Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

You will object, 1° and principally. The council of Constance, sess. 4, decrees thus : «This holy synod of Constance, making a general council, for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation of the Church of God to be made in head and members..., lawfully gathered in the Holy Spirit..., ordains, disposes, enacts, decrees and declares as follows. And first, that this synod, gathered in the Holy Spirit, making a lawful general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has power immediately from Christ, to which everyone of whatever state or dignity he may be, even Papal, is bound to obey in those things that pertain to the faith and the extirpation of the said schism and the general reformation of the Church of God in head and members.» And sess. 5 repeats the same decree and adds : «Likewise it declares that whoever of whatsoever condition, state and dignity, even Papal, who shall have contemptuously refused obedience to the mandates, statutes or ordinances or precepts of this holy synod, and of any other general council whatsoever lawfully gathered, concerning the premises, or things done or to be done pertaining to them, unless he repent, be subjected to condign penance and duly punished, having recourse even to the other aids of law, if need be.» Ergo.

To this argument, which they think invincible, a threefold answer is employed.

The first and more common is, that these decrees are to be understood not of general councils outside the time of schism and when there is a certain Pontiff, but only of councils celebrated in the time of schism and of doubtful Pontiffs, such as were then John XXIII, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. In which case, since there is no Pope — for a doubtful Pope is no Pope, because he is not the visible head of the Church — we confess that the council has power immediately from Christ, to which everyone of whatever state or dignity, even Papal, is bound to obey in those things that pertain to the faith and the extirpation of schism, and the general reformation of the Church of God in head and members.

The truth of this answer is established : 1° from the very terms of the decrees. For in the decree of session 4, and in the first part of the decree of session 5, speech is had only of this council of Constance convoked for the extirpation of the present schism. Indeed in the second part of the decree of session 5 it is said : «And of any other general council whatsoever lawfully gathered;» but this saying is straightway restricted by the following words : «Concerning the premises, or things done or to be done pertaining to them.» What moreover are «the premises,» but the schism to be extirpated and the doubtful Pontiffs to be deposed; which was the true and proper cause of celebrating the council of Constance, as is evident from six terms placed at the beginning of the decrees.

2° It is established from the testimony of Cardinal John of Turrecremata, who was present at the council, in the Summa de Ecclesia, c. 99 : «It is plainly clear, he says, that the decree of those Fathers does not speak universally of every synod, but singularly of that one, for whose time there was in the Church no undoubted pastor of the whole Church.»

3° The council itself answers thus to the Cardinals contending that the Roman Church was head of all other churches and of the council itself. «Note upon the word head : let this be granted, yet not for cherishing schism or dissensions. Likewise note upon the word council : a distinction must be subjoined; because this is true in some council, especially when the matter concerns eluding some error against the catholic faith, or extirpating a heresy; where however the matter concerns removing schism in the Roman Church, then it has no place there.» So report the acts of the council in Vanderhard, tom. II, part. 13, pag. 287. From which clearer than light it is plain that the council understood its decrees of the present and like case of schism and doubtful Pontiff only, not of whatever general councils.

4° Martin V, canonically elected and a certain Pontiff, proved himself superior to the council : 1° Because straightway alone he defined, with the clause «with the approval of the sacred council.» 2° He dissolved the council when he wished. And although some took ill that it was dissolved without the reformation being made, none however dared cry out against it. 3° The bull Inter cunctas, given in the council, orders those suspected in the errors of Wyclif to be interrogated : «Whether he believe that the Pope canonically elected, whoever for the time being may be, in his own name expressly expressed, is the successor of Peter, holding supreme authority in the Church of God.» Moreover, if it be supreme, no greater is given.

Second answer. Granting that the decrees of sessions 4 and 5 are to be understood of a certain Pontiff and of councils celebrated even outside the case of schism, it is answered then that the council of Constance was not oecumenical, because the bishops of one obedience only, namely of John XXIII, were then present, nor did they agree among themselves regarding the aforementioned decrees.

So reports Cardinal de Turrecremata, who was present at the council, in the Summa de Ecclesia, lib. II, cap. 99 : «No one, he says, doubts that to assert that the obedience of John alone made a universal council, representing the universal Church, would be rash and scandalous to the other obediences.» And below : «In that determination not only did the universal Church not intervene, but one obedience only, namely that of John XXIII, as was said; but also not integrally that whole obedience, since many most learned Fathers of that obedience did not give their consent to it.» These things said John of Turrecremata, Cardinal most pious and at the same time most learned, and, as he himself wrote, an eyewitness; to deny him faith would be of highest shamelessness, says our Serry.

They infer. Therefore the Fathers of Constance lied, while they said in these two sessions : «This holy synod, making a general council, etc.»

I answer. I deny the inference. For not everyone who says what is false lies : nor is it a wonder if then the Fathers erred in good faith, for they were not infallible, the universal council not yet being gathered.

They urge : Martin V himself acknowledged the general council to be in the first sessions, before the union of the obediences, since in apostolic letters which exist among the acts of the last session he says that «the condemnations of the errors and heresies of John Wyclif, and of John Hus, and of Jerome of Prague, made concerning their persons and books by the sacred general council of Constance, were justly and rightly done.» Likewise in another interrogatory, ibidem, he says «that it is to be believed and approved that in favor of the faith and for the salvation of souls the council of Constance, representing the universal Church, approved and approves, condemned and condemns.» But those condemnations were made in sess. 8, when still only the obedience of John was present. Ergo.

I answer. with Cajetan, Opusc. de Potestate Papae et concilii, cap. 8, that the assembly of Constance began first in the obedience of John XXIII, and then again was renewed in the conjunction of Gregory XII, and thirdly was consummated in the conjunction of the obedience of Benedict XIII, and after the election of Martin V, presiding over the same council, was authorized, and from this more noble and more certain state, nominally in each state, the council is called general by the Pope, using several names without offense to truth. Nay rather, that the Pontiff might intimate that from this last state he called the council general, to the aforesaid interrogatory of faith, with the past tense passed over, he joined the present, saying that «the council approved and approves, condemned and condemns.»

To this second answer, if the first does not stand, those things also avail which we said for the first, numbers 3 and 4.

Third answer. Granted gratis that these decrees are to be understood of whatever general council, even outside the case of schism and doubtful Pontiff, and were uttered by a truly oecumenical council, it remains that they were not approved and confirmed by Martin V : seeing that in the last session he approved and confirmed only «what had been done and defined in conciliar fashion in matters of faith; not otherwise, nor in another manner.» Moreover these decrees were neither uttered «in conciliar fashion,» nor «in a matter of faith.» Not «in conciliar fashion,» not only because the council then was not oecumenical, as was said, but because they were not published in the manner of other councils, questions of such moment previously discussed under mature examination. For they were made on the occasion of the withdrawal of John XXIII from the council; he withdrew however on the evening of March 21, and straightway the decree against him was concluded, and on the 30th of the same month it was pronounced by the four nations, the Cardinals contradicting.

Not «in a matter of faith ;» for in session 5 these things are read : «There arose at the command of the whole holy synod, the Reverend Father Lord Andrew, bishop-elect of Posen, and read out and published certain chapters in the manner of SYNODICAL CONSTITUTIONS, previously concluded and deliberated by each of the four nations singly. Of which the tenors follow and are such.» Among these synodical constitutions however the decrees about which we treat here are enumerated in the first and second place. When however these and other synodical constitutions had been read, it is subjoined : «These things accomplished, the aforesaid Reverend Father Lord Andrew, bishop-elect of Posen, IN THE MATTER OF FAITH and concerning the matter of John Hus read out certain advisements, which follow and are such.» It is plain that the council distinguishes between synodical constitutions and matters of faith, places the decrees about which we treat among the synodical constitutions, and excludes them from the matter of faith; consequently Martin V, who confirmed the decrees of this council only «in the matter of faith, not otherwise, nor in another manner,» did not confirm the aforesaid decrees, about which the question is.

Likewise these decrees were not issued as decrees of faith are wont to be issued, under pain of anathema or heresy, but only under pain of penance or punishment against contumacious transgressors, unless they repented. Ergo the same as before.

What has been said up to this point in the three answers is confirmed. If the praised decrees were decrees of faith sanctioned by a truly oecumenical council for any council and Pontiff whatsoever, even outside the case of schism and doubtful Pontiff, and approved and confirmed by Martin V; no Catholic of whatsoever state, condition, or dignity, even Papal, would have dared contradict them without stain of heresy. But not only did Martin himself in the council contradict them, as we saw, but a little after the council several theologians distinguished for learning and holiness taught the contrary. Among them Turrecremata, in the Summa de Ecclesia; the Ferrariensis, in lib. IV Cont. gentes, cap. 75; St. Antoninus, in his Summa, part. 3, tit. 23, c. 3, § 3, where he says : «But neither can appeal be made from the Pope to a general council, because the Pope is superior to every council. Nor does anything that is done have force, unless it be ratified and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff. To think therefore that appeal can be made from the Pope to a council is heretical.» The following Pontiffs Pius II and Julius II prohibited appealing from the Pope to the council under pain of excommunication. The same thing every year is solemnly prohibited under the same pain in the publication of the bull Coenae, renewed by Gregory XIII. Nearly all the theologians of all the other nations, France excepted, of whatsoever state, condition and dignity, teach plainly the contrary, and some as of faith. Let us conclude therefore that the praised decrees are not decrees of faith, to be held certainly by all and for every case, either because they regard only the case of schism and doubtful Pontiff, or because they were not published by a truly oecumenical council, or finally because they were not confirmed by the supreme Pontiff.

And so judged the very chief defenders of these decrees themselves. Gerson, in the tract Quomodo et an liceat, after he had said much for the superiority of the council above the Pontiff, concludes thus : «These things however have been spoken or argued more for the inquiry into truth than for the reproach of anyone (especially of the most holy Lord Pope Martin).» Would Gerson have spoken thus if he had held the decrees of Constance for decrees of faith to be held certainly by all in every case? Is truth inquired into when it is held certainly? Cardinal Peter d'Ailly, master of Gerson, another depressor of papal dignity below the council, though nevertheless more moderate than Gerson, in the treatise de Potestate Ecclesiastica, which he composed after session 5, in the year 1417, according to the new edition of the works of Gerson, tom. II, pag. 926, and which was read in the council on the first of October of the same year, after many things said and alleged for the authority of the council above the Pontiff, concludes thus : «These things therefore toward the ten chapters proposed in the prologue of this work seem to me sufficient for my answer. Which however are posited, not determining definitively, but persuading doctrinally. For I submit the definition of this matter to the determination of the sacred council.» He judged therefore that the ultimate definition on this matter had not yet been issued by the council.

They urge : The council of Basel, sess. 2, renewed and confirmed the decree of Constance, there existing a certain and undoubted Pontiff; and this Eugenius IV approved and confirmed by the bull Dudum read in sess. 16 of the same council of Basel, in which he also recalls other bulls previously given by him against the same council. Ergo.

I answer. That Eugenius IV never approved this decree of session 2 of the council of Basel. Indeed, fearing the imminent schism, arising from the fact that he had translated the council from Basel to Ferrara, the Fathers of Basel resisting, and all the princes urging that he recall this translation, he assented to the continuation of the council at Basel, recalled the bulls by which he had ordered its translation and dissolution, and declared that he intended to pursue the council with every favor. These things and nothing more Eugenius said in the said bull Dudum. From the fact however that he recognized the council as lawful, permitted its continuation, and intended to pursue it with every favor, it does not follow that he approved and confirmed all its decrees. Martin V recognized the council of Constance as lawful, pursued it with every favor, yet did not confirm all its decrees, but those only which had been done in conciliar fashion in the matter of faith, not otherwise, nor in another manner, as we saw. St. Leo recognized the Chalcedonian council as lawful, and equally pursued it likewise with every favor, yet did not approve all its decrees, as is evident from what was said above. The same of Eugenius IV with respect to the council of Basel. This Turrecremata cited testifies, writing that he heard Eugenius say publicly at Florence in disputation : «We indeed approved the progress of the council willingly, yet we did not approve its decrees.» This also Eugenius himself indicates, writing to the Bishop of Liege and Bologna, and other legates through Germany, in Raynaldus, ad annum 1446, n. 3, and in the bull Moyses vir Dei, given in the Florentine council, and reported among its acts, part. 3, pag. 1186. Whence Nicholas V, who succeeded Eugenius, and with whom the Basilians, who had transferred the council to Lausanne, made peace, of all the decrees of the council of Basel approved only those which had been done concerning censures and benefice causes.

They urge : Whoever knows the decrees of a synod, and does not disapprove them, and adheres to the bull published by the synod, is judged to approve those decrees, especially if those decrees, previously condemned by him, gain strength by him also as author. Ergo.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent. Whoever knows the decrees of a synod and does not disapprove them is judged to approve them if the time be suitable and the obligation of approving or disapproving urge — let this pass; otherwise, I deny. But the time was not suitable, a schism impending from the obstinacy of the Basilians, for the supreme Pontiff to open his mind concerning these decrees; nor did the obligation of approving or disapproving then urge, since Pontiffs are not wont to approve or annul decrees except when the council is concluded. Nor by the revocation of the former bulls did the decrees formerly condemned thus gain strength, as though they were approved, but they were recalled to that state in which they were before condemnation.

You will object, 2° : Often, especially in France, appeal has been made from the supreme Pontiff to a general council : in the year 1302, from the bulls of Boniface VIII; in the year 1491, from the bull of Innocent VIII, on the occasion of extraordinary tithes; in the year 1517, from the concordat of Leo X with Francis I, on account of the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction; in the year 1682, from the decrees of Innocent XI, in the cause of the Regale. But appeal is made only from an inferior to a superior. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the consequence. 1° Because right is neither proved nor acquired from fact, especially if positive laws exist contrary to the fact, as here occurs and is evident from the proofs of the conclusion. 2° Because those appeals were not made to a general council excluding the Pontiff, but to a council which the Pontiff would convoke, and over which he would preside per se or through his legates; and thus they are not so much appeals as new cognitions of the same cause before the same judge, other judges subordinate to the Pontiff merely assisting. Besides, the appeal from the concordat was not properly an appeal to a general council, but to the Pontiff himself and a fuller council; because the French did not reckon the Lateran council general. Similarly they did not hold Boniface VIII for a legitimate Pontiff, and therefore deemed it licit for themselves to appeal from him. In other kingdoms grievances are ordinarily met by supplications, representations, legates, and thus matters are for the most part settled peacefully.

You will object, 3rd, from the inconveniences. It is not credible that God left the Church destitute of every remedy in extremities. But this would come to pass, if the Pontiff were subject to the council : 1° if the Pontiff were harmful to the Church and wished to subvert her; 2° if he were a captive; 3° if he were insane. For in these cases no remedy seems to remain except in a council which could depose the Pope. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the minor. To the first case. If he strives to subvert the Church in the faith, since then he is manifestly a heretic, by that very fact he falls from the pontificate, and only the declaration of the Church is required, that obedience be denied to him, as we said before. But if he be otherwise harmful to the Church, some answer¹ that the faithful can resist him with force of arms, without his thereby losing superiority. Thus, while unjustly invaded by his superior, the inferior resists him, yet the invader does not therefore lose superiority. Thus again, if the king of France, who acknowledges no superior in temporal things, should wish to subvert the kingdom, subjects could not resist him with force; nor yet must it be said on that account that «recourse must be had to God, who will correct him or remove him out of the way;» or it must be said that, since God rules and preserves his Church by special providence, he will not permit, as he has not permitted hitherto, this case to happen, or if he permit it, he will not fail in supplying opportune means and helps.

To the second case, of the captive Pontiff. Prayers are made by the Church to God, as they were made for Peter, while he was held captive by Herod; nor meanwhile does he cease to be Pontiff, nor can he be deposed by a council, just as the captive king of France does not on that account cease to be king, nor can he be deposed by the peoples.

To the third case. If the Pontiff be perpetually insane, he will be judged dead : for the insane man is truly dead as regards rational life, and thus the Church could provide herself with another Pontiff. Meanwhile truly in this and the preceding case the Church will not fail, but she will preserve the passive infallibility of faith. Should controversies arise concerning faith or morals, the bishops or a council will be able to define; but the definition will not have ultimate and absolute firmness until it is confirmed by the following Pontiff, as we have already said and shall say.