WHAT IS A HERESY?
CAN THE POPE MAKE A NEW ARTICLE OF FAITH?
CHAPTER 15
Student Although you have recounted some things at which I wonder - and I will as a result question you about them later - the main conclusion of this second opinion does nevertheless seem probable to me, and I wonder that anyone holds that the pope can make a new article of faith. For all that, indicate to me how reply is made to the chapter Cum Christus in Extra, De hereticis [col.779].
Master I want you to know that that argument is adduced by certain canonists by whom some theologians are scandalised when they see them concern themselves with theological difficulties by putting forward something on the basis of their own way of thinking beyond the words of theologians that they find in their own writings. For because they are not learned in theology they should as a result not expound the theological authorities that they find in their own books in more than a grammatical sense, nor should they infer any conclusions from them unless they follow so clearly that any unlearned person at all using his reason can observe them because, since they often do not have a true understanding of theological texts, they will easily fall into errors if they want to infer other conclusions from them. This can be observed without difficulty in those canonists who were wanting to infer from the above chapter of Alexander III, Cum Christus, that the pope can make a new article of faith. For they believed that it can be concluded from that chapter that before [Alexander's] constitution it was permissible to say that Christ is not God and man, although he does not say, nor in that place restrain [anyone] from saying, that Christ is not God and man, but restrains [anyone] from saying that Christ is nothing as a man. The reason he adduces for this is that Christ is true God and true man. However those assertions, "Christ is true God and true man" and "Christ is something as a man", are distinct; yet one follows from the other.
Student I see clearly that the aforesaid canonists wrongly adduce the said chapter Cum Christus to prove that before the time of Alexander it was permissible to say that Christ is not God and man. But it seems that they have adduced it correctly to prove that a pope can make a new article of faith, because before the time of Alexander III it was not an article of faith that Christ is something as a man - indeed it was permissible to hold the opposite - however he brought it about that it was an article of faith and that it is not permissible to say the opposite. Therefore he made a new article of faith.
Master Those who affirm the second opinion reply to that objection of yours by saying that "article of faith" is taken strictly, as a catholic truth inserted in the authentic creed in that exact form, and we are not now speaking about an article of faith in that sense. Otherwise "article of faith" can be taken broadly, as any catholic truth, and the discussion now is about an article of faith in that sense. And in this sense a pope can not make a new article of faith, and Alexander did not produce such a new article of faith because he did not produce a new catholic truth but brought it about that neither by asserting nor by opining would it be permissible to say the contrary of what was previously a catholic truth and that those saying the contrary would be subjected to a sentence of excommunication. And so before Alexander III it was truly a catholic truth that Christ as a man is something, but before his time it was not known to the church that it was catholic. For from what we find in the divine scriptures many truths follow which nevertheless are hidden from the church, and so they are catholic even if the church has not yet investigated whether they smack of catholic truth.
part 1, book 2, chapters 1-17
Text and translation by John Scott.
Copyright © 1999, The British Academy
Comments
Post a Comment