De locis theologicis

HE PROVES BY THEOLOGICAL REASONS THAT THE ROMAN PONTIFF CANNOT ERR IN SETTLING DISPUTES OF FAITH

Since the time of the apostles, the Church has always recognized that the Roman pontiff succeeds Peter in faith and authority. Because the agreement of the whole world had firmly established this, even the Arians could not deny it, as Sozomenus reports in lib. 4 Histor. trip., cap. 15 and 16. Moreover, it is so certain and evident that bishops of the Churches appealed to the Roman See in their most serious cases, that the faithful always sought oracles of faith from its mouth, that all Catholics awaited its judgment in disputes about religion, and finally that all sacred councils sought its power and authority, that I would be foolish to try to prove it. From these facts, since they cannot be denied, the argument we seek is constructed and established: what we seek—

an argument which, among many great ones, one could hardly call less evident or certain. For if no interpreter of Christ’s laws is sounder than the Church’s perpetual practice, and if in questions of faith and religion and in other most serious controversies the Church has always turned, not to the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Ephesus, Milan, Paris, Cologne, Toledo, or Braga, but to the bishop of Rome, who can doubt that this is the one whom we regard both as Peter’s successor and as teacher of apostolic doctrine and judge of questions of faith? For if Christ left some such person after Peter to establish the Church and keep it in the truth, surely it is either this bishop or no one, since there is no question that the bishops of other churches were not appointed by God as universal teachers and shepherds of the Church in Peter’s place. Therefore, as the Church’s practice interprets it, the Roman bishop is the one to whom the Lord said in Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my Church”; “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”; “Whatever you loose,” and so forth; again, “Feed my sheep”; and, “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, strengthen your brothers.” Moreover, do we not learn from experience itself that Christ’s prophecies concerning Peter and his successors are fulfilled more manifestly in the Roman Church? For it is clear that this Church has remained steadfast and immovable in Peter’s faith and authority, even while the whole world shook it with every kind of assault. We have seen the other apostolic churches either occupied by unbelievers, with no trace of the faith remaining, or at times afflicted by heretics; yet neither pagans nor heretics have prevailed against this one Roman See. Indeed, a fierce struggle was waged, not only by the Greeks but by many other bishops throughout the world, to undermine this privilege of the Roman Church. They had on their side the arms of emperors and the greater number of churches, yet they could never abolish the Roman pontiff’s authority or transfer it to another bishop. On the contrary, those who defected from the Roman See were always regarded in the Church as schismatics, while those who rejected this See’s judgments on matters of faith were regarded as heretics. All this plainly shows that by divine, not human, decree the Roman Church has been set above the others, has rightly claimed for itself Peter’s privileges, and is that rock on which Christ built the universal Church, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. If this were not so, how could the Roman Church have resisted so many and such powerful princes, so many dissenting heretics, and so many churches plotting defection? If theologians had asserted this privilege of the Roman bishop on the basis of a fictitious and empty opinion, that judgment would not have remained so steadfast, been strengthened by time, and grown old along with the centuries and generations of humanity. We see, after all, that invented and empty opinions fade with time, especially when learned men oppose them. Time erases the inventions of opinion, but confirms the judgments of faith. Add that the integrity of apostolic traditions could not have been preserved down to our day, when heretical bishops have so often occupied other churches, unless the one Apostolic See had stood firm and undefiled amid so many upheavals throughout the world. Moreover, since councils, both provincial and general, have sometimes erred without the authority of the Roman pontiff, but never when confirmed by his authority, it should be sufficiently clear that the firmness of councils, and therefore of the whole Church, derives from the Roman pontiff. Since we have said much about this in the preceding chapter, from there

the reader will gather what bears on explaining this argument. And if the Roman bishop could err when defining a question of faith, the condemnation of many heresies would immediately become uncertain for us, since most have been condemned not by the judgment and decree of a general council but by that of the Roman Church. Further, if there is disagreement among the fathers of a council about the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, whether any book is canonical, or some other question of this kind, a judge must be appointed to settle the dispute; yet if he could err, his judgment would be uncertain. No one in the Church has been recognized as judge among dissenting council fathers except the Roman bishop. Moreover, the Church’s custom plainly declares this. An appeal in cases of faith has never been admitted from the Roman See; those whom it has judged heretics, the Church has always judged heretics as well. Certainly, if the judgment of the Roman See were fallible while that of a council were true and certain, a person who denied an appeal from the pontiff to a council would oppose nature, reason, and true theology. By this single argument Gelasius shows that the Apostolic See judges the whole Church, while it itself is subject to no one’s judgment. The Church knows no such appeals, especially in matters of the dogma of faith; only heretics make use of them. If a general council had to be assembled to condemn each individual heretic, since this is often not merely difficult but impossible, heretics would surely be free to live with impunity in the meantime, until a synod could be convened by the whole Church. Since this is plainly foreign to Christ’s providence, let us instead acknowledge that the authority of the Roman See is sufficient to refute heresies. Thus the judgment of this tribunal on faith will be held entirely certain. Moreover, do we believe only in the Catholic Church, and not also in the Apostolic Church? Yet the Roman Church is called Apostolic by the agreement of the fathers and the faithful, while all the others lost this title many years ago. But you ask: would it be heretical to assert that the Roman Church too can degenerate like the others, and that the Apostolic See can also fall away from Christ’s faith? We answer this question briefly. We do not wish here to anticipate the Church’s judgment; but if the matter were referred to a general council, that error would be branded with the mark of heresy. I do not see why I should not dare to say what I myself think about this, since I seem to see it all the more clearly because I consider it closely and carefully, and do so without passion or agitation. If I err in defending the privileges of the Roman See granted to it by Christ and in believing that those who contradict them should be condemned as heretics, I err not only safely but willingly; nor do I wish to be torn away by force of reason from an error that is useful to me and even delights me. For I was moved to believe this not only by reason and argument but also by the distinction and authority of the greatest theologians. Hieronymus says that the one who does not follow the faith of the chair of Peter and of the Roman See is profane and perjured. Cyprian says that the one who does not maintain the unity of the universal Church—that is, one light from which many rays shine, one root from which many branches grow, one source from which many streams flow, one rock on which the Church is built, one Pontiff who holds all the others together by his power and authority—is an outsider, profane, and an enemy. If you remove a ray from it, it is extinguished; if you break a branch, it perishes; if you cut off a stream, it dries up. This is how he explains it. But whoever rejects the faith and judgment of the Apostolic See in a controversy of faith can maintain neither unity nor light, root, or source. Cyprian also says, “Whoever abandons the chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded,”

“should not trust that he is in the Church.” Ambrosius regards being Catholic and agreeing with the Roman Church as entirely the same thing. Gregorius holds that the authority of the Roman See in matters of religion and faith must be embraced so that whoever refuses it is torn away from the firmness of that rock on which Christ founded the universal Church. Leo declares that the one who dares to depart from Peter’s firmness is excluded from the divine Mystery, and calls it an impious presumption to try to violate the strength of this rock, built by God. Nicolaus concludes that whoever tries to take away the privilege of the Roman Church, handed down by Christ himself, the supreme head of all the churches, undoubtedly falls into heresy. “For he violates the faith,” he says, “who acts against her, who is the mother of faith.” Please do not dismiss this judgment of Nicolaus, reader; it was confirmed in the first and seventh sessions of the eighth Synod. There Photios and Michael were also condemned, because they tried to shake this privilege of the Roman See. If one falls into heresy by denying that the Roman bishop succeeded Peter and that the Roman Church is therefore set above the others, what should we think of the one who denies that the privileges given to Peter by Christ for the Church’s benefit—privileges granted to Peter as pontiff, teacher, and shepherd—also belong to his successors? But feeding the sheep with sound doctrine, confirming the brothers in faith, having all nations hear the word of the Gospel and believe through his mouth, and building the Church upon him so that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, belonged to Peter not as a private person but as governor of the Christian commonwealth. Therefore Catholics neither should nor can doubt that the judgments of the Roman See on faith and religion are certain. Further, anyone who denied that the Roman bishop now possesses the same power of binding and loosing that Christ is believed to have conferred on Peter would rightly and deservedly be regarded as a heretic; therefore the one who denies to Peter’s successors the power to strengthen the brothers in faith must be judged a heretic. Moreover, let us suppose there is some disputed matter of religion among the faithful. We then ask: if the Roman and Apostolic See, in order to settle disputes and disagreements among churches, pronounces from Peter’s chair and tribunal, should we follow its judgment or not? If we follow it, and the Roman See errs, the whole Church will be caught in its error. If we do not follow it, where is “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”? Where, again, is “God chose among us that the nations should hear the word of the Gospel and believe through my mouth”? Therefore, what Peter’s successor binds, at least in disputed matters, will be bound; and what he teaches in a question of faith must not only be heard by the nations but believed. I do not cite here what Leo says in support of this matter, 20 distinct., cap. De libellis, or what Damasus and Adrian say in 25, quaest. 1, cap. Violatores and cap. Generali. I will cite instead what happened at the Council of Complutum, confirmed by Sixtus IV: Petrus Oxoniensis was condemned under the charge of heresy for asserting that the Church of the city of Rome could err. Sixtus himself condemned the same error under the same charge of heresy in the Extravagans issued against Petrus Oxoniensis. Since we discussed this at length in the Relectio De poenitentia, the reader should be referred there. He was therefore compelled to recant in this form: “I agree with the holy mother, the Roman Church, and the Apostolic See, and with mouth and heart I confess that I hold the faith which Lord Sixtus, pope, holds by apostolic and evangelical authority. And I declare that all who have come against this faith deserve eternal damnation.” Thus far from the Conc. Compl.

At the end of the Council of Constance, Martin V says: “With the sacred council approving, we order archbishops, bishops, etc., to judge as a heretic anyone who thinks or teaches differently from the teaching and practice of the holy Roman Church concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, baptism, confession of sins, the imposition of penance for sins, the other Sacraments of the Church, or articles of faith.” The Council of Constance therefore judged as heretics those who opposed the faith and teaching of the Roman Church. Finally, I shall add this. Since a firm and certain argument can be drawn from the traditions of the apostles to refute heresy, and since, if you compare the testimonies and arguments set out here with the rules we laid down in book 3, it is clear that the Roman bishops succeeded Peter in the pontificate over the whole Church and in the teaching of faith by apostolic tradition, why should we not dare to condemn the contrary assertion as heretical? But, as I said, I do not wish to anticipate the Church’s judgment. I do not seem to be doing so, since the Church’s own language has already confirmed our whole position concerning the authority of the Roman See. I say this with some hesitation because of certain learned and devout men who have contradicted us. Yet I confidently assert that those who either deny that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter in authority over faith and doctrine, or assert that the supreme pastor of the Church, whoever he may be, can err in a judgment of faith, bring pestilence and ruin to the Church. Heretics do both; those who oppose them in both matters are considered Catholics in the Church. I therefore do not understand why certain faithful people prefer the opinions of heretics to those of Catholics. I see what the heretics pursue: liberty to live and teach, and impunity in all these matters. They want a body without a head, so that neither the foot nor the mind does its duty. They want sheep without one shepherd, so that, though they are wolves themselves, they may still appear to be shepherds. They want disputes without a judge, so that disagreement has no end; once the arbiter is removed, they can fight learned men and have the crowd decide who wins. Finally, they want everything thrown into confusion, because, as the Spanish proverb says, the fisherman profits from troubled waters. Let us instead follow the common judgment of Catholics, for we can follow it safely because it is common to Catholics. Moreover, they hold what is confirmed by the testimonies of Sacred Scripture, decided by the decrees of Pontiffs, sung in harmony by the choir of ancient saints, affirmed by the fathers of councils, proved by apostolic tradition, and observed by the Church’s constant practice. Therefore, if the things I have said are clearer and brighter than the sun itself, if they are all drawn from the sources of the Church and Scripture, and if this whole discourse confirms its authority by certain theological arguments and unimpaired, uncorrupted witnesses, let us finally agree that theologians may draw firm arguments from the authority of the Apostolic See to prove doctrines of faith and theology. So much, then, about the firmness of the fifth locus. Now let us refute the arguments of our adversaries.