This is incorrect. You are confusing Book 4 of De Romano Pontifice with Chapter 4 of the Council. That is certain. Bp. Gasser is contrasting them in his relatio.
Bp. Gasser is refuting the objection “
w**e wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith.” He does this by asserting that Pighius’ opinion is not “extreme”, as his detractors assert, but shared by such a great authority as Bellarmine, and called certain.
He begins by referring to Bellarmine because the French clergy (incorrectly) cite Bellarmine as the authority for their dissenting views regarding the draft to Pastor Aeternus. He quickly dismisses the “
things that are said about the opinion of Bellarmine,” by the French clergy as untenable.
Bp. Gasser then states, “
As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused…” But why are they unjustly accused? At this point you expect him to cite the Draft of
Pastor Aeternus to defend his case, but he doesn’t. What does he do instead? Instead of referring back to the words written in the Draft, he refers to the opinion of Pighius being affirmed by Bellarmine, showing that it was not an “extreme” opinion as the French clergy asserted.
Gasser explained, “*…the Deputation is unjustly accused…*
For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy…
this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine.” So the ONLY reason cited by Gasser for being unjustly accused was not something from the Draft, but that it was not an “extreme” opinon but what Bellarmine himself defended.
He has not mentioned anything about the teaching presented in the Draft of Pastor Aeternus in his defense. At this point he has ONLY refuted the notion that the opinion was “extreme.”
After citing the opinion of Bellarmine, Gasser drew his conclusion directly from Bellarmine’s teaching in bk. 4, ch. 6. This is clear from the beginning of his next sentence: “**From this, it appears…”
**Notice that he is now drawing his conclusion, not based upon citations from the Draft, but ONLY based upon Bellarmine’s teaching, thereby showing that it was not simply an “extreme” opinion, not JUST Pighius’, not JUST one theological school, but also the conclusion proved by Bellarmine himself in bk. 4, ch. 6.
Bp. Gasser’s conclusion in full is:
**From this *, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter [of the Draft] is not that of Albert Pighius [ie. not singularly his] or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it * ** is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, **the most common and certain opinion.
**Is it your thesis that what Gasser means by stating "Bellermine adduces in the fourth place" is not referring to a text written by Bellarmine, but instead is the Draft of Pastor Aeternus?
To me it seems clear that whatever the “fourth place” means, it MUST be something that Bellarmine authored himself and where he “adduces” (ie. proves), and in that “fourth place,” as Gasser confirms, Bellaermine “correct himself.” It this fourth place is indeed referring to the fourth session of Vatican I, please explain how it is Bellarmine who “adduces” and how in the “fourth place” he “corrects himself.”’
Since Gasser prefaces the entire sentence with “From this…” I can only conclude that he is speaking about what immediately preceded it. If so, then what Bellarmine “adduces” (proves) in the “fourth place” must either be referring to a text of Bellarmines’ own making, either the one “cited by the reverend speaking” or the one cited by Gasser, De pontifice Romano, bk 4. ch. 6, as these were the only things spoken of immediately preceding Gasser’s preface, “From this…”
As I understand it, the bk 4 ch 6 of De pontifice romano is the place where Bellarmine “adduces” (proves) the opinion just referred to by Gasser, as is seen from the chapter title: “De pontifice ut* est particu*laris quaedam persona.”
