Responsio. Dicendum quod aliquid potest iudicari possibile secundum se consideratum, quod relatum ad aliquid extrinsecum impossibile invenitur. Dico ergo quod iudicium eorum qui praesunt Ecclesiae errare in quibuslibet, si personae eorum tantum respiciantur, possibile est. Si vero consideretur divina providentia quae Ecclesiam suam Spiritu Sancto dirigit ut non erret, sicut ipse promisit Iohannis XVI quod Spiritus adveniens doceret omnem veritatem, de necessariis scilicet ad salutem, certum est quod iudicium Ecclesiae universalis errare in his quae ad fidem pertinent, impossibile est; unde magis est standum sententiae Papae, ad quem pertinet determinare de fide, quam in iudicio proferret, quam quorumlibet sapientum hominum in scripturis opinioni, cum Cayphas, quamvis nequam, tamen quia pontifex legatur etiam inscius prophetasse, Iohannis XI. In aliis vero sententiis, quae ad particularia facta pertinent, ut cum agitur de possessionibus vel de criminibus vel de huiusmodi, possibile est iudicium Ecclesiae errare propter falsos testes.
I answer that something can be judged possible considered according to itself which is found impossible related to something extrinsic. Therefore, I say that for the judgment of those who are over the Church to err in any matters, if only their persons are regarded, is possible. Whereas if divine providence were to be considered which directs its Church by the Holy Spirit so that it might not err, just as he promised in John 16:13 that the Spirit coming would teach all truth, namely, concerning things necessary unto salvation, it is certain that it is impossible for the judgment of the Church universal to err in these things which pertain to faith. Hence the sentence of a pope, to which it pertains to determine concerning faith, which he proffers in judgment, must stand more than the opinion of any wise men in their writings, since Caiaphas, although wicked, is still read, because he was the pontiff, to have prophesied unknowingly, in John 11:51. Whereas in other sentences, which pertain to particular facts, as those concerning possessions or concerning crimes or concerning things of this sort, it is possible for the judgment of the Church to err on account of false witnesses.
Canonizatio vero sanctorum medium est inter haec duo; quia tamen honor quem sanctis exhibemus quaedam professio fidei est, qua sanctorum gloriam credimus, pie credendum est quod nec etiam in his iudicium Ecclesiae errare possit.
The canonization of saints is a middle between these two. Since, nevertheless, the honor which we exhibit to the saints is a certain profession of faith, by which we believe in the glory of the saints, piously it must be believed that not even in these matters can a declaration of the Church err.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod pontifex, cuius est canonizare sanctos, potest certificari de statu alicuius per inquisitionem vitae et attestationem miraculorum, et praecipue per instinctum Spiritus Sancti, qui omnia scrutatur, etiam profunda Dei.
Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that a pontiff, to whom it belongs to canonize saints, can be made certain concerning the state of someone through inquisition of life and attestation of miracles, and especially through the instinct of the Holy Spirit, who scrutinizes all things, even the profundities of God (1 Cor 2:10).
Ad secundum dicendum quod divina providentia praeservat Ecclesiam ne in talibus per fallibile testimonium hominum fallatur.
Reply Obj. 2: It must be said that divine providence preserves the Church lest she be deceived in such matters through the fallible testimony of men.