Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Word of God · Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture
Chapter 6: The same proved from the custom of the Church
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. I, De Verbo Dei, Book III: On the Interpretation of Scripture. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
It is proved thirdly from the practice of the Church; for in all ages new doubts have arisen in the Church, and they have always been terminated in the same manner, namely by the judgment of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops who then were. And to say or write that that is not rightly done which the universal Church always did and does, is of the most insolent madness, as Augustine says in epistle 118.
And note that we do not say only that all causes were judged by the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops, but by the Pontiff and the Bishops who then were. For never, for the sake of judging some doubt, were a new Pope and new Bishops created; which we say on account of the Confessionists, who in the Augsburg Confession article 28 confess that it belongs to the Bishops to discern true doctrine from false. But when we ask, why then do they not acquiesce in the Council of Trent? they answer: that these who now are, are not Bishops, but enemies of the Gospel. But this same thing the Arians and all other heretics said of the Bishops of their time; and yet, this notwithstanding, now for 1500 years the doubts of religion have always been explained by the Bishops who, according to the ordinary succession, were in the Churches when those doubts arose; and those who did not acquiesce have been held heretics.
In the first age of the Church, then, which extends to the hundredth year from the birth of Christ, there arose the question of the ceremonies of the old Law, whether they were to be kept by the Gentiles converted to Christ. And as that was the first question that arose in the Church, so then was the first Council celebrated, Peter presiding, and in the decree of that Council all acquiesced, Acts 15.
In the second age, that is, to the two-hundredth year, there arose the question of the celebration of the Pasch, some wishing to celebrate the Pasch with the Jews on the fourteenth day of the first month, whether it were the Lord's day or not, but others only on the Lord's day. And it is established that on this account many Councils of Bishops were celebrated, and at length it was so terminated by Victor the Roman Pontiff that all the Churches of Asia were excommunicated by him, because they still persisted in the error. Eusebius writes the whole history book 5 of the History chapters 23 and 24. And afterward those who did not obey the decree of the Pontiff were held not only excommunicate, but even heretics. For hence in Epiphanius heresy 50, Augustine heresy 29, and Tertullian On prescription at the end, the Quartodecimans are numbered among the heretics.
In the third age, that is, after the year 200, there arose the heresy of the Novatians, who denied that the Church could absolve from sins those who had fallen after Baptism. But the truth was explained by the Roman Council over which Pope Cornelius presided, as Eusebius relates from the version of Rufinus book 6 of the History chapter 33; and thenceforth the Novatians were always held among the heretics. In the same age arose the question of Anabaptism; and indeed, when various men thought variously, Cornelius, a Council being held at Rome, decreed that those who had been baptized by heretics were not to be rebaptized, as Eusebius relates book 7 of the History chapter 2; and afterward Pope Stephen also wrote and commanded that those who had been baptized by heretics according to the form of the Church should not be rebaptized. Of which decree Cyprian makes mention in the epistle to Pompey, and blessed Augustine book 5 On Baptism chapter 23, and Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory.
In the fourth age, after the year 300, there arose the heresy of the Arians, which indeed was taken away by the general Council of Nicaea. Now in that Council there were 318 Bishops, and these alone are read to have been judges, together with the Legates of the Roman See, the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius, who with Hosius the Bishop of Cordova presided over the Council in the name of Pope Sylvester; and afterward the whole Council still sought confirmation from Sylvester by an epistle; but the Emperor was present indeed, yet acted as judge in no matter. All these things are plain, both from the first volume of the Councils, and from the historians — Eusebius book 3 On the life of Constantine, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History. In the same age the heresy of Macedonius against the Holy Ghost was judged and condemned by the Council of Constantinople, which Photius, in the book On the seven Synods, testifies was confirmed by Damasus — which book is wont to be printed at the beginning of the first volume of the Councils.
In the fifth age the heresy of Nestorius was condemned in the First Council of Ephesus, Cyril presiding in the name of Pope Celestine, as Evagrius testifies book 1 chapter 4. And a little after, the heresy of Eutyches in the Council of Chalcedon, the Legates of Pope Leo presiding, as Evagrius testifies book 2 chapter 4; and of this Synod too the confirmation was sought from the Roman Pontiff; and neither in this nor in that do we read any subscription of the Emperor, or of any laymen whatsoever, but only of ecclesiastics. See volumes 1 and 2 of the Councils, and the Breviary of Liberatus. In the same age was condemned the heresy of the Pelagians, which the Lutherans above the rest seem to hate; but it was condemned by the Roman Pontiffs. For thus Augustine says: “The Pelagian heresy with its authors was convicted and condemned by the Bishops of the Roman Church, first Innocent, then Zosimus, the letters of the African Councils cooperating.” And in the Chronicle Prosper, at the year 420: “A Council being held at Carthage of more than 217 Bishops, the synodal decrees were carried to Pope Zosimus, and these being approved, the Pelagian heresy was condemned throughout the whole world.”
In the sixth age many heresies were condemned in the Fifth Synod, in which also the Bishops alone were judges. In the seventh age the Monothelites were condemned in the Sixth general Synod, over which the Legates of the Roman Pontiff presided; and the Emperor indeed was present and subscribed, but after all the Bishops, and not by judging or defining as the Bishops subscribed, but only by consenting. In the eighth age the Iconoclasts were condemned in the Seventh Synod, over which also the Legates of the Roman Pontiff presided, and no subscription of laymen is read in it. Of these Synods read the volumes of the Councils, and the book of Photius on the seven Synods.
In the ninth age certain Ecclesiastical controversies were defined in the Eighth Synod, over which also the Legates of the Roman Pontiff presided. The Emperor was present, and subscribed indeed after the Legates of the Pontiff and the Patriarchs, but there expressly affirmed that the judgment of divine things did not pertain to him, but only to subscribe in sign of consent, etc. — whose words we shall bring forward a little later.
In the tenth age, which is the most obscure of all, no heresy arose, and therefore also we read of no Council celebrated; yet the schism and error of the Greeks, which had begun a little before, most flourished in this age, of whose condemnation we shall soon speak. In the eleventh age Leo IX condemned the heresy of Berengarius in the Council of Vercelli, and Nicholas II afterward in the Roman Council, as Lanfranc and Guitmund relate book 1 against Berengarius. In the twelfth age the heresy of Peter Abelard was condemned by Innocent II, as is in the epistles of blessed Bernard, epistle 194; likewise the error of Gilbert de la Porrée was condemned by Eugenius III in the Council of Reims, as blessed Bernard witnesses sermon 80 on the Canticle.
In the thirteenth age the error of Abbot Joachim was condemned by Innocent III in the general Lateran Council; and afterward the error of the Greeks by Gregory X in the general Council of Lyons, whence is extant the chapter Fideli, On the supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, in the Sixth. In the fourteenth age the errors of the Beghards were condemned in the Council of Vienne by Clement V, whence is extant the chapter Ad nostrum, in the Clementines On heretics. In the fifteenth age the errors of John Wycliffe and John Hus were condemned in the Council of Constance, Martin V presiding; and again the errors of the Greeks in the Council of Florence under Eugenius IV. Finally in this our sixteenth age the errors of the Lutherans were condemned in the Council of Trent confirmed by Pius IV. Let them now themselves find one example of antiquity whereby they may prove that some new error was truly held for an error in the Church, and yet was condemned not by the Pontiff, but by the Emperor or some other secular Prince; or let them say, if they can, who ever dared to judge of the opinion of Councils approved by the Roman Prelate, and were not straightway held heretics by the Catholic Church.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Idem probatur ex consuetudine Ecclesice. Probatur tertio ex praxi Ecclesice : nam in omnibus saeculis in Ecclesia exorta sunt nova dubia, et semper eodem modo terminata sunt, nimirum judicio Pontificis Romani , et Episcoporum qui tunc erant : non recte au- ' tem fieri, quod universa Ecclesia fecit sem¬ per et facit, dicere, aut scribere, insolen- tissimse insaniae est, ut Augustinus ait in epist. 118. Et nota, nos non tantum dicere, fuisse omnes causas judicatas per Pontificem Ro¬ manum et Episcopos , sed per Pontificem et Episcopos qui tunc erant. Nunquam enim propter ullam dubitationem judicandam cre¬ ati sunt novus Papa et novi Episcopi ; id quod dicimus propter Confessionistas, qui in con- fess. August. art. 28. fatentur, ad Episcopos pertinere discernere veram doctrinam a fal¬ sa. Sed cum petimus, cur ergo non acquies¬ cant Concilio Tridentino ? Respondent : is¬ tos, qui nunc sunt, non esse Episcopos , sed hostes Evangelii. At hoc idem dixerunt Ariani et alii omnes haeretici de Episcopis sui temporis : et tamen hoc non obstante, jam per 1500. annos semper dubia religionis explicata sunt ab Episcopis, qui secundum ordinariam successionem erant in Ecclesiis, quando dubia illa exorta sunt : et qui non acquieverunt, haeretici sunt habiti. Primo igitur Ecclesiae saeculo, quod exten¬ ditur usque ad annum centesimum a Christo nato, orta est quaestio de caeremoniis Legis veteris, an essent servandae a Gentibus ad Christum conversis. Et sicut illa fuit prima quaestio in Ecclesia exorta, ita tunc celebra¬ tum est primum Concilium , praesidente Pe¬ li) Jacob. IV, 3. — (2) I. Joan. IV, 1. 182 LIBER III. tro, et ejus Concilii decreto omnes acquie¬ verunt, Actor. XY. Secundo seculo, id est, usque ad annum ducentesimum, orta est quaestio de celebra¬ tione Paschae, quibusdam volentibus Pascha celebrare cum Judaeis decimoquarto die primi mensis, sive esset dies Dominicus, sive non : alii autem tantum die Dominico. Constat autem propter hoc celebrata esse multa Concilia Episcoporum, et tandem a Yictore Romano Pontifice ita terminatum, ut omnes Ecclesiae Asiae ab eodem excommu- nicatae fuerint, quod adhuc in errore per¬ sisterent. Scribit historiam totam Eusebius lib. Y, histor. cap. 23. et 24. Postea vero, non solum excommumcati, sed etiam haere¬ tici habiti sunt, qui decreto Pontificis non obedierunt. Hinc enim apud Epiphanium haeres. 50. Augustinum haeres. 29. et Ter¬ tullianum de praescript. in fine, inter haere¬ ticos numerantur Quartodecimani. Tertio seculo, id est, post annum 200. orta est haeresis Novatianorum, qui nega¬ bant, Ecclesiam posse absolvere a peccatis eos, qui post Baptismum lapsi erant.Explicata autem fuit veritas per Concilium Romanum, cui Cornelius Papa praeerat, ut refert Euse¬ bius ex versione Ruffini lib. YI, hist. c. 33. et deinceps Novatiani semper inter haereti¬ cos habiti sunt. Eodem seculo orta est quaes¬ tio de Anabaptismo : et quidem cum varii varia sentirent, Cornelius Romae Concilio habito decrevit, non esse rebaptizandos, qui ab haereticis baptizati essent, ut Eusebius refert lib. YII, hist. c. 2. et postea etiam Stephanus Papa scripsit, et praecepit, ut non rebaptizarentur, qui ab haereticis secundum formam Ecclesiae baptizati essent. Cujus de¬ creti meminit Cyprianus in epist. ad Pompe¬ ium, et B. Augustinus lib. Y. De Baptis, cap. 23. et Yincentius Lirinensisin suo Com¬ monitorio. Quarto seculo post annum 300. orta est haeresis Arianorum, quae quidem per Con¬ cilium Nicaenum generale sublata est. Porro in eo Concilio 318 Episcopi fuerunt, et ii soli judices fuisse leguntur una cum Legatis Romanae Sedis Yito et Vincentio Presbyteris, qui cum Hosio Episcopo Gordubensi, Con¬ cilio praeerant nomine Sylvestri Papae, et postea adhuc totum Concilium per episto- tolam a Sylvestro confirmationem petiit : Imperator autem aderat quidem, sed nulla in re judicem egit. Haec omnia patent, tum ex I. Tom. Cohciliorum, tum ex historicis, Eusebio lib. III, De vit. Constant., Ruffmo, Socrate, Sozomeno, Theodoreto lib. I, hist. Eccl. Eodem seculo haeresis Macedonii contra Spiritum sanctum judicata et condemnata est per Concilium Constantinopolitanum, quod a Damaso confirmatum fuisse testatur Photius in libro De septem Synodis, qui liber excudi solet ad initium primi Tomi Concilio¬ rum. Quinto seculo haeresis Nestorii condem¬ nata est in Concilio Ephesino I, praeside Cy- rillo nomine Coelestini Papae, ut Evagrius testatur lib. I, cap. 4. Et paulo post haeresis Eutychetis in Concilio Chalcedonensi, prae¬ sidentibus Legatis Papae Leonis, ut Evagrius testatur lib. II, cap. 4. et hujus etiam Syno¬ di petita est a Pontifice Romano confirma¬ tio, et nec in ista, nec in illa ullam subscrip¬ tionem legimus Imperatoris, aut Laicorum quorumlibet, sed tantum Ecclesiasticorum. Yide tomum 1 et 2. Conciliorum, et Brevia¬ rium Liberati. Eodem seculo damnata est haeresis Pela- gianorum, quam Lutherani prae caeteris vi¬ dentur odisse, sed a Pontificibus Romanis damnata est. Sic enim Augustinus ait : « Pe- lagiana haeresis cum suis auctoribus ab Epis¬ copis Ecclesiae Romanae, prius Innocentio, deinde Zosimo, cooperantibus Conciliorum Africanorumlitteris, convicta atque damnata est. (i ) » Et in Chronico Prosper anno 420. « Concilio », inquit, « apud Carthaginem- habito amplius 217 Episcoporum, ad Papam Zosimum synodalia decreta perlata sunt, quibus probatis, per totum mundum haere¬ sis Pelagiana damnata est. » Sexto seculo multae haercses damnatae sunt in V Synodo, in qua etiam soli Epis¬ copi fuerunt judices. Septimo seculo damnati sunt Monotheli- tae in YI Synodo generali, cui praefuerunt Legati Romani Pontificis, et Imperator qui¬ dem interfuit, et subscripsit, sed post omnes Episcopos, et non judicando, vel definiendo, ut Episcopi subscribebant, sed tantum con¬ sentiendo. Octavo seculo damnati sunt Iconomachi in YII Synodo, qui praefuerunt etiam Legati Romani Pontificis, et nulla in eo legitur subscriptio Laicorum. De his Synodis lege (1) Retract. Lib. II, Cap. 50. CAPUT VII. 183 Tomos Conciliorum, et librum Photii de septem Synodis. Nono seculo controversi ae quaedam Eccle¬ siasticae definitae sunt in VIII Synodo, cui praefuerunt etiam Legati Romani Pontificis. Imperator aderat, et subscripsit quidem post Legatos Pontificis et Patriarchas, sed ibidem diserte affirmavit, ad se non perti¬ nere judicium rerum divinarum, sed tantum subscribere in signum consensus etc., cujus verba paulo post adferemus. Decimo seculo quod omnium est obscu¬ rissimum, nulla exorta est haeresis, et prop- terea etiam nullum legimus celebratum Concilium : schisma tamen, et error Graeco¬ rum, quae paulo ante coeperant, hoc seculo maxime vigebant, de quorum damnatione mox dicemus. Undecimo seculo haeresim Berengarii dam¬ navit Leo IX, in Concilio Vercellensi, et Nicolaus II, postea in Concilio Romano, ut Lanfrancus et Guitmundus referunt lib. I, contra Berengar. , Duodecimo seculo damnata est haeresis Petri Abailardi ab Innocentio II, ut est in epistolis B. Bernardi epist. 194. Item dam¬ natus est error Gilberti Porretani ab Euge- nio III, in Concilio Remensi, teste B. Ber- nardo ser. 80. in Cantica. Decimotertio seculo damnatus est error Joachimi Abbatis ab Innocentio III, in Con¬ cilio generali Lateranensi. Et postea error Graecorum a Gregorio X, in Concilio Lug¬ dunensi generali. Unde exstat cap. Fideli, 'de summa Trinit. et Fide catholica , in sexto. Decimoquarto seculo damnati sunt erro¬ res Begardorum in Concilio Viennensi a de¬ mente V. Unde exstat cap. Ad nostrum , in Clementin. de haereticis. Decimoquinto seculo damnati sunt errores Joannis Wicleff, et Joannis Hus in Concilio Constantiensi, praeside Martino V. Et rursum errores Graecorum in Concilio Florentino sub Eugenio IV. Denique hoc nostro seculo decimosexto damnati sunt errores Lutheranorum in Con¬ cilio Tridentino confirmato a Pio IV. Inve¬ niant jam ipsi unum exemplum antiquitatis, quo probent, aliquem novum errorem vere habitum pro errore in Ecclesia, et tamen non damnatum a Pontifice, sed ab Impera¬ tore, vel alio Principe seculari : aut dicant si possunt, quinam unquam de sententia Conciliorum a Romano Praesule approbato¬ rum judicare ausi fuerint, et non continuo haeretici ab Ecclesia Catholica habiti sint.