Summa de Ecclesia

¹

Since the error has been refuted both by authorities and by arguments, there remains to answer the arguments of the adversaries, which was the fourth thing to be done. For the solution of these and of many other similar ones is no-² solution at last, that just as it is said in two ways of the body of a natural animal, since either the body names the members together with the head, or only the remaining part apart from the head, so it is said in two ways of the body of the Church. For, as St Thomas says in the Fourth Book, dist. 49, the name "Church" is taken in two ways: for sometimes it names only the body that is joined to Christ as to the head, and sometimes it names the head and the members joined together. And so similarly we can speak in two ways of the universal or whole Church in our present purpose: in one way, so that it signifies the collection or universality, absolutely, of all the faithful, none excluded or left out; and in this way it names the members of all with their head, and so discourse is of the universal Church when we speak of it absolutely, without distinguishing or contrasting it with some particular faithful — as when we say that the universal Church is the spouse of Christ, that it cannot err, and the like. In another way it happens that we speak of the body of the universal Church insofar as it names the members only, namely the faithful committed to the care of blessed Peter or his successor and united to him as to a head.³ And in this way discourse is of the universal Church when we speak of it as of the body in comparison with its head. For since nothing is really related to itself, nor can anyone be subject to himself, these must be taken as distinct from one another; so that when we say that the care of the whole Church has been committed to the pope, as St Gregory says, and that blessed Peter was head of the whole universal Church, as blessed Pope Marcellus says in ch. Rogamus, 24, q. 1, and that he is the Cephas of the body of Christ, as blessed Jerome says. The distinction is similar for kingdom and for every principate: for sometimes it names at once the prince and the subjects; at other times only the subjects of a prince, as we say that kingdom is his, and he rules this kingdom. Having noted these things, it must be said in answer to the first argument, which is taken from ch. Quamvis.

⁴

⁵

First, one answers by denying the consequence, because it argues negatively from authority, and such an argument is no argument; besides, even if this were not found there, it is found in many other places, as is plain above in ch. 20. Second, one answers that Pope Pelagius speaks rightly, but in favour of the adversaries, nothing, which is plain: because since nothing is greater or higher than itself, there must be a distinction between prelate and subjects. Therefore when we posit the Roman Church as set above, it is necessary that we understand this with respect to all the other churches which are distinguished from it. But he ought not to have said that the universal Church is set above, insofar as the universal Church includes also the Roman; for then it would be set above itself. Nevertheless blessed Peter, who was set above the Roman Church also, is said to be set above the universal Church, which arises from all the particular churches.

⁶

To the second argument, where it is said that Christ is the head of the Church, etc., one answers by denying the consequence; and to the proof, it was answered above in two ways, in ch. 23, To the second argument. First, that although this is true of the natural body of a man, because such a body is not a part of another, the same cannot be said of a body said by likeness, or mystical, because one and the same body can have several subordinate heads, namely one principal and another secondary, subordinate to the principal: just as in one body of a city the ruler of the city is head, and along with him the king, who is head of the whole kingdom. Second, speaking properly, two distinct heads are not posited: for the pope is not wholly another head distinct from the head which is Christ, but is his vicar, representing his place and his person, power, and authority on earth; and his judgment is reckoned as the judgment of God, and his sentence and his consistory as the consistory of God. And therefore they are not properly two heads but one, as Boniface VIII declares in the Extravagant Unam sanctam, since where one is on account of the other, there is only one in both.

⁷

To the third argument, where it is said that the pope is not more perfect than the universal Church, one answers by denying that whole minor premise. For we say that since the pope is constituted prince over the whole Church, according to what was said to Peter himself by the Lord, "I have appointed you prince over my people," he is more perfect in perfection of power, and higher and more worthy in superiority of authority, than the whole remaining body of the Church. Although, in comparison with other spiritual goods, of which a greater abundance is found in the universal Church than in one prelate alone, there is no doubt that the Church is more perfect and more worthy, in the fullness of its abundance of spiritual goods, than the pope however holy. An old woman can also be said to be more perfect than the pope as to interior perfection, which is measured by charity, which the Apostle calls the bond of perfection. He is also the director of the Church, since he is its prince and pastor, and this whether it is scattered or gathered; for the gathering of sheep into one place diminishes nothing of the authority of the shepherd. Hence the canon in ch. Ubi periculum maius, Extra, de elect., in 6; and the one made at the Council of Lyons calls the pope the vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of Peter, ruler of the universal Church, director of the Lord's flock. Likewise Pope Leo, in a certain letter to the Palestinians, says at the beginning: "My solicitude, which I owe to the universal Church and to all its sons, etc." Behold, he says that he has the care of governing not only of his sons, but of the universal Church.

⁸

To the fourth, where it is said that the pope is not head, etc., one answers by denying the assumption. For we say that he is head of the universal Church distributively, since he is head of all the other faithful apart from himself, just as a king is called head of the whole kingdom although he is not head of himself. Likewise we say that he is also head of the universal Church collectively, since he is its director as a prince is of his people. As to the proof, when the adversaries say that the pope is not head of the universal Church collectively because he does not flow into the whole Church collectively through the sacraments, since, just as it has no soul, it does not need the sacraments although its members need them, it seems to us that this proof implies three things which seem erroneous to us, with better judgment always reserved. The first is that they say the universal Church taken collectively, whose head they say is Christ and not the pope, is thus a thing not having a soul, that is, is inanimate. The second is that the universal Church itself does not need the sacraments, although its members need them. The third is that the universal Church itself is something other than its members, which need the sacraments. Against the first: the mystical body of Christ, which is the universal Church itself, cannot be other than one. For in what way can Christ as head flow sense and spiritual motion into a body not having a soul or spirit, since only a spirit is susceptive of such an influx? In what way is the universal Church believed holy, if it has no soul? In what way can the universal Church taken collectively be called the bride of Christ, if it has no soul? In what way can there be marriage between Christ and the universal Church, if the universal Church has no soul, and consequently neither faith nor charity by which it is united to its bridegroom? In what way does it have the keys and the directive power over all, as the adversaries say, if it has no soul? How did Christ die for the universal Church, if it lacks soul and sense? In what way is the militant universal Church to be joined in the glory of the triumphant, if it has no soul, and consequently not even capacity for glory? It seems to us that the adversaries rave in their knowledge of the universal Church, and therefore it is no wonder if they fall into many errors. Against the second error is the Apostle to Eph. 5, saying: "Christ loved the Church and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life." The Gloss, 1: "By which life is given; by which, when it is applied to the element, it becomes a sacrament." It follows, "that he might present to himself" — the Gloss: "in the future" — "a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing." St Augustine, treating this word in the Retractations on the book On the Morals of the Church, says thus: "It must be understood thus, what the Apostle says: Christ loved the Church, etc.; for this is the washing of water in the word by which the Church is cleansed. But since the whole says, as long as it is here: forgive us our debts, it is not here without spot and wrinkle or anything of the kind." Thus Augustine. Surely it is manifest that that authority of Paul most clearly shows that the opinion of the adversaries about the universal Church, which they hold, is erroneous. Against the third error there seems to be what the Gloss has on that verse of Ps. 127: "Your wife as a fruitful vine," where the Gloss, expounding it so that the speech is to Christ the head, says thus: "The wife of Christ is the Church, etc."; and expounding the following verse, "Your sons, etc.," it says thus: "The same are the sons of Christ who are also the wife, that is, the Church. For she is the spouse of Christ, she the sons." Thus it says there. Likewise the same is noted in Luke 10, where it is said: "A faithful and prudent servant whom the Lord has set over the household, that is, the Church, to give them wheat, etc." Behold, it says the same, the Church and those to whom the wheat was to be given. Likewise blessed Bernard in his sermon on the wedding, where water was changed into wine, says thus: "We ourselves are the bride of Christ, and all together one bride; and the souls of individuals are as individual brides." Thus he. And therefore the body of the Church is the faithful themselves, its members; but of this we have said more fully above in Book 1, where we explained what the universal Church is.

⁹

To the fifth, one answers by denying the consequence, which, as erroneous, is read as condemned at the Council of Constance among the errors of John Hus, who said that if the pope is wicked, he is not head of the militant Church. For the council says that this is an error; and the consequence, therefore, is no consequence: the militant universal Church as a whole cannot fail in faith or in morals; therefore a man who can fail cannot be its ministerial head.