Student Although we can gather from the above how those describing heresy in the oft-mentioned way reply to many texts that I brought forward [in ch.5], nevertheless I want you to run through them separately.

Master To the text from Pope Nicholas quoting the words of Celestine they reply that those words should be understood of those preaching publicly and knowingly against determinations made by a general council and also of those publicly preaching those errors, rashly affirming the same errors, or protesting that they will never revoke them, or showing themselves pertinacious in any way at all.

Jerome's text, however, is brought forward for the opposite conclusion because in the words adduced he seems to imply that someone rejecting the confession approved by the Apostolic [i.e. the pope] should not be regarded as a heretic because of that fact since he could be unskilled. And so if he speaks against the truth from lack of skill alone he should not be counted among the heretics.

Gelasius too, they say, means someone who knowingly falls into a condemned heresy. For such a person should be adjudged a heretic. And when it is said, "Gelasius did not distinguish between falling into heresy pertinaciously and not pertinaciously, and so we should not distinguish either", they reply that when a pope or a canon does not distinguish and no distinction can clearly be gathered from other canons or from sacred scripture or from authentic sayings or from evident reason, we should not distinguish. When a distinction can clearly be apprehended, however, from some or one of the above, we should indeed distinguish. It is so in the matter under discussion because we gather very well from other sacred canons and from clear reason that there is an obvious distinction between falling into a condemned heresy pertinaciously and not pertinaciously.

They say too that in c. Maiores [24, q. 1, c.2; col.966] Gelasius is speaking about someone knowingly participating in a condemned error and also about someone pertinacious whether he knows that his error has been condemned or not.

To the text of Pope Felix they reply that he is speaking about Achatius who knowingly participated in a condemned misdeed; and therefore he should have been adjudged pertinacious because he was not ready to be corrected by the teaching of the church.

To the text of blessed Jerome which is located in 24, q. 3, c. Haeresis [col.997] they reply that just as there is a twofold withdrawal from evil, that is bodily and spiritual, as Augustine asserts according to what we read in 23, q. 4, c. 1 [col.899], so withdrawal from the church is twofold, that is bodily and spiritual. Bodily withdrawal can happen for many reasons however. For someone can bodily withdraw from the church and bodily go to heretics because the church does not agree with or rejects his teaching or opinion. And it is about this bodily withdrawal that we are now speaking, not about another bodily withdrawal that could happen for a good reason. Another withdrawal from the church is spiritual, and that is twofold, namely open or hidden, and in accordance with this there are two kinds of heretic, namely an open or a hidden one. Similarly it is possible to understand scripture otherwise than in the sense the holy spirit demands in two ways, namely with pertinacious adherence or without it. Therefore even if anyone who with pertinacious adherence understands scripture otherwise than in the sense the holy spirit demands does not withdraw from the church, either bodily (because of the fact that the church does not agree with or rejects his perception), or spiritually in a manifest way, (since he does not clearly show himself to be pertinacious), nevertheless he can be called a heretic, indeed he truly is a heretic because he has withdrawn spiritually from the church even if in a hidden way.

They reply to the text of Pope Stephen by saying that he calls him a doubter in faith who doubts that the christian faith is true or sound, not him who doubts some particular catholic truth. Such a doubter in the faith, however, is pertinacious or is doubting pertinaciously because such a person is not ready to be corrected by the christian faith. For no one is ready to be corrected by teaching that he doubts is true, since no one wants to be corrected except by the truth. He who doubts some particular article, however, can be ready to be corrected by the christian faith because [he is ready to be corrected] by sacred scripture, the whole of which he believes to be true, although he doubts some particular [article], not knowing that it is found in the sacred writings. And so he should not immediately be considered pertinacious. It is otherwise with him who doubts in general or as a whole that the faith is true. And it is about such a doubter in the faith that the glosses speak, one of which, on 24, q. 3, para. Quia vero [col.1427], says, "In one way a heretic is said be anyone who is doubtful of the faith." The other [gloss], on c. Aperte [col.1404] in the same causa and quaestio, says, "Note that a heretic is one who is unsteady in faith. ... For also comprehended by the word "heretics" is he who deviates from the faith even by a slight argument." For they are all speaking about him who doubts that christian faith is true.

Student I wonder that it is not more necessary for one doubting the faith to be pertinacious than for one doubting some particular article, especially since anyone can in this way doubt without pertinacity a universal, just as he can a singular.

Master They do not regard this as something to be wondered at, for just as there is an order among propositions, because one is prior and the other posterior, one may be also known through the other with the converse often not the case. And therefore it should not be presumed of someone who was to doubt a proposition that was simply first in some system of ordering and which could in no way become known through another [proposition], that he would ever come to a knowledge of it, although if he were to doubt some posterior proposition it should be presumed that he could arrive at knowledge of it through prior propositions. Thus because the first thing that it behoves a believer to believe is that the christian faith is true, if anyone were to doubt this, nothing remains though which he can be recalled to firm belief, and so someone doubting in this way should be considered as pertinacious and refusing to be corrected. If he does not doubt that the christian faith is true, however, even if he doubts some particular article it should be presumed, unless the contrary is clearly apparent, that he will correct himself without delay if it is shown to him that the article which he doubts does pertain to catholic faith.

Student What if no one can show him clearly that such an article pertains to christian faith?

Master They say that until it has been plainly shown to him that the said article pertains to catholic faith, it is enough for him to believe it implicitly, ready to believe explicitly when it is shown to him that it pertains to christian faith.

Student Go on to the other texts.

Master To the chapter Aperte [24, q. 1, col.980] they reply that it is speaking about a preacher wavering in the faith because he doubts that the christian faith is true.

They reply in the same way to Gratian's words, that he is speaking about someone preaching that the faith is false or uncertain or about someone pertinacious teaching things contrary to the faith. He is not speaking, however, about someone who out of simplicity or ignorance teaches things which are opposed to orthodox faith.

To the argument by which it is implied [that faith ought to be firm] they say that faith in the whole ought to be firm, so that a believer clings firmly to every catholic truth, that is explicitly or implicitly, with a firm faith, but it is not necessary that he explicitly clings firmly to every one. And in this way the texts adduced in connection with a general council and the Athanasian creed should be understood. Someone who doubts the faith, however, that is doubts that the faith is true, does not have a firm faith. And this is the way in which Bernard speaks. And therefore such a person should be considered not a catholic but a heretic. Someone doubting some particular article, however, does have a firm faith that the whole christian faith is true and certain. He also has a firm implicit faith about the very article that he doubts. And therefore he is catholic even if he does not have a firm explicit faith about that particular article.