiration of this%ind by the clear wor%ing of amiracle.

Discipulus+uid dicerent isti siomnes christiani nullo e'cepto

aliquam veritatem tanquamcatholicam rmiter acceptarentquam tamen nec e' cripturis-ivinis nec e' aliqua doctrinaecclesiae praecedenti possentostendere

#tuent4hat would they say if allchristians with no e'ception were

rmly to accept some truth ascatholic which nevertheless theycould not show from the divinescriptures nor from any earlierteaching of the church

*agister-icunt quod talis veritas *asterThey say that such a truth


33/63

esset tanquam catholicaacceptanda quia talis concorsadhaesio omnium christianorumnullo e'cepto alicui assertionihuiusmodi sine miraculo non posset

contingere. Cum enim omnesdeles rmissime teneant quodiu'ta promissionem alvatoris0atthaei ultimo, !Jobiscum sumusque ad consummationem seculi!,ecclesia universalis nunquamerrabit, constat quod sineinspiratione divina specialinunquam ecclesia universalisassertioni quae non dependet e'doctrina ecclesiae praecedenti

rmiter adhaerebit, et ita siunquam tali veritati adhaerebitmiraculose adhaerebit, et ideo tuncmiraculum eri esset credendum.

should be accepted as catholicbecause such a harmoniousagreement of all christians with noe'ception could not occur inconnection with any assertion of

this %ind without a miracle. #orsince all believers most rmly hold,in accordance with the aviourDspromise in the last chapter of0atthew )


34/63

rmiter permanere in detemerarium est asserere quodnunquam ante nem mundi -euspermitteret totam multitudinemchristianorum praeter unum a de

recedere orthodo'a.

apostles to turn aside from thecatholic faith and the blessedvirgin alone to endure rmly in thefaith it is rash to assert that neverbefore the end of the world would

3od permit the whole multitude ofchristians e'cept one to withdrawfrom orthodo' faith.

DiscipulusIsta nescio improbare,sed videtur quod ad hoc quodomnes catholici teneantur alicuiveritati noviter revelatae rmiteradhaerere non sucit eamoperatione miraculi conrmare cumper malos et indeles antmiracula, sicut e' verbis evangelii0atthei 7 colligitur, ut apparetChristo dicente, !0ulti dicent mihiin illa die, -omine, -omine, nonnein nomine tuo prophetavimus, et innomine tuo daemonia eiecimus, etin nomine tuo virtutes multasfecimus (t tunc contebor illis,quia nunquam novi vos,! hoc estnunquam approbavi vos. 5uicetiam concordat glossa ('tra, Dehaereticis, c. Cum ex iniunctodicens, !+uandoque miracula untper malos.!

#tuentI do not %now how todisprove these things, but it seemsthat for all catholics to be bound toadhere rmly to some newlyrevealed truth it is not enough toconrm it with the wor%ing of amiracle since miracles areperformed by the wic%ed and byunbelievers, as we gather, so itseems, from the words of thegospel of 0atthew, 7):


35/63

ad conrmationem veritatis. icIudas proditor quamvis fuerit malusquia tamen docuit veritatemmiracula faciebat. +uando ergo tmiraculum verum ad assertionem

aliquam conrmandam tenendumest indubie quod talis assertio provera debet haberi sive illi quibusrevelata fuerit inter bonos sive intermalos fuerint computandi.

truth even if they are evil. oalthough the traitor ;udas was evilhe nevertheless performedmiracles because he taught thetruth. Therefore when a true

miracle is performed to conrmsome assertion, it should be heldwithout doubt that such anassertion should be considered thetruth whether those to whom itwas revealed should be rec%onedamong the good or among the evil.

DiscipulusIsta responsio estapparens. @nde quae di'isti de istasecunda sententia suciant& sed sinosti alios aliter dicere non diGerasindicare.

#tuentThat reply is clear. etwhat you have said about thatsecond opinion be enough,therefore& but do not postponema%ing %nown to me if you %nowthat others say something else.

*agister/onnulli putant quod tamconcilium generale quam etiampapa in damnando aliquamassertionem tanquam haereticamin sola criptura acra debet sefundare, quia solae veritates incriptura acra contentae et quaesequuntur e' eis catholicae suntcensendae. -e hac sententiatractatus praecedens te poteritinformare.

*asterome people thin% thatboth a general council and also apope should base themselves onsacred scripture alone whencondemning some assertion asheretical because only truthscontained in sacred scripture andthose which follow from themshould be considered catholic. Theprecedingtreatment can informyou about this opinion.

%apitulum 2+ %hapter 2+

Discipulusatis adverto e'praecedentibus quomodo ista

sententia fulciri poterit et quomodoetiam poterit improbari, et ideo adquaestionem aliam me converto.dhuc enim nescio an ad hoc quodcatholici aliquam assertionemhabere debeant pro damnatae'plicite oporteat in damnatione

#tuentI perceive sucientlyfrom what you have said how that

opinion can be strengthened andalso how it can be disproved, andso I turn to another question. #or Istill do not %now whether, in orderfor catholics to have to considersome assertion as e'plicitlycondemned, it is necessary in the
http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t1d2a.html#a5http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/t1d2a.html#a5


36/63

talem vel aequipollentemmodicationem seu specicationemvel determinationem tanquamhaereticam vel contrariam catholicaveritati adiungere taliter vel

aequipollenter proferendosententiam, !Talem assertionemtanquam haereticam vel catholicaeveritati inimicam damnamus.! @ndecirca hoc unam vel plures narrasententias.

condemnation to add this or someequivalent modication,specication or determination of itas !heretical! or !opposed tocatholic truth!, by publishing a

sentence li%e the following, orsomething equivalent, !4econdemn such an assertion asheretical or as dangerous tocatholic truth.! Tell me thereforeone or more opinions about this.

*agisterd hoc dupliciterrespondetur. +uidam enim dicuntquod talis determinatio velmodicatio seu specicatio insententia est ponenda ad hoc utassertio improbata pro haeresidamnata e'plicite habeatur, quiadicunt quod assertio quae non estdamnata tanquam haeretica prohaeretica haberi non debet. liidicunt quod ad hoc quod aliquaassertio pro haeretica habeatursucit absque tali determinationevocali quod ipsa falsa assertioreprobetur vel veritas contrariae'plicite approbetur et quod talisapprobatio vel reprobatio fundeturin catholica veritate. ic le'ander6 reprobans et interdicens nealiquis dicat Christum non essealiquid secundum quod homo suamreprobationem fundavit in veritatecatholica ista, videlicet Christus estverus -eus et verus homo. (t ideovoluit quod dicta assertio prohaeretica haberetur licet talemdeterminationem tanquamhaereticam condemnamus vocaliterin sua prohibitione nequaquame'presserit.

*asterThis is replied to in twoways. #or some people say thatsuch a determination, modicationor specication should be put inthe sentence in order that there1ected assertion be consideredas an e'plicitly condemned heresy,because they say that an assertionthat has not been condemned asheretical should not be consideredas heretical. ?thers say that forsome assertion to be considered asheretical it is enough that the falseassertion itself be re1ected or itsopposing truth e'plicitly beapproved without such adetermination in words and thatsuch an approval or re1ection bebased on catholic truth. o whenle'ander III forbad and re1ectedanyoneDs saying that Christ isnothing as a man, he based hisre1ection on this catholic truth, thatChrist is true 3od and true man.nd therefore he wanted the saidassertion to be consideredheretical, although in hisprohibition he did not vocallye'press a determination such as,!4e condemn it as heretical!.

5oc etiam ratione probatur. /amveritas e'plicite approbata et in

This is also proved by argument.#or an e'plicitly approved truth


37/63

veritate catholica fundata procatholica debet haberi& ergo etfalsitas contraria debet haereticaiudicari& sed sive approbetur veritassive damnetur contraria falsitas,

semper veritas approbatur quiareprobatio unius contradictoriarumest alterius approbatio eteconverso& ergo talis assertiocontraria veritati in de fundataecatholica haeretica est censenda etpro damnata e'plicite est habenda.

which is based on catholic truthshould be considered as catholic&its opposing falsehood thereforeshould be 1udged as heretical& butwhether a truth be approved or its

opposing falsehood condemned,the truth is always approvedbecause the re1ection of one of )apair* of contradictories involvesthe approval of the other, and viceversa& therefore an assertion of a%ind that is opposed to a truthbased on catholic faith, should beconsidered heretical andaccounted condemned.

%apitulum 2' %hapter 2'

Discipulusdhuc habeo quod dehaeresum damnatione interrogem.0ihi enim apparet quod omnis errorqualitercunque sive patenter sivelatenter cripturae -ivinae obvianset repugnans numero haeresumaggregetur& constat autem quod

theologi de his quae spectant adcripturam acram contrarieopinantur, qui tamen omnesopiniones suas criptura -ivinafulcire nituntur et per eandemcripturam acram opinionescontrarias reprobare moliuntur&ergo aliquae dictarum opinionumcontrariarum numero haeresumaggregantur. /unquid ergo papadamnabiliter peccat negligendo

huiusmodi haereses condemnare

#tuentThere is somethingfurther I will as% about thecondemnation of heresies. #or itseems to me that every error thatis opposed to and inconsistent withdivine scripture in any way at all,whether openly or secretly, may

be added to the number of theheresies& it is certain however thattheologians oGer opposed opinionsabout those matters that pertain tosacred scripture, while nonethelessstriving to support all theiropinions with divine scripture andtrying to re1ect opposed opinionsthrough the same sacred scripture&some of these said opposedopinions, therefore, are added to

the number of the heresies. -oes apope sin culpably, therefore, byneglecting to condemn heresies ofthis %ind

s a pope to blame if he oes not conemn


38/63

the heresies of ell-intentionetheologians.

*agister+uidam dicunt quodpapa in nullo peccat permittendotheologos huiusmodi assertionesquae sunt in rei veritate haereticaeopinando tenere, quod tali rationevidetur posse probari. Permitterelicita non est peccatum, cumquandoque absque peccato illicitapermittantur& sed huiusmodierrores qui non sunt damnatie'plicite opinando tenere estlicitum, quia talis opinio, quamdiuopinans paratus est corrigi,opinantem non reddit haereticum&ergo absque peccato permittit papatheologos huiusmodi errores qui inrei veritate sunt haereses opinandotenere.

*asterome people say that thepope does not sin at all in allowingtheologians to hold as their opinionassertions of this %ind which are intruth of fact heretical, and thisseems provable by the followingargument. It is not heretical toallow what is permissible sincesometimes what is impermissibleis allowed without sin& but it ispermissible to hold as an opinionerrors of this %ind which have notbeen condemned e'plicitlybecause such an opinion does notma%e the one who holds it aheretic as long as he is prepared tobe corrected& )ee ignicantJariants, para. 7.* the pope iswithout sin, therefore, in allowingtheologians to hold as their opinionerrors of this %ind which are intruth of fact heresies.

lii sentiunt quod plures summipontices damnabiliter in hocpeccaverunt permittendo haereseshuiusmodi etiam opinando teneri.+uod probant primo sic: non solumhaeretici sed etiam haereses suntde ecclesia e'stirpandae testeconcilio generali quod, prouthabetur ('tra, De haereticis, c.

Excommunicamus, episcoposindicat deponendos qui supere'purgando de suis diocesibushaereticae pravitatis fermentonegligentes fuerint vel remissi& illeergo ad quem spectat e' ocio sibiiniuncto haereses e'stirpare sinegligens fuerit vel remissus de

?thers thin% that many highestpontiGs have sinned culpably inallowing heresies of this %ind to beheld even as an opinion. Theyprove this rst as follows: not onlyshould heretics be rooted out ofthe church but also heresies, asthe general council found in ('tra,De hereticis, c. Excommunicamus

)col.>B89* attests& it indicates thatbishops who have been negligentor remiss about purging theirdioceses of the leaven of hereticalwic%edness should be deposed& iftherefore he to whom it pertains inaccordance with the oce withwhich he is charged to root out
http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/signif.html#a7http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/signif.html#a7


39/63

damnabili remissione velnegligentia e'cusari non potest&sed ad summum ponticem spectattotam ecclesiam de haeresibus nonsolum iam damnatis e'plicite sed

etiam aliis quibuscunque purgare&ergo qui tales haeresessustinuerunt teneri vel doceridamnabiliter peccaverunt.

heresies has been negligent orremiss, he can not be e'cusedfrom culpable negligence orla'ness& but it pertains to thehighest pontiG to purge the whole

church of heresies, not only thosealready e'plicitly condemned butalso any others at all& those whohave supported the holding orteaching of such heresies,therefore, have sinned culpably.

Discipulus/on videtur quod papateneatur de novis haeresibus quaenon sunt damnatae e'plicitepurgare ecclesiam& sed sucit sibiquod eam purget vel purgatamconservet ab omni pravitatehaeretica e'plicite iam damnata.

#tuentIt does not seem that thepope is bound to purge the churchof new heresies that have not beencondemned e'plicitly, but it isenough for him to purge it or %eepit purged of every hereticalwic%edness already condemnede'plicitly.

*agister5oc improbant isti,dicentes quod papa qui haeresesinsurgentes de novo negligitimprobare et damnare apostolos etsanctos patres qui haeresespullulantes celerrime damnaveruntnullatenus imitatur, quorum tamenvestigiis inhaerere oportet"omanum ponticem si eis vult incoelesti patria aggregari.Peccaverunt ergo summi ponticesqui damnare huiusmodi haeresesnegle'erunt.

*asterThey re1ect this, sayingthat a pope who neglects tooppose and condemn heresieswhich newly rise up is not imitatingthe apostles and holy fathers whovery swiftly condemned heresiesas they came forth. 2et it isnecessary for the "oman pontiG tocleave to their footsteps if hewants to 1oin them in the heavenlyhomeland. 5ighest pontiGs whohave neglected to condemnheresies of this %ind, therefore,have sinned.

Discipuluspostoli et sancti

patres ideo haereses damnaveruntquia invenerunt pertinaceshuiusmodi haeresum assertores.Cum ergo theologi haeresum quasputant veritati catholicae minimeobviare pertinaces non fueruntassertores, non fuerunt haeresesquas opinando solummodo

#tuentThe apostles and holy

fathers condemned heresiesbecause they found pertinaciousassertors of heresies of this %ind.Therefore since theologians havenot been pertinacious assertors ofheresies which they thin% are notopposed to catholic truth, theheresies which they have taught


40/63

docuerunt per "omanos ponticescondemnandae.

only as an opinion should not becondemned by "oman pontiGs.

*agisterIstam e'cusationem"omanorum ponticum isti

dupliciter impugnare. Primo quianescierunt an theologi suisopinionibus haereticalibuspertinaciter adhaererent e' quo dehoc nullam inquisitionem omninofecerunt& ergo in inquirendoveritatem ut periculis deiobviarent negligentes vel remissifuerunt. ecundo sic: maioripericulo est fortius ac diligentius etcelerius obviandum& sed e'haeresibus publice opinatis etdogmatiOatis maius imminetpericulum religioni christianaequam e' consuetudinibus onerosiset pravis quia, esto quoddogmatiOantes suis opinionibusminime pertinaciter adhaererent,tamen timendum est ne simplicesdiscipuli audientes assertioneshuiusmodi a magnis doctoribusedoceri et pro eis fortiter allegari eta catholicis nullatenus condemnarie' apparentia rationum quasnesciunt solvere in adhaesionempertinacem eisdem haeresibusinducantur, et ne errores pestiferipro veritatibus catholicis incipiantvenerari et pertinaciter defensari&sed consuetudines onerosae etpravae sunt celerrimecomprimendae ne in privilegiorumius ab impiis assumantur, ut asserit/icolaus papa, prout habetur dist.8, c. ala& ergo multo fortiushaereses qualitercunquepullulaverint sunt evellendaeradicitus et damnandae ne asimplicibus et seducibilibus proveritatibus catholicis approbentur.

*asterThey try to attac% in twoways that e'cuse for the "oman

pontiGs. #irstly, because the latterhave not %nown whethertheologians would clingpertinaciously to their hereticalopinions because they have notmade any inquiry about this at all&they have been negligent orremiss, therefore, in inquiringabout the truth in order to resistdangers to the church. The secondis as follows: a greater dangershould be resisted more strongly,diligently and swiftly& but a greaterdanger threatens the christianreligion from heresies held publiclyas an opinion and propoundedthan from burdensome and evilcustoms because, even if thosepropounding their opinions werenot to adhere to thempertinaciously, it shouldnevertheless be feared lest simplestudents hearing assertions of this%ind taught by great doctors andargued for strongly and notcondemned by catholics beinduced by the plausibility ofarguments they do not %now howto refute to a pertinaciousadherence to those heresies, andlest pestiferous errors begin to bevenerated and defendedpertinaciously as catholic truths&but burdensome and evil customsshould be very quic%ly repressedlest they be adopted by theimpious as a right and privilege, asPope /icholas arms, as we nd indist. 8, c. ala)col.>=*& it is muchmore the case, therefore, that


41/63

howsoever heresies come forththey should be completely rootedout and condemned lest they beapproved as catholic truths bythose who are simple and may be

misled.

DiscipulusIsta ratio ultima estapparens, sed prima omniapparentia carere videtur quiasecundum sacros canones non estde aliquo inquisitio facienda nisiprius fuerit diGamatus, ut habetur('tra, De accusationibus, c.Qualiter et quandoet in multis aliislocis& sed theologi de haeresibusnullatenus diGamati fuerunt& ergode eis summi pontices nondebuerunt inquirere.

#tuentThat last argument isclear& but the rst seems to lac% allplausibility because according tothe sacred canons an inquisitionshould not be made into anyoneunless he has rst been accused,as we nd in ('tra, Deaccusationibus, c. Qualiter etquando)col.7=9* and in manyother places& but theologians havenot been accused about heresies&therefore, highest pontiGs shouldnot have made an inquisition intothem.

*agister-icunt isti quod istae'cusatio non est suciens, quia,licet theologi non fuerint diGamatiquod essent haeretici,diGamabantur tamen quodhaereses docuerunt& unde et multitheologi nunc putant quod aliitheologi haereses dogmatiOentquamvis nollent asserere quod sintinter haereticos computandi. 0ultienim etiam forte cum assertioneputant quod omnes opinionesThomae quae quondam fueruntdamnatae Parisius sunt haereticaeiudicandae. /onnulli etiam credunt

omnes opiniones suas quasCantuarienses archiepiscopidamnaverunt inter haeresescomputandas. +uidam enimrmissime credunt quod dicerevoluntatem nihil posse velle contraactuale iudicium rationis sapiathaeresim manifestam quia, ut

*asterThey say that that is notan adequate e'cuse, becausealthough theologians have notbeen accused of having beenheretics yet they were accused ofhaving taught heresies& so indeedmany theologians now thin% thatother theologians teach heresiesas doctrine, even if they would notwant to arm that they should berec%oned among heretics. #ortogether with this armationmany also thin% perhaps that allThomasDs opinions which wereonce condemned at Paris should

be 1udged as heretical. ome alsobelieve that all his opinions whichthe archbishops of Canterburycondemned should be rec%onedamong the heresies. #or somepeople most rmly believe that tosay that the will can will nothingagainst the actual 1udgement of


42/63

dicunt, omne meritum tollit etdemeritum. +uidam etiam creduntquod dicere in homine non esse nisiunam formam substantialemveritati obviat orthodo'ae. +uidam

etiam putant quod multaeopiniones coti sint inter haeresesnumerandae. -icere enim quodsapienta -ei ab essentia -ei e'natura rei quomodolibetdistinguatur putant simplicitatidivinae et per consequens veritaticatholicae repugnare. Idemsentiunt de unitate minori, unitatenumerali et prioritatibus quas ponitin -eo et de aliis quae opinatur

quasi innumeris. 5oc idem demultis opinionibus (gidii multie'istimant. (st ergo notorium quodtheologi haereses dogmatiOarenotantur quamvis haeretici minimereputentur. Propter talem ergofamam debuerunt summi ponticespro inquisitione facienda moveri.

reason smac%s of manifest heresy,because, as they say, it )thisdoctrine* ta%es away every meritand demerit. ome people alsobelieve that to say that there is

nothing in man e'cept onesubstantial form conicts withorthodo' truth. ome people alsothin% that many of cotusDsopinions should be rec%onedamong the heresies. #or they thin%that to say that the wisdom of 3odmay in some way be distinguishedin reality from the essence of 3odcontradicts the divine simplicityand, consequently, conicts with

catholic truth. They thin% the sameabout lesser unity, numeral unityand the priorities which he locatesin 3od and about practicallynumberless other opinions heholds. 0any thin% the same aboutmany of (gidiusDs )3il

Documents

William of Ockham02-17-34.doc