Of late years, however, some authors, and among the rest Cardinal Bellarmine, without seeming to dread the imputation of heresy, have stoutly maintained, against all this array of popes and councils, that the writings of Honorius are free from the error which had been ascribed to them; "because," says the cardinal, "general councils being liable to err in questions of fact, we have the best grounds for asserting the sixth council was mistaken with regard to the fact now under consideration; and that, misconceiving the sense of the Letters of Honorius, it has placed this pope most unjustly in the rank of heretics." Observe, then, I pray you, father, that a man is not heretical for saying that Pope Honorius was not a heretic; even though a great many popes and councils, after examining his writings, should have declared that he was so.I now come to the question before us, and shall allow you to state your case as favourably as you can.What will you then say, father, in order to stamp your opponents as heretics? That "Pope Innocent X has declared that the error of the five propositions is to be found in Jansenius?" I grant you that; what inference do you draw from it? That "it is heretical to deny that the error of the five propositions is to be found in Jansenius?" How so, father? Have we not here a question of fact exactly similar to the preceding examples? The Pope has declared that the error of the five propositions is contained in Jansenius, in the same way as his predecessors decided that the errors of the Nestorians and the Monothelites polluted the pages of Theodoret and Honorius.In the latter case, your writers hesitate not to say that, while they condemn the heresies, they do not allow that these authors actually maintained them; and, in like manner, your opponents now say that they condemn the five propositions, but cannot admit that Jansenius has taught them.Truly, the two cases are as like as they could well be; and, if there be any disparity between them, it is easy to see how far it must go in favour of the present question, by a comparison of many particular circumstances, which as they are self-evident, I do not specify.How comes it to pass, then, that when placed in precisely the same predicament, your friends are Catholics and your opponents heretics? On what strange principle of exception do you deprive the latter of a liberty which you freely award to all the rest of the faithful? What answer will you make to this, father? Will you say, "The pope has confirmed his constitution by a brief." To this I would reply, that two general councils and two popes confirmed the condemnation of the letters of Honorius.But what argument do you found upon the language of that brief, in which all that the Pope says is that "he has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions"? What does that add to the constitution, or what more can you infer from it? Nothing, certainly, except that as the sixth council condemned the doctrine of Honorius, in the belief that it was the same with that of the Monothelites, so the Pope has said that he has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions, because he was led to suppose it was the same with that of the five propositions.And how could he do otherwise than suppose it? Your Society published nothing else; and you yourself, father, who have asserted that the said propositions were in that author "word for word," happened to be in Rome (for I know all your motions) at the time when the censure was passed.Was he to distrust the sincerity or the competence of so many grave ministers of religion? And how could he help being convinced of the fact, after the assurance which you had given him that the propositions were in that author "word for word"? It is evident, therefore, that in the event of its being found that Jansenius has not supported these doctrines, it would be wrong to say, as your writers have done in the cases before mentioned, that the Pope has deceived himself in this point of fact, which it is painful and offensive to publish at any time; the proper phrase is that you have deceived the Pope, which, as you are now pretty well known, will create no scandal.Determined, however, to have a heresy made out, let it cost what it may, you have attempted, by the following manoeuvre, to shift the question from the point of fact, and make it bear upon a point of faith."The Pope," say you, "declares that he has condemned the doctrine of Jansenius in these five propositions; therefore it is essential to the faith to hold that the doctrine of Jansenius touching these five propositions is heretical, let it be what it may." Here is a strange point of faith, that a doctrine is heretical be what it may.What! if Jansenius should happen to maintain that "we are capable of resisting internal grace" and that "it is false to say that Jesus Christ died for the elect only," would this doctrine be condemned just because it is his doctrine? Will the proposition, that "man has a ******* of will to do good or evil," be true when found in the Pope's constitution, and false when discovered in Jansenius? By what fatality must he be reduced to such a predicament, that truth, when admitted into his book, becomes heresy? You must confess, then, that he is only heretical on the supposition that he is friendly to the errors condemned, seeing that the constitution of the Pope is the rule which we must apply to Jansenius, to judge if his character answer the description there given of him; and, accordingly, the question, "Is his doctrine heretical?"must be resolved by another question of fact, "Does it correspond to the natural sense of these propositions?" as it must necessarily be heretical if it does correspond to that sense, and must necessarily be orthodox if it be of an opposite character.For, in one word, since, according to the Pope and the bishops, "the propositions are condemned in their proper and natural sense," they cannot possibly be condemned in the sense of Jansenius, except on the understanding that the sense of Jansenius is the same with the proper and natural sense of these propositions; and this I maintain to be purely a question of fact.The question, then, still rests upon the point of fact, and cannot possibly be tortured into one affecting the faith.
同类推荐
热门推荐
校园七大不可思议的魂淡们
【本文会在这时候发出来,是为了占坑,后是为了撒网,最后做个比较,嗯,聪明的我】这一天,校园里的七大不可思议为了争夺最不可思议的宝座,展开了不眠不休的斗争。“不过这关我什么事?”“你既然已经看到了我,那就为我们做一个裁判吧!”“请容我拒绝。”“我们已经一致同意了,今天晚上你就可以享受到此生以来最不可思议的一夜了。”“魂淡啊!好歹为正在被罚站的我考虑考虑吧!!!”“……我可以在你考试的时候帮你看看答案哟。”“请务必让我向诸位展示自己的公平与公正!!!”于是,这一天——我因为在罚站时间于走廊内大声喧哗,被叫到教导处接收了狠狠一顿训斥。星际争夺战
尼斯湖水怪,大脚怪,吸血鬼等怪兽一直被人们传说着。而主人公罗林无意中被一颗天降陨石砸中脑袋,福兮祸兮。但是罗林凭借着这颗神秘而且强大的陨石力量打败了最强的地球怪兽,成为地球上超顶级的超级战士。而为了彻底清除怪兽威胁,保卫生命,撼卫地球。罗林将目标锁定了那些操控着地球怪兽的神秘宇宙势力。而随着彼此间的战斗升级,一场声势浩大的,惊动整个宇宙的星际争夺战拉开了帷幕。让我们一起唱响超级战士之歌吧:“我们的意志坚不可摧,我们的进攻势不可挡。我们是超越人间的勇士,我们是保卫地球的卫士。保卫生命,消灭怪兽,是我们坚定的信念。抛头颅,洒热血,战天地,斗妖魔,勇往直前,我们从不惧怕。因为我们是伟大的超级战士。”