Summa de Ecclesia

Since obstinacy in error, as we have said, is what most of all constitutes one a heretic, we have judged it useful to describe what obstinacy is, and to assign the ways through which catholics should hold one erring against the faith as obstinate, and how one can be convicted of obstinacy in judgment. Concerning the first, it is to be noted that, as Saint Thomas sets forth in 2. 2. q. 138. art. 2., declaring how obstinacy and softness¹ are contrary to perseverance: the obstinate man², as Isidore says in book 10 of the Etymologies, is so called who holds shamelessly, as tenacious through all things. And the same is called obstinate from this, that he perseveres in his resolve unto victory. For the ancients called nacia what we call victory; and these the Philosopher calls in the 7th book of the Ethics ischyriomones, that is, of strong resolve, or idionomones, that is, of his own resolve, since they persevere in their own resolve more than is fitting; but the soft man³ less than is fitting. Whence it is clear that the persevering man is praised as existing in the mean; but the obstinate man is blamed as in excess of the mean, and the soft man as in defect. This is Saint Thomas.

From these words it is first gathered that obstinacy is always a vice and is taken in evil. Whence Tullius in his Rhetoric says that obstinacy stands to perseverance as superstition stands to religion. And Papias too, assigning the difference between perseverance and obstinacy, says that perseverance is in virtue, but obstinacy in vice. Second, it is gathered that obstinacy could in our matter be thus described: obstinacy is a shameless persistence in one's own error. But others define the obstinate man thus: the obstinate man is he who persists in what of necessity he ought to abandon, namely in error or in doubt.

Concerning the second, it is to be noted that several ways are set down by some doctors and by Ockham in his dialogue. But the first way by which one can be apprehended of obstinacy is if by deed or word he shows that he does not firmly believe the Christian faith to be true and sound, for instance if he says that the Christian faith is false or doubtful, or betakes himself to another sect, for instance of the Jews or of the Saracens; for of such a one it is permitted to anyone to judge that he errs obstinately.

The second way of convicting one of obstinacy in error concerning the faith is if one says that some part of the New or the Old Testament asserts something false, or is not to be received; for such a one, whoever he be, is to be judged an obstinate heretic, unless perchance he were so simple that he does not know what is meant by the New and the Old Testament, and, seduced by others, says that the New or the Old Testament or some part of it should not be received, yet firmly believing that the whole faith of the Church is to be received.

The third way of convicting of obstinacy is if one believes or holds that the universal Church errs or has erred. The fourth way of convicting is if some Christian, capable of reason, denies whatever catholic truth which among all the catholic faithful with whom he has conversed is spread abroad as catholic and is publicly preached by the preachers of the word of God, as concerning this: Christ was crucified, and the like. The fifth way of convicting of obstinacy is when one denies some assertion which is contained in divine Scripture or in the determination of the Church. The sixth way of convicting the erring of obstinacy is when one knowingly denies the doctrine of the saints. The seventh way of convicting of obstinacy is when one, lawfully corrected with it shown to him that his error is opposed to catholic truth, does not correct or amend himself, namely by revoking his heresy. This is openly gathered from the words of Augustine in ch. Qui in ecclesia 24. q. 3.

The eighth way of convicting one erring of obstinacy is if one strives to constrain others to defend his error obstinately by precepts, threats, punishments, promises, oaths, or in any other way. This is clear, since, as Pope Leo says in Extra on heretics, ch. Qui alios: He who does not recall others from error when he can, proclaims that he himself errs; much more is he to be judged an obstinate heretic who compels others obstinately to defend heresy or obstinately to adhere to heresy.

The ninth way of convicting of obstinacy one erring is if he compels by punishments, threats, or precepts to abjure some catholic truth or to deny catholic truth; this is clear from the preceding.

The tenth way of convicting of obstinacy anyone is when one is found to have abjured catholic truth, or swears that he will keep forever as catholic whatever assertion which in the truth of the matter is heretical.

The eleventh way of convicting one erring of obstinacy is if one impedes those defending catholic truth or assailing heretical depravity.

The twelfth way of convicting one erring of obstinacy is if one erring against the catholic faith refuses to subject himself to the correction and amendment of him or those to whom it pertains.

The thirteenth way of convicting is if one, rebuked by experts concerning some error against the faith, refuses to be informed of the truth.

The fourteenth way of convicting is if one by words or deeds protests that he will not revoke his assertion, which is heretical. This is clear, since such a one is not prepared to be corrected, and consequently is to be reckoned obstinate.

The fifteenth way is if one, in favor of heretical depravity, forbids catholic Scriptures to be read, or catholic truths to be preached or published. This is clear, since such a one is a manifest defender of heretical depravity and an offender against catholic truth.

The sixteenth way is when one, in defense of heretical depravity, invents new errors and defends them. This is clear, since such a one is not prepared to be corrected nor seeks the truth with cautious solicitude; therefore he is to be reckoned obstinate.

The seventeenth way of convicting especially the Pope of obstinacy in heretical depravity is if he solemnly defines an error and asserts that it is to be held by Christians as catholic. This is clear, since such a one, constraining others obstinately to defend error, is to be reputed obstinate.

The eighteenth way is when one consents in deed to the aforesaid definition of heretical depravity, by counseling, cooperating, inducing, or by asserting that it should be thus defined. This is clear, since doers and consenters are bound by equal punishment according to the canons.

The nineteenth way of convicting one erring as obstinate is if one inferior to the supreme pontiff determines by definitive sentence that some heretical assertion is to be held, enjoining upon others and imposing that they hold and repute it to be catholic; for whoever has consented to such a determination seems to be reckoned obstinate and heretical, as is clear from the preceding.

The twentieth way of convicting one erring of obstinacy is if one having power does not resist heretical depravity. This is clear through that saying of Jerome in ch. Error dist. 83: Error which is not resisted is approved. But he who approves error seems to be judged obstinate; therefore he who does not resist error, when he can, is to be reckoned obstinate. Likewise Pope Leo, as is found in Extra on heretics, ch. Qui alios, says: He who does not recall others from error when he can, shows that he himself errs; and in ch. Facientis, dist. 86, Pope John says: Without doubt he has the fault of the doer who neglects to amend what he can correct. Moreover, it is to be adverted concerning this that obstinacy is not to be judged only from the exterior act, as though only he were reputed obstinate who by words or writings or deeds resists catholic truth in some of the ways already expounded; but he too is seen to be contumacious against open and preached catholic truth, who in the Church persists hiddenly in error for a long time or even unto death. For such a one, since he has known that such error has been condemned by the Church, cannot be excused by ignorance, since he seems to persist in error rather through obstinate malice. And therefore the Church presumes that such as she finds to have persevered in error against catholic truth even unto death are to be judged and punished as heretics.