Summa de Ecclesia

Just as there were some enemies of the apostolic principate who asserted against the gospel of Christ that it was instituted not by Christ but by men, so too there have not been lacking those who have dared to impugn the state of the lord Cardinals both as to its institution and as to its dignity. For there are some who assert that it was introduced not by Christ but by human invention, denying that it is in the Church of such dignity as to come to be counted among the principal members of the Church in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which they strive to establish by the following reasons. First thus. Of the state of the Cardinals no mention is made in the sacred scripture of the new testament: therefore it seems that it is not to be counted among the other states of perfection instituted by Christ in the new testament; the consequence seems excellent, and the antecedent is plain to one running through the individual divine books of the new testament. Second thus. Nothing seems instituted by Christ whose name is not read to have existed either in the time of Christ or of the apostles: but the name of the cardinalate is not read to have existed either in the time of Christ or of the apostles, as is plain: therefore the state designated by the name of the cardinalate cannot be said to be instituted by Christ. Third thus. The institution of all ministers of the Church was foreshadowed and begun in the old testament and more fully consummated in the new, as is had in ch. decretis, dist. 21; but the state of the Cardinals is not read to have been either foreshadowed or begun in the old testament: therefore what was said before follows. Fourth thus. The state of the Cardinals seems to us instituted by the blessed Pope Pontian, who lived in the year of the Lord 221, as certain histories report: therefore it follows that it was not constituted by Christ. Fifth thus. After the dispersion of the apostles we do not read that blessed Peter had any Cardinals assisting him in the rule of the universal Church: therefore it seems that the state of the Cardinals was instituted neither by Christ nor by blessed Peter; the consequence is plain. Sixth thus. No other dignity or prerogative seems to be attributed to the Cardinals from their institution than is explained in their institution, but concerning blessed Marcellus, who lived about the year of the Lord 304, it is read that he constituted in the city of Rome 25 cardinalates or titles of cardinals, as dioceses as it were, for baptism, and for cemeteries for burying the martyrs, and for penitents, and for converts from the gentiles; but these offices do not transcend the common state of priests: therefore it does not seem that the state of the Cardinals ought to be set down as so sublime as has been said. Seventh thus. The episcopal dignity is supreme in the Church. Hence blessed Dionysius calls the order of bishops supreme in the Church, and bishops are called chief priests and supreme pontiffs, as in ch. Cleros, dist. 21; therefore even granted that a state of Cardinals is to be given, it does not seem that it ought to be preferred in honour to other bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs. Eighth thus. Perfection of the spiritual life is required for the episcopal state, as was said above, because to the bishop, as blessed Dionysius says in ch. 5 of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, perfection is attributed as the perfecter of others: but this perfection does not seem to be required in Cardinals, just as not in religious: therefore granted that the Cardinals are in the state of perfection, it is not to be said that they are in a more sublime state than bishops.