dialogus biling vi

7/30/2019 Dialogus Biling VI

1/15

William of Ockham, Dialogus,

part 1, book 4, chapters 6-12

Text and translation by John Scott.

Copyright 1999, The British Academy

Capitulum 6. Chapter 6.

Discipulus Sufficiat dixisse praedicta de

primo modo. Dic nunc secundum modumquo valeat de pertinacia quis convinci.

Disciple Let what was said above be

enough about the first way; describe nowa second way by which someone can be

convicted of pertinacity.

Magister Qui dicit aliquam partem Novi

aut Veteris Testamenti aliquod falsum

asserere aut non esse recipiendam a

catholicis est pertinax et haereticus

reputandus. Unde propter hoc fuerunt

Manichei haeretici iudicati, qui Vetus

Testamentum respuerunt et Novum

Testamentum pro parte tantummodoreceperunt.

Master He who says that some part of the

New or Old Testament asserts something

false or should not be accepted by

catholics should be regarded as

pertinacious and a heretic. It was for this

reason that the Manichees, who rejected

the Old Testament and accepted the New

Testament only in part, were condemnedas heretics.

Discipulus Nunquid si aliquis laicus qui de

libro forte Iosue nunquam audivit fieri

mentionem diceret eundem librum Iosue ad

Vetus Testamentum minime pertinere esset

censendus haereticus?

Disciple Should some layman be

considered a heretic if he has never heard

any mention of the book of, say, Joshua

and were to say that the book of Joshua

does not belong to the Old Testament?

Magister Differentia est inter dicentem

aliquam scripturam ad Vetus vel NovumTestamentum minime pertinere et dicentem

aliquam partem Novi vel Veteris

Testementi non esse recipiendam.

Master There is a difference between one

saying that some writing does not belongto the Old or the New Testament and one

saying that some part of the New or the

Old Testament should not be accepted.

Primus, si est laicus vel illiteratus non est

statim censendus haereticus sed est

diligenter examinandus et etiam

instruendus. Et si post informationem

convenientem non se corrigeret esset

pertinax reputandus. Si vero est literatus,

sciens quos libros ecclesia reputat esse deintegritate Novi et Veteris Testamenti, et

In the first case, if it is a layman or

someone unlearned, he should not

immediately be considered a heretic but

should be carefully examined and also

instructed. If he were not to correct

himself after appropriate teaching he

should be regarded as pertinacious. But ifhe is learned and knows what books the


2/15

tamen hoc non obstante diceret librum

Iosue vel alium ad Vetus Testamentum

minime pertinere esset statim haereticus et

pertinax iudicandus, nec esset expectandus

ut se correctus corrigeret, sed statim pro

incorrigibili esset habendus.

church regards as integral to the New and

Old Testament and yet, notwithstanding

this, were to say that the book of Joshua,

or some other, does not belong to the Old

Testament he should be condemned

immediately as a heretic and pertinacious;

nor should he be waited for so that once

corrected he might then correct himself,

but he should be held at once to be

incorrigible.

Secundus autem, qui scilicet dicit aliquam

partem Novi vel Veteris Testamenti non

esse recipiendam vel aliquod falsum

asserere, sive literatus sive illiteratus

extiterit, est statim pertinax iudicandus, nisiforte fuerit adeo simplex quod nesciat quid

per "Novum et Vetus Testamentum"

importetur et, seductus ab aliis, dicat

Novum vel Vetus Testamentum aut

aliquam partem recipi non debere, firmiter

tamen credens totam fidem ecclesiae esse

recipiendam. Talis enim non est inter

haereticos computandus sed per

simplicitatem et ignorantiam excusandus.

Et de talibus simplicibus dicit Augustinus,

ut habetur 24. q. 3. c.Haereticus, "Illeautem qui huiusmodi hominibus," scilicet

haereticis, "credit imaginatione quadam

veritatis est illusus." Et ideo non videtur

quod debeat pertinax iudicari nisi credat

fidem ecclesiae esse falsam vel alio modo

pertinax convincatur.

However, in the second case, namely

someone who says that some part of the

New or Old Testament should not be

accepted or that it asserts something false,

he should be judged immediately aspertinacious, whether he is learned or

unlearned, unless perhaps he is so simple

that he does not know what is meant by

"New and Old Testament" and, led astray

by others, says that the New or Old

Testament or some part of it should not

be accepted even though he firmly

believes that the whole faith of the church

should be accepted. For such a person

should not be counted among the heretics

but should be excused by simplicity andignorance. It is about such simple people

that Augustine speaks, as we read in 24.

q. 3. c.Hereticus [col.998], "He who

believes men of this kind," that is

heretics, "has been deceived by some

fancy of truth." It does not seem,

therefore, that he should be judged as

pertinacious unless he believes that the

faith of the church is false or is convicted

as pertinacious in another way.

Capitulum 7 Chapter 7

Discipulus Circa istum modum de

pertinacia convincendi nolo multum

insistere quia non audio quod illi inter quos

modo controversia vertitur aliquid tale

mutuo sibi imponant nec aliquis alteri.

Unum tamen retulisti quod peto declarari

quia forte utile erit ad multa eo quod ad

multa genera haereticorum applicari poterit

Disciple I do not want particularly to

pursue that way of convicting of

pertinacity because I do not hear that

those who are now engaged in

controversy attribute any such thing to

each other mutually, nor does anyone [of

them accuse] any other. You have,

however, referred to one thing which I


3/15

ut videtur. Dixisti namque quod si aliquis

sciret quos libros Ecclesia reputat de

integritate Novi et Veteris Testamenti et

tamen hoc non obstante diceret quod

aliquem eorum ad Novum vel Vetus

Testamentum minime pertinere esset statim

pertinax et haereticus iudicandus nec esset

expectandus an correctus paratus esset se

corrigere sed statim pro incorrigibili esset

habendus. De hoc enim ultimo miror

quomodo talis sit statim incorrigibilis

reputandus. Qui enim corrigi potest non est

incorrigibilis. Talis autem corrigi potest.

Ergo non est incorrigibilis reputandus.

want to be explained because it will be

beneficial perhaps to many [problems], in

that it can be applied, it seems, to many

kinds of heretics. For you said that if

someone were to know what books the

church regards as integral to the New and

Old Testament and yet, notwithstanding

this, were to say that any one of them

does not belong to the New or Old

Testament he should be judged

immediately as pertinacious and a heretic

and he should not be waited on [to see]

whether, once corrected, he would be

ready to correct himself but he should be

held at once to be incorrigible. For I

wonder about this last point, how such aperson should be regarded at once as

incorrigible; for he who can be corrected

is not incorrigible; but such a person can

be corrected; he should not be regarded,

therefore, as incorrigible.

Magister Multorum iudicio bene dixisti

hoc quod petis utile esse ad multa quia

nonnulli ex declaratione ipsius multa

probare conantur. Dicitur itaque quod sicut

"impenitens" dupliciter accipitur, unomodo pro illo qui penitere non potest, alio

modo pro illo qui est in proposito minime

penitendi, sic incorrigibilis dupliciter

dicitur, uno modo ille qui non potest corrigi

- et talis non est in hac vita praesertim si

non est alienatus a sensu. Aliter dicitur ille

incorrigibilis qui est in proposito se

nullatenus corrigendi, licet possit corrigi.

Et omnis talis incorrigibilis debet pertinax

reputari. Unde talis incorrigibilis vocari

potest pertinax, contumax, obstinatus etinduratus. Non igitur, sicut accipis, qui

corrigi potest non est incorrigibilis; imo

multi sunt incorrigibiles qui sunt in

proposito se nullatenus corrigendi, qui

tamen corrigi possunt; et saepe

incorrigibiles corriguntur, quia de nullo

incorrigibili in vita praesenti est penitus

desperandum, sicut nec de aliquo

impenitente quamdiu vixerit est

desperandum.

Master In the judgement of many people

you have said truly that what you seek is

beneficial to many [problems] because

some people try to prove a great deal by

an explanation of it. And so it is said thatjust as "impenitent" is taken in two ways -

in one way for him who can not do

penance, in another way for him who has

no intention of doing penance - so

"incorrigible" is said in two ways: in one

way, he who can not be corrected - and in

this life no one is like that, especially if

he is not insane - and in another way he is

said to be incorrigible who has no

intention of correcting himself, although

he can be corrected. Everyoneincorrigible like this should be regarded

as pertinacious. Consequently such an

incorrigible person can be called

pertinacious, contumacious, obstinate and

hardened. It is not, therefore, as you take

it, that he who can not be corrected is

incorrigible; rather many are incorrigible

who have no intention of correcting

themselves although they can,

nevertheless, be corrected; and often

those who are incorrigible are corrected,


4/15

because no one who is incorrigible should

be wholly despaired of in this life, just as

no one who is impenitent should be

despaired of as long as he is alive.


Discipulus Dic alium modum quo de

pertinacia debeat quis convinci.

Disciple Describe another way by which

someone should be convicted of

pertinacity.

Magister Dicunt nonnulli quod ille debet

pertinax iudicari qui tenet ecclesiam

universalem errare vel errasse ex quo cepit

ecclesia Christiana congregari, licet credat

fidem Christianam traditam a Christo et

apostolis in nulla sui parte mendacium

continere. Talis enim, ut dicunt, non est

examinandus an paratus sit corrigi, sed eo

ipso quod hoc dicit est pertinax reputandus.

Master Some say [third way] that he

who holds that the universal church errs

or has erred since the christian church

began to gather together ought to be

judged as pertinacious, even if he believes

that the christian faith handed down by

Christ and the apostles contains nothing

which is false. For they say that such a

person should not be examined about

whether he is ready to be corrected but,

by the very fact that he says this, he

should be regarded as pertinacious.

Discipulus Nunquid omnes literati sic

sentiunt?

Disciple Do all the learned think this

way?

Magister Quidam tenent contrarium,

dicentes quod absque pertinacia et

haeretica pravitate potest quis ex

simplicitate et ignorantia dicere ecclesiam

errare vel errasse. Et ideo sic dicens est

examinandus sollicite an paratus sit corrigi.

Et si quidem paratus sit corrigi non est

pertinax nec haereticus iudicandus; si

autem corrigi nolit est inter pertinaces et

haereticos numerandus.

Master Some hold the contrary, saying

that out of simplicity and ignorance

someone can say without pertinacity and

heretical wickedness that the church errs

or has erred. And one who says this,

therefore, should be examined

punctiliously about whether he is ready to

be corrected; and if indeed he is ready to

be corrected he should not be judged as

pertinacious or a heretic; if he refuses tobe corrected, however, he should be

numbered among the pertinacious and the

heretics.


Discipulus Quia nonnulli imponunt

domino Iohanne papa 22 quod ipse habet

dicere et asserere ecclesiam universalem

errare, de quo aliquando tecum collationemhabebo, pro assertionibus contrariis

Disciple Because some people attribute to

the lord pope John XXII the power to say

and assert that the universal church errs,

about which I will sometime have adiscussion with you, would you bring


5/15

supradictis aliquas allegationes adducas? forward some arguments for the contrary

assertions mentioned above?

Magister Pro prima assertione potest

taliter allegari: fides Christiana est fides

universalis ecclesiae, nec inter fidem

Christianam et fidem universalis ecclesiae

potest aliqua differentia reperiri. Qui ergo

dicit ecclesiam universalem errare vel

errasse dicit fidem Christianam esse

erroneam; qui autem dicit fidem

christianam esse erroneamest statim

absque ulteriori examinatione pertinax et

haereticus reputandus; ergo qui dicit

ecclesiam universalem errare vel errasse est

statim absque aliqua examinatione pertinaxet haereticus iudicandus.

Master For the first assertion it can be

argued as follows. The christian faith is

the faith of the universal church and no

difference can be found between the

christian faith and the faith of the

universal church. He who says, therefore,

that the universal church errs or has erred

is saying that the christian faith is

erroneous; he who says that the christian

faith is erroneous, however, should be

regarded immediately and without further

examination as pertinacious and a heretic;

he who says that the universal church errsor has erred, therefore, should be judged

immediately and without any examination

pertinacious and a heretic.

Pro assertione contraria taliter allegatur:

qui dicit vel tenet aliquam assertionem

cuius contrariam non tenetur explicite

credere non est statim pertinax nec

haereticus iudicandus, quia qua ratione

potest quis tenere unam assertionem

haereticalem cuius contrariam non teneturexplicite credere absque hoc quod pertinax

et haereticus iudicetur, eadem ratione et

aliam quamcunque assertionem

haereticalem cuius contrariam non tenetur

explicite credere potest dicere et tenere

absque hoc quod statim debeat pertinax et

haereticus iudicari. Sed non quilibet

Christianus tenetur explicite credere quod

ecclesia universalis non errat nec erravit.

Ergo quamvis aliquis dixerit quod ecclesia

universalis errat vel erravit non est statim

pertinax et haereticus iudicandus, sed

examinandus est an paratus sit corrigi.

For the contrary assertion it is argued as

follows. He who says or holds some

assertion the contrary of which he is not

bound explicitly to believe should not be

judged immediately as pertinacious or a

heretic, because by whatever argument

someone can hold, without being judgedpertinacious and a heretic, an heretical

assertion the contrary of which he is not

bound explicitly to believe, by the same

argument he can also assert and hold any

other heretical assertion the contrary of

which he is not bound explicitly to

believe without his being bound to be

judged immediately pertinacious and a

heretic. But not every christian is bound

explicitly to believe that the universal

church does not err and has not erred.

Even if someone has said, therefore, that

the universal church errs or has erred he

should not be judged immediately to be

pertinacious and a heretic but should be

examined about whether he is ready to be

corrected.

Maior istius rationis videtur esse manifesta. The major [premise] of this argument

seems to be obvious.

Minor probatur quia nullus tenetur The minor is proved because no one is


6/15

explicite credere conclusionem qui non

tenetur explicite credere antecedens vel

praemissas propter quod vel quas tenetur

conclusio. Sed quod ecclesia universalis

non errat vel erravit est conclusio quae ideo

credenda est quia Christus dixit (Matthaei

ultimo), "Vobiscum sum omnibus diebus

usque ad consummationem seculi", et quia

rogavit pro Petro ne deficeret fides eius.

Ista autem ex quibus infertur quod

universalis ecclesia non erravit nec errat

multi non tenentur explicite credere quia

multi sunt illiterati qui verba praedicta

nunquam audiverunt. Ergo nec tenentur

explicite credere quod ecclesia universalis

non errat nec erravit.

bound explicitly to believe a conclusion

unless he is bound explicitly to believe

the antecedent or the premises on the

basis of which the conclusion is

maintained. But that the universal church

does not err and has not erred is a

conclusion, which should be believed

because Christ said, in the last chapter of

Matthew [28:20], "I am with you all days,

even to the end of time", and because he

asked on behalf of Peter that his faith not

fail. Many are not bound explicitly to

believe these words from which it is

inferred that the universal church has not

erred and does not err because many are

unlearned and have never heard them.They are not bound explicitly to believe,

therefore, that the universal church does

not err and has not erred.

Confirmatur haec ratio, quia si quilibet

Christianus tenetur explicite credere

ecclesiam universalem non errare nec

errasse, aut ergo tenetur hoc credere quia in

Scriptura Divina asseritur, aut quia ad

doctrinam pertinet universalis ecclesiae, aut

quia ex doctrina universalis ecclesiae velex Scriptura Divina manifeste concluditur,

vel quia est ab ecclesia universali explicite

approbatum, vel quia apud omnes

Christianos tanquam catholicum

divulgatum existit. Non propter primum,

quia multa in sacra pagina asseruntur quae

non quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite

credere, nec propter secundum per eandem

rationem, nec propter tertium vel quartum

propter idem, nec propter quintum quia

haec veritas, "ecclesia universalis nonpotest errare", non est apud omnes

Christianos simplices et alios divulgata.

Multi enim sunt qui de ea loqui non

audierunt omnino.

This argument is confirmed because if

any christian is bound explicitly to

believe that the universal church does not

err and has not erred he is bound to

believe this either because it is asserted in

divine scripture or because it pertains to

the teaching of the universal church orbecause it is obviously inferred from the

teaching of the universal church or from

divine scripture or because it has been

explicitly approved by the universal

church or because it has been published

among all christians as catholic. It is not

so for the first reason, because many

things which not every christian is bound

explicitly to believe are asserted in the

holy scriptures, nor for the second for the

same reason, nor for the third or fourthfor the same reason, nor for the fifth

because this truth that the universal

church can not err has not been published

among all christians, those who are

simple and others. For there are many

who have not heard anyone at all speak

about it.

Discipulus Si haec ratio procederet

videretur quod divulgatio apud Christianosesset maioris auctoritatis quam Scriptura

Disciple If this argument were valid it

would seem that publication amongchristians would be of greater authority


7/15

Divina, quia propter divulgationem

huiusmodi tenerentur omnes Christiani

alicui veritati explicite assentire cui tamen

non tenerentur propter Scripturam Divinam

explicite adhaerere.

than divine scripture because all

christians would be bound as a result of

such publication to assent explicitly to

some truth to which nevertheless they

would not be bound explicitly to cling

because of divine scripture.

Magister Ad hoc dicitur quod divulgatio

apud omnes Christianos non est maioris

auctoritatis quam Scriptura Divina sed est

pluribus nota quam Scriptura Divina. Et

ideo quod omnes Christiani tenentur

explicite credere veritatem apud omnes

Christianos etiam simplices divulgatam et

non tenentur omnes explicite credere

omnes veritates contentas in ScripturaDivina, non est propter maiorem

auctoritatem talis divulgationis quam

Scripturae Divinae sed quia talis divulgatio

ad notitiam plurium iam pervenit, et per

hoc assignatur ratio quare quilibet tenetur

explicite credere fidem Christianam esse

veram, quia ista veritas apud omnes

divulgata existit, sicut et ista fides quam

Christus docuit vera est et sana.

Master To this it is said that publication

among all christians is not of greater

authority than divine scripture but is

known to more people than divine

scripture is. And that all christians are

bound explicitly to believe a truth

published among all christians, even the

simple, and are not all bound explicitly to

believe all the truths contained in divinescripture is therefore not because the

authority of such publication is greater

than that of divine scripture but because

such publication has by now come to the

notice of more people. This is the reason

why everyone is bound explicitly to

believe that the christian faith is true,

because that truth has been published

among everyone, as has [the truth that]

the faith which Christ taught is true and

sound.

Discipulus Dic quomodo respondetur ad

rationem pro assertione contraria.

Disciple Describe how reply is made to

theargument for the contrary assertion.

Magister Respondetur quod peccat per

fallaciam figurae dictionis, quia licet

eadem sit fides Christiana et fides

universalis ecclesiae, quando ecclesia non

errat, tamen secundum istos universalis

ecclesia consignat vel significat Christianos

in recto, quos taliter non signat fides

Christiana. Et ideo, ut dicunt, non sequitur:

quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite

credere fidem Christianam esse veram,

ergo tenetur credere explicite ecclesiam

universalem non errare nec errasse.

Master It is replied that it is mistaken

through the fallacy of "figure of speech",

because although the christian faith and

the faith of the universal church, when the

church does not err, are the same, yet,

they say, "universal church" consignifies

or signifies christians in the nominative

case, and "christian faith" does not signify

them in this way. And therefore, they say,

that this [argument] does not follow:

"Every christian is bound explicitly to

believe that the christian faith is true";

therefore, "he is bound explicitly to

believe that the universal church does not

err and has not erred."

Discipulus Non diffundas te circa illa quaead rationalem spectant scientiam, sed dic

Disciple Do not expatiate on matters thatpertain to rational science [i.e. logic] but


8/15

quomodo ad rationem in contrarium

respondetur.

describe say how reply is made to the

argument to the contrary.

Magister Ad rationem illam dicitur quod

quandoque magis tenetur quis credere

conclusionem explicite quam praemissas

ex quibus infertur, propter hoc quod

conclusio magis quam praemissae apud

catholicos divulgatur. Ita est de ista,

"ecclesia universalis non errat nec erravit."

Haec enim sub istis verbis vel

aequipollentibus apud omnes catholicos

divulgatur. Quilibet enim Christianus putat

illam esse universalem ecclesiam quae

secum in fide concordat, et ideo, sicut

quilibet explicite credit se tenere veramfidem et non falsam, ita quilibet credit

explicite universalem ecclesiam servare

veram et catholicam fidem et non falsam

fidem. Quare sicut ista, "fides Christiana

est vera fides", est apud omnes Christianos

divulgata, et ideo quilibet tenetur eam

explicite credere, ita ista, "fides universalis

ecclesiae est vera fides" est apud omnes

Christianos divulgata. Quare quilibet

Christianus eam tenetur explicite credere.

Et ideo quicunque illam negat est statimsine maiori examinatione pertinax et

hereticus reputandus.

Master To that argument it is said that

sometimes one is more bound explicitly

to believe a conclusion than the premises

from which it is inferred, on the grounds

that the conclusion has been more widely

published among catholics than the

premises. It is so about [the conclusion]

"the universal church does not err and has

not erred". For it has been published

among all catholics in those words or

equivalent ones. For every christian

thinks that to be the universal church

which agrees with him in faith; and justas everyone believes explicitly that he

holds the true faith and not a false faith,

therefore, so everyone believes explicitly

that the universal church preserves the

true and catholic faith and not a false

faith. Wherefore, just as it has been

published among all christians that "the

christian faith is the true faith", and

everyone is bound, therefore, explicitly to

believe this, so it has been published

among all christians that "the faith of theuniversal church is the true faith".

Wherefore every christian is bound

explicitly to believe this; and whoever

denies it, therefore, should be regarded

immediately and without additional

questioning as pertinacious and a heretic.


Discipulus Isti videntur distinguere interuniversalem ecclesiam et multitudinem

Christianorum. Nunquid igitur concedunt

quod quilibet tenetur credere explicite quod

multitudo vel maior pars Christianorum

non errat nec erravit in fide?

Disciple They seem to distinguishbetween the universal church and the

multitude of christians. Do they grant,

therefore, that everyone is bound

explicitly to believe that the multitude, or

the greater part, of christians does not err

and has not erred in faith?

Magister Respondetur quod non est

necesse credere neque implicite neque

explicite multitudinem Christianorum vel

maiorem partem non errare in fide nec

Master The reply is that it is not

necessary to believe explicitly or

implicitly that the multitude, or the

greater part, of christians does not err and


9/15

errasse, pro eo quod fides catholica in

paucis potest servari; imo nonnulli dicunt

quod in uno solo posset consistere, quia per

unum solum posset salvari quicquid

Christus promisit apostolis de fide

catholica usque ad finem seculi duratura.

has not erred in faith, on the grounds that

the catholic faith can be preserved in a

few people - indeed some say that it could

endure in one person alone, because

through one person alone whatever Christ

promised to the apostles about the

catholic faith's lasting until the end of

time could be safeguarded.


Discipulus Nunquid est adhuc alius modus

quo de pertinacia valeat quis convinci?

Disciple Is there any other way by which

someone can be convicted of pertinacity?

Magister Quartus modus, secundum

nonnullos, quo statim aliquis pertinax et

haereticus iudicatur est si quis Christianus

capax rationis et maxime intelligens neget

quamcunque assertionem catholicam quae

apud omnes catholicos et fideles cum

quibus conversatus est tanquam catholica

divulgatur et a praedicantibus verbum Dei

publice praedicatur, sicut apud omnes

catholicos publice divulgatur quod Christus

fuit crucifixus, unde et in omni ecclesia

crucifixus ostenditur et praedicantesverbum Dei hoc publice annuntiant et

affirmant; et ideo si quis inter Christianos

nutritus negaret Christum fuisse crucifixum

esset statim pertinax et haereticus

iudicandus. Et quanto magis fuisset inter

Christianos conversatus et plures intrasset

ecclesias et verbum Dei a pluribus

audivisset et maiorem literaturam in sacra

pagina et iure canonico haberet, tanto

fortius esset statim pertinax et haereticus

iudicandus.

Master The fourth way, some say, by

which someone is immediately judged to

be pertinacious and a heretic is if any

Christian, who is capable of reason - and,

most of all, has understanding - denies

any catholic assertion which is published

as catholic among all the catholics and the

faithful with whom he has been living

and is publicly preached by those who

preach the word of God. It is, for

instance, widely published among all

catholics that Christ was crucified - andthus the crucified one is on show in every

church and those who preach the word of

God publicly announce and affirm this

fact - and if anyone brought up among

christians, therefore, were to deny that

Christ was crucified, he should be judged

immediately to be pertinacious and a

heretic. And the more that he had lived

among christians, the more churches he

had entered, the more expositions of the

word of God he had heard, the morelearned he were to become in the page of

scripture and the canon law, so much the

more strongly should he be judged


heretic.

Discipulus Quia quidam, ut scis, ista de

causa putant dominum Iohannem esse

haereticum, pro eo videlicet quod negat

animas reproborum esse in inferno et

animas sanctorum in celo videre Deum et

Disciple Since, as you know, some

people think that the lord John is a

heretic, for the reason that he denies that

the souls of the wicked are in hell, that

the souls of the saints in heaven see God,


10/15

daemones nunc puniri, quas dicunt esse

veritates catholicas apud omnes catholicos

divulgatas, unde et dicunt quod quamvis

sermones suos nequaquam bullaverit tamen

est pertinax et haereticus iudicandus, peto

quod praedictum modum de pertinacia

convincendi fortioribus allegationibus

munire coneris ut materiam habeam

cogitandi quomodo ad illas et alias pro

defensionem domini nostri summi

pontificis valeam respondere.

and that the devils are even now being

punished, which they say are catholic

truths published among all catholics, so

also they say that even though he has not

published his words in a bull he should be

judged nevertheless to be pertinacious

and a heretic. I ask you to try to fortify

with stronger arguments that way of

convicting of pertinacity so that I have

material for pondering how I can reply in

defence of our lord the the highest pontiff

to those and other [allegations].

Magister Quod negans aliquam

assertionem catholicam apud omnes

catholicos divulgatam sit statim absque aliaexaminatione vel discussione inter

pertinaces et haereticos computandus

ostenditur primo sic.

Master That someone denying some

assertion published as catholic among all

catholics should be reckonedimmediately, without any other

questioning or discussion, among the

pertinacious and the heretics is shown

first of all as follows.

Sicut nulli licet ignorare illa quae publice

fiunt, secundum quod ex sacris canonibus

colligitur evidenter dist. 16. Quod dicitis et

12, q. 2, Qui et humanis, sic nemini licet

ignorare ea quae publice divulgantur,

nuntiantur et tanquam catholicapraedicantur. Qui autem negat assertionem

catholicam quam sibi ignorare non licet est

pertinax et haereticus iudicandus. Ergo qui

negat assertionem catholicam, tam publice

scilicet apud omnes catholicos divulgatam,

est statim pertinax et haereticus iudicandus.

Just as it is not licit for anyone to be

ignorant of those things which are done

publicly -- we clearly gather this from the

sacred canons, dist. 16. Quod dicitis

[col.50; see especially the gloss where the

point is made more clearly] and 12. q. 2.Qui et humanis [col.695] -- so it is not

licit for anyone to be ignorant of those

things which are widely published,

affirmed and preached as catholic. He

who denies a catholic assertion which it is

not licit for him to be ignorant of should

be judged to be pertinacious and a heretic.

He who denies a catholic assertion that

has been so widely published, among all

catholics that is, should be immediately

judged, therefore, to be pertinacious and a

heretic.

Secundo sic. Negans assertionem

catholicam potest per solam simplicitatem

aut ignorantiam de pravitate haeretica

excusari; sed negans assertionem

catholicam apud omnes catholicos

divulgatam non potest per simplicitatem

vel ignorantiam excusari

Second as follows. Someone denying a

catholic assertion can be excused of

heretical wickedness only through

simplicity or ignorance; but someone

denying a catholic assertion published

among all catholics can not be excused by

(a) simplicity or (b) ignorance.

Quod non per simplicitatem patet quia That he can not [be excused] by (a)


11/15

positum est quod talis negans est capax

rationis et intelligens. Si enim careret usu

rationis vel esset alienatus a sensu bene

excusaretur. Sed intelligens et industrius

per simplicitatem excusari non potest.

simplicity is clear because it was assumed

that the one denying is capable of reason

and has understanding. (For if he lacked

the use of reason or were insane he would

indeed be excused.) But an aware person

who has understanding can not be

excused by simplicity.

Nec potest per ignorantiam excusari, quia

ignorantia iuris divini apud omnes

promulgati non excusat, sicut nec

ignorantia iuris naturalis excusat,

secundum quod legitur in decretis 1, q. 4,

para. Notandum. Si ergo assertio negata sit

apud omnes catholicos promulgata negans

eam nequit de pertinacia et pravitatehaeretica excusari.

Nor can he be excused by (b) ignorance,

because ignorance of a divine law that has

been made known among everyone does

not excuse, just as ignorance of natural

law does not excuse, as we read in 1. q. 4.

para. Notandum [col.422]. If the assertion

denied has been made known among all

catholics, therefore, the one denying itcan not be excused of pertinacity and

heretical wickedness.

Discipulus Quid si in rei veritate ignoraret

talem assertionem ad fidem catholicam

pertinere? Nunquid apud Deum excusaretur

si absque pertinacia eam negaret?

Disciple What if, in truth of fact, he were

ignorant that such an assertion pertains to

catholic faith? Would he be excused by

God if he were to deny it without

pertinacity?

Magister Respondetur quod apud Deum

excusaretur et etiam apud ecclesiam siprobare valeret se ignorasse assertionem

negatam apud catholicos esse tanquam

catholicam divulgatam. Sicut si quis inter

aliquos Christianos in aliqua una domo

semper fuisset a pueritia nutritus, licet

postea ex ignorantia diceret Christum non

fuisse crucifixum et non pertinaciter

adhaereret, eum non deberet ecclesia

pertinacem et haereticum reputare si omnes

cum quibus fuerat conversatus testimonium

perhiberent quod nunquam aliquis eorum

de crucifixione Christi fuisset sibi locutus.

Master The reply is that he would be

excused by God, and by the church too ifhe could prove that he had not known that

the assertion he denied was published

among catholics as catholic. For example,

if someone had been brought up from

childhood always in some one house

among certain christians and afterwards

were to say out of ignorance that Christ

had not been crucified and were not to

cling to this pertinaciously, the church

ought not to regard him as pertinacious

and a heretic if all those with whom he

had lived were to present testimony that

none of them had ever spoken to him

about the crucifixion of Christ.

Discipulus Circa tales casus, qui forte

nunquam evenerunt, minime te dilates, sed

loquamur de illis Christianis qui cum

Christianis communiter conversantur,

ecclesias intrant, et de his quae ad fidem

pertinent Christianam saepe audiuntconferentes. Et de talibus adhuc proba, si

Disciple Do not enlarge on cases like this,

which perhaps have never occurred, but

let us talk about those christians who live

in a community with christians, go into

churches and often hear people discussing

matters which pertain to the christianfaith. Offer further proof, if you can, that


12/15

vales, quod negantes assertionem


divulgatam statim sunt pertinaces et

haeretici iudicandi.

if such people deny an assertion

published among all catholics as catholic

they should be judged immediately to be

pertinacious and heretics.

Magister Hoc tertio sic probatur. Qui

negat assertionem catholicam quam debet

et tenetur explicite credere est pertinax et

haereticus reputandus. Sed quilibet

Christianus tenetur explicite credere

omnem assertionem catholicam apud

omnes catholicos divulgatam. Ergo

quicunque negat talem assertionem est

tanquam pertinax et haereticus iudicandus.

Master It is proved in a third way, as

follows. He who denies a catholic

assertion which he ought and is bound

explicitly to believe should be regarded as

pertinacious and a heretic; every christian

is bound explicitly to believe every

catholic assertion published among all

catholics; whoever, therefore, denies such

an assertion should be judged as

pertinacious and a heretic.

Maior ex descriptione pertinacis patet, quia

"pertinax est qui persistit in hoc quod debet

dimittere". Talis autem est qui negat

assertionem catholicam quam tenetur

explicite credere, quia ex quo tenetur eam

explicite credere tenetur negationem

eiusdem dimittere; ergo si negat est

pertinax.

The major [premise] is clear from the

description of pertinacious, because "he is

pertinacious who persists in that which he

should put aside". [See chapter 1] He who

denies a catholic assertion which he is

bound explicitly to believe, however, is

such a person, because from the fact that

he is bound explicitly to believe it he is

bound to put aside its denial; if he does

deny it, therefore, he is pertinacious.

Minor probatur, quia si aliquis tenetur

aliquam assertionem catholicam explicite

credere, aut ad hoc tenetur quia talis

assertio est apud omnes catholicos tanquam

catholica divulgata, aut quia sibi patenter

ostenditur per Scripturam Divinam vel

doctrinam vel determinationem universalis

ecclesiae quod catholica est censenda. Si

detur primum, habetur intentum, quod

quilibet Christianus tenetur explicite

credere omnem assertionem catholicam

quam scit apud omnes catholicos esse pro

catholica divulgatam. Quod si dicat se hoc

ignorare oportet eum, si debet apud

ecclesiam excusari, hoc probare. Secundum

dari non potest, quia tunc nullus teneretur

credere explicite Christum natum de

virgine vel fuisse crucifixum nec aliquem

alium articulum fidei, antequam sibi per

Scripturam Divinam probaretur. Et ita

quilibet laicus posset impune negareomnem articulum fidei quousque sibi per

The minor [premise] is proved because if

anyone is bound explicitly to believe

some catholic assertion, he is so bound

either (a) because such an assertion has

been published among all catholics as

catholic or (b) because it is clearly shown

to him by divine scripture or by the

teaching or determination of the universal

church that it should be considered

catholic. If the first (a) is granted, the

point is won because every christian is

bound explicitly to believe every catholic

assertion that he knows has been

published as catholic among all catholics

- if he says that he does not know [that it

has been so published] he must prove

this, if he ought to be excused by the

church. The second (b) can not be granted

because then no one would be bound

explicitly to believe that Christ was born

of a virgin or had been crucified or anyother article of faith before it was proved


13/15

librum ostenderetur talem articulum in

Biblia contineri. Confirmatur haec ratio,

quia qui negat fidem Christianam esse

veram vel sectam Sarracenorum esse

falsam et malam est statim pertinax et

haereticus iudicandus. Sed hoc non est nisi

quia apud omnes catholicos divulgatur

tanquam catholicum quod fides Christiana

est vera fides et quod fides Sarracenorum

est falsa fides. Ergo per eandem rationem

qui negat quamcunque assertionem


divulgatam est statim pertinax et haereticus

reputandus, nec potest apud ecclesiam

aliqualiter excusari nisi probet se ignorasse

assertionem negatam esse taliterdivulgatam.

to him from divine scripture. And so any

layman could with impunity deny every

article of faith until it was shown to him

in the book that such an article is

contained in the bible. This argument is

confirmed because anyone who denies

that the christian faith is true or that the

sect of the Saracens is false and bad

should be judged immediately to be

pertinacious and a heretic; but this is so

only because it is published among all

catholics as catholic that the christian

faith is the true faith and the faith of the

Saracens a false faith; by the same

argument, therefore, he who denies any

assertion published among all catholics ascatholic should be regarded immediately

as pertinacious and a heretic and can not

be excused by the church in any way

unless he proves that he had not known

that the assertion he denies was published

in this way.


Discipulus Allega in contrarium. Disciple Argue to the contrary.

Magister Negans veritatem catholicam de

quo nescitur an per regulam fidei, scilicet

per Scripturam Sacram, paratus sit corrigi

non est pertinax iudicandus. Hoc

auctoritate Augustini superius allegata,

quae ponitur 24, q. 3,Dixit apostolus,

patenter apparet. Hinc dicit glossa 17, dist.

c.Nec licuit, "Eo ipso quod quis errat non

dicitur haereticus si paratus est corrigi."

Sed possibile est aliquem negareassertionem catholicam apud catholicos

divulgatam quamvis nesciatur an paratus

sit corrigi per regulam fidei, scilicet per

Scripturam Sacram. Potest enim quis talem

assertionem negare et tamen offerre se

paratum corrigi si sibi ostendatur quod

dicta assertio in sacra pagina vel in

determinatione ecclesiae continetur. Ergo

talis non est statim pertinax et haereticus

iudicandus sed examinandus est an paratus

sit corrigi.

Master If it is not known of someone

denying catholic truth whether he is ready

to be corrected by the rule of faith, that is

by sacred scripture, he should not be

judged to be pertinacious. This is quite

clear from the text of Augustine cited

above and found at 24. q. 3.Dixit

apostolus [col. 998]. Hence the gloss on

[s. v. ad recipiendam] dist. 17, c.Nec

licuit[cols.69-70] says: "Just becausesomeone errs, he is not said to be a

heretic if he is ready to be corrected." But

it is possible for someone to deny an

assertion published among catholics as

catholic although it may not known

whether he is ready to be corrected by the

rule of faith, that is by sacred scripture.

For anyone can deny such an assertion

and yet present himself as ready to be

corrected if it is shown to him that that

assertion is contained on the sacred page


14/15

or in a determination of the church. Such

a person, therefore, should not be judged


heretic but should be questioned about

whether he is ready to be corrected.

Discipulus Ista allegatio videtur fortis et

dominum Iohannem sufficienter excusat

etiam esto quod erret.

Disciple That argument seems strong and

adequately excuses the lord John even if

he errs.

Magister Alii reputant dictam

allegationem nullam, quia ex ipsa

sequeretur, sicut tactum est prius, quod

cuilibet Christiano negare liceret Christum

esse verum hominem vel fuisse crucifixum.

Posset enim dicere absque pertinacia perallegationem istam, "Nego Christum fuisse

crucifixum, tamen paratus sum corrigi si

mihi per Scripturam Sacram vel

determinationem ecclesiae ostendatur

Christum fuisse crucifixum."

Master Others regard that argument as a

nullity because it would follow from it, as

was touched on above, that it would be

permissible for any christian to deny that

Christ was a true man or that he was

crucified. For, according to thatargument, he could without pertinacity

say: "I deny that Christ was crucified; I

am ready to be corrected, however, if it is

shown to me from sacred scripture or a

determination of the church that Christ

was crucified."

Discipulus Quare non potest talis excusari

ex quo paratus est corrigi?

Disciple Why can not such a person be

excused since he is ready to be corrected?

Magister Ideo, secundum multos, talisexcusari non debet quia, esto quod esset

possibile quod aliquis talis paratus esset

corrigi, tamen contra talem,

quantumcunque dicat se paratum corrigi,

est de pertinacia et quod non est paratus

corrigi tam violenta praesumptio, ex quo

non ignorat assertionem negatam esse tam

publice praedicatam et assertam per

ecclesiam, quod non est sibi credendum

cum dicit se paratum corrigi. Dictis enim

multorum est fides nullatenus adhibenda.

Hinc de tali negante assertionem

catholicam publice praedicatam dicit

Stephanus papa, ut habetur Extra,De

haereticis c. 1, "Nec eis omnino credendum

est qui fidem veritatis ignorant". Talibus

enim nec cum contra alios testificari

nituntur nec cum testimonium perhibent de

seipsis est omnino credendum. Quare

quamvis dicant se paratos corrigi sunt

pertinaces et haeretici reputandi.

Master Many say that such a personshould not be excused because, even if it

were possible that any such person would

be ready to be corrected, nevertheless,

against such a person, however much he

says that he is ready to be corrected, there

is so violent a presumption that he is

pertinacious and not prepared to be

corrected, because he is notignorant that

the assertion he denies has been publicly

preached and asserted by the church, that

he should not be believed when he says

that he is ready to be corrected. For there

are many people in whose words no trust

should be placed. Hence Pope Stephen, as

we find in Extra,De hereticis, c. 1, [col.

778] says of someone like this who

denies an assertion publicly preached as

catholic that "those who do not know the

reliability of truth should not be believed

at all." For such people should not be

believed at all whether they strive totestify against others or present testimony


15/15

about themselves. Although they say that

they are ready to be corrected, therefore,

they should be regarded as pertinacious

and heretics.

Go to chapter 13

Return to Table of Contents

dialogus biling vi

Documents