De locis theologicis

WHERE THE ARGUMENTS ARE SET OUT BY WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THIS TOPIC IS ATTACKED

We have come to a topic that theologians, especially more recent ones, commonly treat at length and in great detail, because the authority and weight of the Apostolic See—and indeed all its power and capacity—has always been attacked by heretics, and is now assailed much more fiercely by Lutherans, whose quarrel with the Roman Church is stubborn and whose hatred is lasting. I will not pursue the countless questions about the power of the Roman Pontiff; let us consider only the authority of dogmas. I do not want to proceed confusedly, explaining in this discussion only what is being asked. We shall therefore first set out the arguments of those who attack this topic; then, together with the Catholic Church, we shall uphold its force and authority; after that we shall dissolve the adversaries’ arguments. If the discussion runs long, it may still seem short when compared with the great benefit. Those who strive to weaken this topic make what they regard as the following arguments. First argument. First, Ioannes XXII publicly taught that the souls of the just do not see God until Judgment Day, and forbade anyone to receive a degree in theology at Paris unless he had first sworn to this opinion. The Supreme Pontiff, and therefore the Apostolic See, can thus err in faith.

Second argument. Second, Coelestinus III defined that when one spouse falls into heresy, the marriage is dissolved, as is clear in De divortiis, cap. Quanto. Hostiensis asserts that Coelestinus’s decretal letter was once included in the Corpus iuris. Coelestinus therefore erred in faith, for that definition is contrary to the Gospel. Third argument. Third, Alexander III, de sponsa duorum, cap. Licet, says that some of his predecessors had judged that if, after a marriage had been contracted by words in the present tense but not consummated, a second marriage is consummated, the first is dissolved and the second is valid. This is plainly an error in faith and morals. Fourth argument. Fourth, Alexander III, cap. Cum esses, De testament., defines that it is foreign both to the Church’s general custom and to divine law and the statutes of the holy Fathers for wills to be wholly rescinded unless they have been confirmed by the signatures of five or seven witnesses. Yet we know that ecclesiastical men today approve the civil law that invalidates wills of this kind when they are made without the usual formalities. Alexander therefore errs in faith, since he declares a law contrary to divine law that is in fact not contrary to it. Fifth argument. Fifth, Innocentius I, in his letter to Rufus and Eusebius, cap. 1, says: “We acknowledge that men who have taken widows as wives have attained the highest priesthood. No one is unaware that this is contrary to the precepts of the law, since Moyses proclaims: ‘A priest shall take a virgin as wife.’ No defense can be opposed to this precept, supported by divine authority, except your custom, which arose from ignorance.” And Innocentius III, cap. Per venerabilem, Qui filii sint legitimi, after citing a law of Deuteronomy, says: “Since Deuteronomy is interpreted as a second law, the force of the word confirms that what is decreed there must be observed in the New Testament.” But that we must observe the decrees of the Old Law is contrary not only to sacred Scripture but also to the Council of Florence. Sixth argument. Sixth, Nicolaus III, in the Extravagans Exiit qui seminat, de verborum significatione, decrees that Christ the Lord taught by word and example the renunciation of ownership of all things, both individually and in common. Ioannes XXII teaches in the Extravagans Cum inter nonnullos that this is erroneous. Seventh argument. Seventh, Nicolaus, ad consulta Bulgarorum, cited in De consecratione, distinct. 4, cap. A quodam Iudaeo, defines that if someone is baptized in the name of Christ, he must not be baptized again. Pope Pelagius decides the opposite in his letter to bishop Gaudentius, cited in the same distinction, cap. Multi and cap. Si re vera, both passages taken from the same letter. Pope Zacharias agrees with Pelagius in cap. In Synodo, in the same distinction. Either Nicolaus or Pelagius, then, issued a false decree on a question of faith. Eighth argument. Eighth, Divus Gregorius in a certain letter to Augustinus, archbishop of Canterbury, and Gregorius III in a letter to bishop Bonifacius, declared on the authority of the Apostolic and Roman Church that if a woman is struck by some infirmity and cannot render the marital debt to her husband, the husband may take another wife, provided that he does not withhold support from his first wife. But, as Gratianus said in 31, quaest. 7, it is contrary to evangelical and apostolic teaching for a man to leave a wife who cannot render the marital debt because of infirmity and pass to a second marriage.

Ninth argument. Ninth, Gelasius defines against Eutyches and Nestorius that in the Sacrament of the altar, even after consecration, the substance of bread and wine remains. This is foreign to the Catholic faith. Tenth argument. Tenth, the Roman Pontiffs have often falsely interpreted sacred Scripture. To pass over the passages Caietanus cites in opusculo 27 quaestionum, q. ult., Gelasius Papa, with a council of seventy bishops, cited under the name of Pelagius in 21 dist., cap. Quamvis, and Anacletus in 22 dist., cap. Sacrosancta, prove that the Roman Church is preeminent over the others by the Savior’s Gospel words: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Many other Pontiffs are also known to have held the same view. It seems ridiculous, however, to want to bend the Gospel testimony to that meaning. In the same way, most Supreme Pontiffs, to prove that the greater causes of the Church must be referred to the Roman See, cite the words from Lucas: “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.” They say how inept this is is clear from the fact that the Lord spoke there only to Peter, not to his successors. For he adds: “And you, once converted, strengthen your brothers.” If these words refer to his successors, namely the Roman Pontiffs, then they must first have been turned away so that, once converted, they might strengthen their brothers. Since Roman bishops falsely interpret sacred Scripture, they can err and lead others into error in a dogma of faith. True dogmas are drawn from the right understanding of sacred Scripture, false ones from a distorted understanding. Eleventh argument. Eleventh, if the Apostolic See could not err in faith, this would above all follow from the privilege of Peter, Luc. 22: “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.” But Peter’s faith failed, according to what Ambrosius says: “Peter became more faithful after he wept that he had lost his faith.” The other successors could therefore err in faith much more. Anastasius certainly erred, 19 dist., cap. Anastasius. Honorius also erred, as is defined in the sixth Council of Constantinople, actione 13 et 18. Twelfth argument. Finally, Hieronymus, in his letter to Evagrius, when the custom of the Roman Church was put to him as an objection, said: “If authority is sought, the world is greater than the city. Wherever a bishop may be, whether at Rome, Constantinople, or Alexandria, his merit and priesthood are the same. The power of riches and the humility of poverty do not make a bishop higher or lower. All are successors of the Apostles. Why, then, do you bring me the custom of a single city? Why do you claim as laws of the Church a small number, from which arrogance arose?” Thus far Hieronymus. And Ambrosius, lib. 3, De Sacram., cap. 1, when the Roman custom was set against him, says: “In all things I desire to follow the Roman Church; yet we too are human beings with judgment. Therefore what is observed more rightly elsewhere, we also rightly preserve. We follow the Apostle Petrus himself; what does the Roman Church say to this? The Apostle Petrus himself, who was a priest of the Roman Church, is the author of this assertion for us.” If Hieronymus and Ambrosius readily reject the institutions of the Roman Church, there is certainly no reason why we should follow a rule of conduct prescribed by the Apostolic See. This is especially so because the Trullan Synod, canon 55, asserts that the Roman Church fasts on Saturdays in Lent contrary to

the ecclesiastical custom handed down, and corrects this custom of the Roman Church, which had grown up contrary to apostolic canon 65. These are chiefly the arguments by which some contend that this topic is weak. They believe that the Apostolic See can err even when it judges a question of faith. Among the Parisians, Gerson and Almain are regarded as the principal authorities for this opinion. Adrianus follows it in 4 Sentent., De confir., last question. Thomas Wal. seems to follow it in lib. 2, Doctrin. fid. anti., c. 19, although in lib. De sacramentalibus, doctrina 10, he thinks quite differently. Gratianus, 19 distin.: Hoc autem intelligendum est, also seems to assent to the same opinion. Cardinal Turrecremata does not appear to be far from it, lib. 4, par. 2, c. 16, although in lib. 2, c. 109. 110, he both held and demonstrated the contrary opinion. Erasmus gladly embraces this view in his commentary on Hieronymus’s letter to Damasus about the meaning of hypostasis. Indeed, in De ratione verae theologiae he says that those who teach that the Roman Pontiff cannot err whenever he pronounces on morals or faith open a window to the destruction of true piety. Luther subscribes to this, as do the Wicleffistae and, consequently, all heretics.