After the previous statements it remains to see and to show that it is not necessary to reject this opinion as heretical, although many modern Doctors writing of that may condemn and oppose it. First, because no doctor of much reputation condemns this opinion as heretical, although he may deny it as he may deny other opinions of theology and of philosophy, which he does not understand to be true. On the contrary, a certain Doctor intimates that that opinion is probable; namely, Scotus, in Book IV., Distinction XII., Question II., and he presents a mode of explaining many arguments which might be offered against it, as will appear later. Moreover, the same Doctor cites it, and disapproves of it, as of other opinions of Catholic theologians, which he believes are false.
Again, although he might oppose this opinion as heretical, as none of them does, it would not necessarily be settled by their judgment, since it may belong to the Roman Church alone to determine a question of faith, as Pope Innocent says in Causa XXIV., Quæstione I., Capitulo XII., ‘Quotiens.’ “As often,” he says, “as a ground of faith is under discussion, I think that all our brothers and our fellow bishops ought to report only to Peter, that is, to the authority of his name and position, just as now your love prompted, that it may be able to be of profit to all the churches throughout the whole world.” In the same place a gloss objecting states the opposite of this. The opposite of this seems to be in the margin of the De Hereticis, ‘Ad abolendum’: “For there it is intimated that those must be shunned as heretics, whom the bishops have declared are to be shunned.” Whence, Pope Lucian says in the same place: “All who, concerning the sacrament of the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ or concerning baptism or concerning the remission of sins through obligatory confession or concerning matrimony or the rest of the ecclesiastical sacraments, have not feared to teach or to think otherwise than the Sacrosanct Roman Church prescribes and observes, and in general whomsoever the same Roman Church, either each bishop individually throughout his diocese with a council of clergy, or the clerical bishops in a vacant See with a council of neighboring bishops, if it will have been necessary, have declared heretics, we condemn with a bond of perpetual anathema.”
From these words it might be gathered that it pertains to the bishops and to the clergy in a vacant See to determine a question of faith. But the gloss previously cited replies to that when it states: “That that must be understood, when they decide any such question, which is certain to be heresy; but this when there is doubt.” The argument for this is in the margin of the De Hereticis, ‘Cum Christus,’ in the gloss.
From which it can be concluded that with respect to heretics asserting something which is manifestly a heresy, the bishops can examine and condemn as heretics those who have confessed or have been convicted, who are then to be excommunicated by the authority of the Pope. But it is not allowed them to determine a question raised about some article concerning which there are opinions among the Catholic sages; where the gloss before says: “It is one thing to decide a question raised concerning the faith, which is the privilege of no one other than the Roman See, as is here said; it is another thing to discuss it without a defense, which the Patriarchs and Primates can do.” And thus they reply to that decree of Pope Clement, who seems to intimate that it belongs to the bishops to decide a question of faith, in Distinction LXXX., ‘In illis,’ where he says as follows: “But in those states in which formerly their chief priests and also the chief doctors of the law were among the heathen, the blessed Peter advised that the primates of the bishops and also the patriarchs be appointed, who should consider the causes of the other bishops and the more important matters of the faith.” According to this authority anyone might believe that it belongs to the bishops to decide a question of faith; which is not true. Whence, the gloss in the same place replies: “In faith, that is, faithfully,” and that “a question of faith” must be referred to the Apostolic See, as Causa XVI., Question I., ‘Frater noster’ proves that; and for that reason it says: “But explain this, ‘in faith, that is, faithfully’”; either they can discuss the causes of faith, but they can not proceed to a decision, or they can distinguish who are those who doubt; for if they are laymen, it appears that the bishops can decide according to the gloss in the margin of the De Hereticis, ‘Ad abolendum’; and if the clergy, the Pope; in the margin of the same title, ‘Cum Christus,’ this gloss.
It is, therefore, obvious that, when there may be a controversy among theologians concerning some article as to whether it may agree or disagree with the Christian faith, it must be referred to the Supreme Pontiff. For when the office of inquisition of heretical perversity may be at any time entrusted to the unlearned or inferior teachers, it seems absurd that it belongs to such an inquisition to decide by proper authority any difficult and profound question concerning any articles whatever pertaining to theology, and to condemn as a heretic any one great and famous in theology and worthy because of his understanding of life as well as the office of a doctor of science, and approved by an established university, if he should contradict its opinion. Therefore, it appears that it must be referred to the Roman Pontiff, when a question is discussed concerning something which is not expressed in the canonical scriptures and is not determined through the Roman Church, which we also see is done in modern times.
Therefore, it must not stand upon the judgment of any modern writers who condemn the previous opinion, especially since many Catholic doctors, praiseworthy because of knowledge and of life, have held this opinion; and, as I have understood through a relation worthy of faith, a certain great Doctor, the Archbishop of Lyons, canonized by the Roman Church, held this opinion and left it in his writings; whose book containing the aforesaid opinion I have not, however, seen; but I hope to receive it in a brief time.
It is also much more permissible to deny the statements of those who mutually condemn one another and of whom some hold a doctrine suspected and condemned by the established universities than the statements of the Holy Fathers before they be approved by the Apostolic See, which however is permitted, than the statements of the Holy Fathers after they may be approved by the Apostolic See. How one may be obligated to hold with devout faith, Innocent says in the margin of the De Constitutionibus on that Chapter, ‘Ne innitaris.’ “Observe,” he says, “that it is permitted to stand upon the statements of the Holy Fathers or of others acknowledged by the Church.”
And he, who says that which they themselves say, can not be determinately contradicted, unless they have retracted the same, as Augustine has retracted many of his statements, or unless they be corrected by the Church. If indeed they among themselves have diverse opinions, as concerning the assumption of the body of the blessed Virgin Mary or concerning the condemnation of Salome, it is permitted to anyone to say what he pleases; if indeed no diversity is found among the Saints, it is necessary to observe even to the smallest iota that which they say, after their little works are authorized by the Holy Church. But formerly, before they were authorized, it was permitted to hold these opinions or not. Therefore, any one can not be contradicted, although he may deny the Doctors not authorized by the Roman Church. Whence, the presumption of some modern writers must be depreciated, who puffing themselves above themselves, desiring that they alone be called rabbi, inspired by envy, condemning every opinion dissenting from their teachings. Since they do not know how through reason to refute it as dangerous and heretical, they are incessantly rending it to pieces by their dog-like barkings, not considering that the most Holy Father and the illustrious Doctor, the blessed Augustine, wished thus to be devoted neither to his own writings nor to those of other bishops, but that some things in their writings might be able to be censured by a just judgment and with no rashness. Whence, Saint Augustine says as cited in Distinction IX., ‘Noli.’: “Do not,” he says, “servilely regard my writings as though canonical scriptures.”
Again, the same writer in the first book of the De Trinitate in the second Chapter: “I shall not be ashamed to ask,” he says, “if in any place I am undecided; nor shall I be ashamed to learn, if in any place I am in error.”
Again, in the same book in Chapter III.: “Indeed he, who,” he says, “on reading these statements says: I understand whatever may be said, but it has not been truly said, asserts, as it pleases, his own opinion, and refutes mine, if he can. But if he would do this with charity and truth and would take care to make it known to me also, if I am still alive, I shall then have received the most abundant fruit of this my task. But if it would not be possible for me to know; willingly and gladly would I be that he should be responsible for informing them, as he will be able. I, however, meditate on the law of the Lord, if not day and night, at least during those moments of time I can,” et cetera.
Again, the same author says, as cited in a letter to Vincent in the De Constitutionibus, Distinction IX., ‘Negare’: “I can not deny,” he says, “nor ought I, as in the larger works themselves, so there are many statements in so many of my smaller works which can be censured with judgment and with no rashness.” Again, the same author in Distinction IX., Chapter ‘Ego solus’: “I read others,” he says, “so that no matter with how much sanctity or with whatever doctrine they may prevail, I may not indeed think a thing true because they themselves think so; but because they have been able to convince me through other authors or through the canonical or through probable reasons, that they do not swerve from the truth.”
Again, the same author says of individual baptism, as cited in Distinction IX., ‘Quis’: “Who may not know,” he says, “through the letters of the bishops which either were written after the canon was confirmed or will be written, and through, perhaps, the wiser language of any one more experienced in this thing, and through the weightier authority and more acute sagacity and through councils of some of the bishops, that it is permitted to censure anyone who, among them, perchance, is diverted from the truth.” Again, the same author in a letter to Vincent says, as cited in Distinction IX., ‘Noli frater’: “The writings of the Holy Bishops,” he says, “are not thus read, as if testimony may be so cited from them, that it may not be permitted to think the opposite, where, perchance, they may thus have been understood other than the truth demands. We are indeed in this number, that we may not disdain even to take to ourselves the saying of the Apostle. And if you are wise in any other matter, this also God will reveal to you.”
Again, in a letter to Fortunatus the same Augustine says, as cited in Distinction IX., ‘Neque quorumlibet’: “We ought,” he says, “not to regard the discussions of each and every one, even though Catholics and noteworthy men, as we ought to hold the canonical scriptures, that it may not be allowed to us with the proper regard which is due those men, to reject and also to condemn anything in their writings, if we, perchance, might discover that they should think otherwise than the truth has it, as understood either by others or by us with divine help.” Such as I am with respect to the writings of others, such I wish the judges of my own writings to be.”
According to these authorities and very many others it evidently can be gathered that it is permitted to censure and also to condemn the writings of any one before they may be authorized by the Roman Church. And indeed although many may hold the opposite of the opinion proposed, it is not necessary to condemn this opinion, especially since it may thus concur with the statements of Saints and Doctors accepted by the Church. Yet I confess this, that if it could be able to be shown that it may be from the mind of any Doctor accepted by the Apostolic See, that quantity is another absolute thing really distinct from substance and quality, I am prepared to defend and to hold this, although I am unwilling by virtue of the dictum of any one of the plebs, to hold in check my intellect and to affirm something contrary to a dictate of reason, unless the Roman Church may teach that this view must be held; for the authority of the Roman Church is greater than the whole capacity of human genius.
← Chapter XXXV How Quantity Is a Category Distinct From Quality and Substance · Contents · Chapter XXXVII That the Previous Opinion Is Not Contrary to Experience, and the →