Student We are clearly shown that every heresy has been condemned, yet I wonder about this because I have often heard the learned distinguish between those who fall into a heresy that has already been condemned and those who fall into a heresy that has not been condemned. Whence, as we find in 24, q. 1, para. 1 [col.966], Gratian too seems to approve to approve this distinction, saying, "For every heretic either follows an already condemned heresy or invents a new one." He follows up the first part of this distinction at once, while he follows up the second part in the same causa and quaestio, para. Si autem [col. 967], "However, if someone invents a new heresy out of his own heart", etc. Tell me, therefore, do those who make that assertion simply deny that distinction?

Master They do not wholly deny that distinction but grant it with a distinction, saying that some heresies have been condemned explicitly, but some have been condemned only implicitly; and therefore they grant the said distinction with the following meaning: some heresies have been condemned explicitly and some have not been condemned explicitly.

Student Which heresies do they call explicitly condemned?

Master They lay down four modes of explicitly condemned heresies. The first is of those which are condemned by a particular condemnation in which particular mention is made of those heresies in that exact form. The heresies of Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Euticis and Dioscorus have been condemned by that mode, as we clearly find in dist. 15, c. 1 [col.34], c. Sicut sancti [col.35] and c. Sancta Romana [col.36]. Also condemned in this way are Joachim's error (Extra, De summa trinitate et fide catholica, c. Damnamus [col.6]) and the error of those who say that Christ is nothing as a man (Extra, De hereticis, c. Cum Christus [col.779]).

The second mode of explicitly condemned heresies is of those the contradictories of which have been approved in that exact form, because with the explicit approval of one of [two] contradictories the other is understood to have been explicitly condemned. Of this mode are all heresies which contradict the catholic truths which are approved as catholic in the creeds, in general councils and in decrees and decretal letters of the highest pontiffs. Whence the heresy, "God is not the maker of all things visible and invisible", is an explicitly condemned heresy because through [the article of] the creed, "I believe in one God", it is explicitly approved that God is the maker of all things visible and invisible.

The third [mode] consists of those the contradictories of which are contained in that exact form in some volume, book or tractate particularly approved as catholic. And in that way all heresies the contradictories of which are contained in that very form in the confirmed canon of the bible should be considered explicitly condemned heresies because by the very fact that the canon of the bible is explicitly approved all the truths inserted in it are explicitly approved, and, as a consequence, their contradictories are explicitly rejected and condemned.

The fourth [mode] consists of those from which some heresy included under any of the first three modes follows in a way clear to everyone having the use of reason, even laymen.

Student I could raise many doubts about some of the above, but perhaps they would not be much to the point because words are a matter of opinion and so they can call heresies explicitly condemned strictly or broadly just as they please as long as this is not found to be explicitly contrary to any [authoritative] writers. Tell me therefore which heresies they say are condemned only implicitly.

Master They say that those heresies have been condemned implicitly and not explicitly about which it is clear only by subtle reflection to learned men erudite in sacred letters how they are opposed to the catholic truth contained in the sacred scriptures or in the express teaching of the universal church and that from them some heresy explicitly condemned in any of the aforesaid modes follows. A heresy of this kind was that of the Greeks when they were saying that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son before that was explicitly condemned. Many heresies also which we find in the decretals were once of this kind, which were afterwards condemned explicitly. The heresies of some modern doctors are of this kind. For it is well known that about divine matters modern theologians hold opposing opinions which they believe to be based on the divine scripture. One or other of these is in truth of fact opposed to divine scripture, as those holding these opposing [opinions] do indeed maintain. So it is that each tries to disprove the other through divine scripture, as is quite clear in their writings.Thus in truth of fact one of them has been implicitly condemned, since the opposing truth has been implicitly approved because of the fact that the teaching of the church from which it has been inferred is known to have been approved.