WHICH TRUTHS ARE CATHOLIC TRUTHS? A Second Opinion: There Are Catholic Truths Not Found In The Bible ~ WILLIAM OF OCKHAM BOOK 2 CHAPTER 3

Pope urges laity to live their vocation in the world

WHICH TRUTHS ARE CATHOLIC TRUTHS?

A second opinion: There are Catholic truths not found in the Bible

Chapter 3

Student You have set out that second opinion copiously enough, but I would like to know whether any texts or arguments can be brought forward for it, to prove, that is, that it is necessary for salvation to adhere with sure belief to some truths which are not found in sacred writings and can not be inferred by necessary argument solely from what is contained in them. However, whether such truths should strictly speaking be regarded as catholic I do not look to you to investigate.

Master The assertion about which you are asking seems provable by many texts and arguments. For Innocent III seems to attest to it, as we find in Extra, De celebratione missarum, c. Cum Marthae [col.636]. For he says, "We find many things omitted by the evangelists both about the words and the deeds of the Lord which, as we read, the apostles either supplied in words or expressed in their deeds.... Therefore we believe that the form of words, as it is found in the canon [of the mass], was received by the apostles from Christ and by their successors from them." We gather from these words that although the form of consecrating the sacrament of the eucharist is not found in divine scripture fully as it is, yet it should be believed that Christ handed on that form. As was argued above, Augustine also seems expressly to believe this, since he says [dist. 11, c.9; col.25], "It is clear that in a doubtful matter the authority of the catholic church avails for faith, an authority which is strengthened by the sees founded by the apostles, by the series of bishops who have succeeded them up to today and by the agreement of so many people." We are given to understand by these words that it seems that the authority of the church is sufficient for the establishment of faith without divine scripture.

Again, as we read in dist. 19, c. Sic omnes [col. 60], Pope Agatho says, "All the sanctions of the apostolic see should be accepted as though affirmed by the divine voice of Peter himself." We are given to understand by these words that all the sanctions of the apostolic see are of the same authority as the writings of blessed Peter, and these are considered to be among the divine scriptures. Therefore faith should be shown to them equally. But many truths are found among the sanctions of the apostolic see which have not been inserted in the divine scriptures. Therefore we should adhere firmly to many other truths.

Again, as we find in dist. 22, c. 1, [col.73] Pope Nicholas says, "However, he who tries to remove the Roman church's privilege, conferred by that highest head of all churches, slips undoubtedly into heresy.... This person should be called a heretic." We are given to understand by this that he who does not want to be regarded as a heretic should believe necessarily that the Roman church received from Christ primacy over all others. Yet no mention is made of this in divine scripture. Some truths should be believed, therefore, even though they can not be inferred from the sacred scriptures.

Moreover, to support that assertion they adduce arguments. The first of these leads to an irrationality because, if christians were bound to offer undoubting faith only to the divine scriptures and to those things which can be inferred solely from what is contained in them, it would follow that it would be permissible to deny that the apostles were the authors of the creed, that blessed Peter was Roman pontiff, that blessed Peter's see was transferred from Antioch to Rome, and that the Roman pontiffs succeeded Peter, since we read nothing about these in the divine scriptures. Yet the universal church has held, preached, and taught these truths up to this time, and consequently the universal church would have erred, something which every catholic ought to hold as irrational.

A second argument is this. Catholics are no less bound to assent with undoubting belief to the determinations and definitions of Roman pontiffs when they define nothing against orthodox faith, than they are bound to obey their statutes when they command nothing against God's will. But it is necessary to obey with all humility and reverence all the statutes of Roman pontiffs when they command nothing against God's will, as is clearly established by the sacred canons, as we find in dist. 12, c. 1 [col. 27] and c. Praeceptis [col.27] and in numerous chapters elsewhere in the decretals. Therefore it is necessary to adhere most surely to the determinations and definitions of the Roman pontiffs when it is certain that they are defining nothing against catholic faith. But the Roman pontiffs determine that many truths which can not be proved from the confirmed canon alone should be firmly held. Out of necessity for salvation, therefore, it is proper to offer undoubting faith to some truths which can not be proved solely from the divine scriptures.

Student I desire to know whether those who assert this cite an example of some truth which should be firmly held yet which is not found in the divine scriptures and can not be clearly proved from those scriptures alone.

Master I have already shown you many of their examples, namely that the apostles were the authors of the creed, that blessed Peter was bishop of Rome, that blessed Peter's see was transferred from Antioch to Rome, and that the bishops of Rome succeeded blessed Peter. They also cite another example, concerning the primacy of the Roman church, of which no mention is made in divine scripture because, although sacred scripture speaks expressly about the primacy of blessed Peter, it is nevertheless not found in that scripture that blessed Peter ruled the Roman church, and so nothing can be shown about the primacy of the Roman church from that scripture alone, and yet we ought to hold firmly that the Roman church has primacy over all other churches.

Student Pass over the primacy of the church of Rome because I will present you with some questions about it later. But tell me if those who make this assertion base themselves on any other argument.

Master They try to fortify themselves with still other arguments. Their third argument is this. The teaching of the apostles should not be held in less reverence and honour than their canons and statutes; but the canons and statutes of the apostles, either those they collected in their writings or those they only orally ordered to be preserved, should be firmly preserved; therefore all the truths which the apostles taught in writing or orally should be considered as absolutely true. However, the apostles taught very many things which they did not leave in their writings; therefore some truths which are not found in the canonical scriptures should be considered absolutely true. Consequently, it is necessary to agree with these and to adhere most surely to them.

A fourth argument of theirs is this. The universal church can not err, as the Truth himself attests when he says to the apostles in the last chapter of Matthew [28:20], "I am with you always, to the end of the age." He also prayed for Peter that his faith would never fail [Luke 22:32]. Indeed anyone who was to say that the universal church was in error with regard to an article of faith would be violently attacking the holy catholic church. However, the universal church preaches many truths which are not found in the divine scriptures and can not be inferred from them alone, as is clear from the earlier examples. Therefore truths of this kind should be firmly believed.

A fifth argument is this. The writings composed by the highest pontiffs and holy doctors for the sake of sound doctrine are not of less authority than are any chronicles and histories, whether by unbelievers or believers, which are found outside sacred scripture; but a person who was to reject all the chronicles and histories outside the bible or was to say that they should not be approved would be considered completely foolish. For then it would be permissible to reject and deny everything which is narrated about highest pontiffs, emperors, kings, kingdoms, and anything else which is not found in the bible, and this should be considered irrational. [See Significant Variants, para. 2.] So much the more, therefore, should we adhere firmly to the writings composed by highest pontiffs and saints for sound doctrine; however, many truths that are not found in the bible are introduced into their writings; therefore, such truths should also be firmly believed.

Student The arguments and texts which you have brought forward for the second opinion seem strong to me. And although I do not want you to make clear throughout this work what your own opinion is when you record contrary and opposed matters, yet there is one thing in general that I want to know and that is whether, when you try to support with arguments and texts that assertion which is your own, you think that all the texts and arguments that you bring forward prove your conclusion demonstratively.

Master For the opinion that I regard as true I bring forward reasons that are sometimes demonstrative, sometimes only probable, sometimes indeed only plausible, in order to exercise, test or try other people.

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

Text and translation by John Scott.
Copyright © 1999, The British Academy