Summa de Ecclesia

Plainly enough we can gather from the sentences of the holy fathers brought forward in the preceding chapters that Peter alone among the apostles was made and ordained bishop immediately by Christ. For since, with blessed Anacletus as witness in ch. "In novo," dist. 21, the pontificate was first given in the Church to holy Peter, and Pope Felix also says in his decrees that through Peter the apostolate and the episcopate began their beginning in Christ, it is clear that he himself was ordained and consecrated bishop by Christ before the other apostles. And since, as has already been shown a little above, Peter was not made bishop before the resurrection of Christ but after, and at His last departure from the apostles, when He said to Peter: "Simon of John, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep," in the last chapter of John — after which words no others are read through which the other apostles may be understood as bishops immediately by Christ — it seems necessarily to be said that Peter alone among the apostles was ordained bishop immediately by Christ. But the other apostles were made or ordained bishops by Peter — mediately or immediately — alone or with another or with others — which is confirmed both by authorities and by reasons. It is indeed clear first from ch. "Porro," dist. 67, where Pope Anacletus speaks thus: "Moreover the first archbishop of the Jerusalemites, blessed James, namely the son of Alphaeus, was ordained by Peter and James Zebedee, and John the apostles." From which it manifestly appears that this apostle was ordained not immediately by Christ but by Peter with the other apostles, and consequently it is true that not all the apostles were immediately ordained bishops. But that it is understood of a true episcopal ordination is clear, notwithstanding the various manners of speech of the glossator. First, by the testimony of blessed Remigius, who on Matt. 10, ch., where the names of the apostles are recounted, says thus of this James: "Of what merit blessed James was, the apostles are witnesses, who ordained him bishop of the Jerusalemites." Second, since if this had not been a true ordination of a bishop made, the form of the ordination of other bishops in the Church would not fittingly be taken from it. And then blessed Anacletus says consequently in the said ch. "In novo," dist. 21, that here the apostles gave to their successors the form, namely that no one be ordained as bishop by fewer than three bishops. Mark therefore: if by no fewer than three, and Peter alone was first a bishop, who ordained John and James? Secondly, thus: blessed Anacletus in ch. "In novo," dist. 21, says that in the new testament after Christ the Lord the priestly order began from Peter — that is, the pontifical, just as "priest" is expounded, that is, bishop, in the Decretum on consecration, dist. 1, ch. "Solennitas." Therefore it seems that the other apostles were made bishops by Peter. The consequence is clear, since when the others were made priests as soon as Peter was, and not under him, the simple priestly order cannot be said to have begun from him. Likewise, if he himself had been made a bishop by Christ even earlier in time, but the others also had been made bishops immediately by Christ, it would not truly be said that the pontifical order began from Peter. Therefore it seems necessarily so to be understood that the pontifical order began from Peter because all the other apostles were made bishops by him, either immediately or mediately, and he alone by Christ. Thirdly, argument is made thus: to Peter alone was the pastoral care committed by Christ, therefore He constituted him alone pontiff of the Church, or pastor. The consequence is plain; but the antecedent has been shown through many chapters above, and there is that of blessed Chrysostom on that passage in the last chapter of John, "Simon of John, feed My sheep," thus speaking in the spiritual sense: "Passing by the others" — namely the apostles — "He speaks to Peter concerning such things; for Peter was the excellent one of the apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the college." Behold what he says: "Passing by the other apostles," etc. To Peter alone therefore was this said, which would not be so if the other apostles had immediately from Christ obtained pastoral authority. Fourthly, thus: Pope Marcellus in his first epistle says: "To the Roman see all ought to flee for refuge, that they may thence receive protection whence they received consecration." Therefore it seems that the other apostles received consecration from Peter. Therefore it seems that the other apostles received consecration from Peter; the consequence holds, since that all received consecration from the Roman see cannot, as it seems, be true unless the other apostles, who sat distributed in diverse sees throughout the world, had received consecration from Peter, who sat at Rome. Fifthly, in the second epistle of Clement, Peter is called not only prince of the apostles but also their ordainer, that is, consecrator, therefore etc. The consequence seems plain; the antecedent is of blessed Clement in his second epistle: "Peter was the master, institutor, and prince of the apostles, and their ordainer." Sixthly, thus: Paul and Barnabas were ordained by blessed Peter, therefore also the other apostles. The consequence is clear, since these were not inferior to the others. The antecedent is clear in Acts 13: "The Holy Ghost said to them: Separate Me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then, fasting and praying, and imposing hands upon them, they sent them away" — where the Gloss on the word "imposing hands upon them" says: "in the manner of those to be ordained." But that they were then ordained is attested by Pope Leo in ch. "Quod autem," dist. 75. Seventhly, thus: nothing is to be asserted concerning divine things except what can be proved from the testimony of the divine Scriptures or by reason, as both Jerome and Augustine say. But no authority, no reason convinces that the other apostles besides Peter were made bishops immediately by Christ, therefore it is not to be asserted. But that it is clear by no authority is plain, since in the canon no more than three passages are found. The first indeed is that in Matt. 17: "Whatsoever you shall bind." But through that they were not made bishops, for three reasons. First, because Peter, through like words and even greater, Matt. 16, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," was not made a bishop. Second, because they were not yet priests, nor consequently could they be made bishops. Third, because that was a promise, not a bestowal of any power, neither episcopal nor priestly, as has been said. Therefore etc. The second is that in Luke 22: "Do this in commemoration of Me." But neither through this were they made bishops, since through words of consecration no more is effected than is signified through those words, except on account of concomitance and of inseparable or accessory signification. But pontifical power is neither accessory nor concomitant to priestly power, and those words express nothing but the bare priestly act which any simple priest can do — namely to consecrate the body of Christ and the blood of Christ — which He imports when He says: "Do this," namely what I did in the Eucharist, namely that the body and blood be under the species. Through those words therefore He made them nothing but simple priests. The third is that which is said in John 20: "Whose sins you shall forgive," etc. But neither through this were they ordained bishops, since, as the ordination of a bishop is distinct from the ordination of a simple priest, it is not likely that that through which precisely and properly the ordination of the first bishops was made be said in common to everyone who is ordained as a simple priest. Hence, since in every ordination of a simple priest there is said by the bishop to each one to be ordained: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive," etc., it is not likely that through those words precisely and properly the ordination of the first bishops was made, who were supreme priests — since even in the law there was one ordination of simple priests, another of the supreme priest. And it is confirmed, since sacramental words uttered by the minister are of the same virtue in sacramental effect as uttered by Christ, as is clear in the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which those words, "This is My body," effect the same thing which they effected when Christ said them. If therefore Christ, in saying those words, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," etc., had made the apostles bishops, who had already been made priests in the supper as to the priestly character through those words, "do this," etc., given to them in the tradition of the bread and the cup — by like reason a bishop, in saying those words, namely "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive," etc., to one who has already been made a priest through the words said to him in the tradition of the cup with the bread, and: "receive power," etc., would make him a bishop — which is absurd. Likewise Thomas, who was not present at those words, would not have been made a bishop by them. Likewise that they were made bishops through neither words, namely "do this" and "whose sins you shall forgive," is clear, since, as Anacletus says in "In novo," dist. 21: to Peter first the pontificate was given in the Church of Christ. But those words were said to the apostles at once and together, and consequently had their effect one and indivisible, and without order of prior and posterior; therefore then the pontificate was given to none first. Thus therefore it is clear that no authority of the canon compels us to say that the other apostles besides Peter were made bishops by Christ. Likewise no reason compels it, but rather the opposite — and above all on account of two things. For which argument is made in the eighth place thus: in the creation of the human race, that there might be greater unity, God made the whole race of men from one man, as Paul says in Acts 17. Therefore likewise, to preserve the unity of the Church, it seems that God would not have made at once many bishops from whom others would derive, but one first, to whom the rest cling. Ninthly, thus: in the Church there ought not to be less unity nor a less good order than there was in the synagogue. But in the latter it pertained to its good ordination and unity that Moses the lawgiver did not make at once many bishops but one only, namely Aaron, from whom all the others proceeded immediately. Therefore the Lawgiver of the new law and the Ordainer of the Church, Christ, ought not to have made at once many bishops but one only, namely Peter, from whom afterwards all would be made, mediately or immediately. It seems reasonable therefore that such was the process in the episcopal ordination of the apostles: namely that Peter alone was made a bishop by Christ before the ascension; but after the sending of the Holy Ghost — whether on the very first Sunday itself or another day — Peter, alone a bishop, made John a bishop; then Peter, John having been consecrated, made James of Zebedee; and with these three made, Peter then ordained that henceforth no bishop be ordained except by three bishops, as is said in the aforesaid ch. "Porro." And to show this form, he himself with the two aforesaid ordained James, as is said in the aforesaid ch. "Porro" — although, on account of the paucity of bishops in the time of the apostles, this form could not always be kept. So Paul alone perhaps ordained Timothy and Titus bishops, who, separated from Barnabas, had not in his company bishops except those whom he afterwards made. For Luke, Demas, Sylas and the like were not bishops; but when they could have two, then with them they ordained — not alone. But the reason why the sons of Zebedee are believed to have been ordained bishops by Peter first is that they were greater after Peter, and were more honorable, and these Christ preferred before the rest with Peter — as was clear in the Transfiguration, in the raising of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, in the prayer in the garden, and the like, in which He took with Him these alone as familiar secretaries. Matt. 9, 17, and 27. Hence on that passage in Luke 6, "He suffered not any to enter in with Him but Peter, John and James," where Theophilus says: these alone He admitted as the foremost of the disciples. Likewise on Matt. 17, on that "Jesus taketh Peter and James and John," Chrysostom says: "He took these because they were mightier than the rest." But that John was greater, although younger than his brother, and therefore preferred to him, is clear through that passage in Matt. 10, "And Andrew his brother," where the Gloss of Chrysostom says: "but Mark numbers Andrew after the two foremost, Peter and John" — where he intimates that Peter and John were sublimer among the other apostles. Likewise on that passage in the same place, "James of Zebedee and John his brother," Chrysostom says: "See, for he orders not according to dignity; but to me John seems greater not only than the rest but even than his brother." From what has been said there appears false the Gloss on that chapter, dist. 66, "Porro," which says that in the beginning and in the primitive Church all the apostles were simple priests, and yet could consecrate bishops. For Moses was a simple priest, and yet consecrated Aaron as pontiff — nor was there then a difference between a bishop and a simple priest, dist. 95, "Olim." For as Augustine says: in the first creation of things the question is not what God could have done, but what was fitting, and what the reason and nature of things required. But when the Apostle says that without any contradiction the lesser is blessed by the greater, Heb. 8, and the philosophers assert that nothing acts beyond its species — although Christ by a simple priest could of absolute power make a bishop — yet it neither fits nor befits the offices that the lesser make the greater, giving to another what he has not; nor consequently is it likely that Christ willed through simple priests, who are inferior, to consecrate supreme priests, who are bishops. Hence it is to be considered that Moses, although he was not a visibly anointed priest and pontiff with Aaron, whom he made pontiff, and with his sons, whom he made simple priests, as is had in Lev. 7 and is recited in dist. 21, ch. 1, was yet worthier than they and greater than they in virtue in all things — since in those orders there was no character, nor had those priests the keys, but only offered for the people and were mediators, which Moses did much better. But according to the truth, in the Church there is no greater dignity than the priestly, except the pontifical. Hence every non-bishop is inferior to him, and consequently it was not fitting that a non-bishop consecrate a bishop, nor is it possible among men even of absolute power. But Christ, true priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, and pontiff of future goods — although equivocally priest and bishop to the others, in whom there was no character nor visible consecration — was yet worthier than the rest. As therefore Moses consecrated Aaron as pontiff, and his sons as simple priests — from which Aaron indeed the pontificate was derived unto all the others, as unto his son Eleazar, clothed in his garments, Num. 20, and afterwards to Phinees, and so of the others — so also Christ through Himself immediately made Peter a bishop, from whom afterwards the pontificate was derived unto all, and through Himself made the other apostles simple priests — as Anacletus says in "In novo," dist. 21: "In the new testament after Christ the priestly order began from Peter, since to him first the pontificate was given in the Church of Christ." And "priestly" is expounded, that is, pontifical, just as "priest" is expounded for bishop in the Decretum on consecration, dist. 1, ch. "Solemnitas." But just as we argued above, when the other apostles were made priests as soon as Peter himself was, and not under him, the simple priestly order cannot be said to have begun from him. Likewise, if he himself had been made a bishop by Christ, although earlier in time, and the others also then by Christ, the pontifical order would not have taken its beginning from Peter himself. Therefore it seems that for this reason — that all the others were made bishops by Peter himself, mediately or immediately, and he alone by Christ — it was truly said by holy Anacletus that the pontifical order began from Peter himself after Christ. Which also, as we brought forward above, the unity of the Church requires: namely to have one head from whom gifts flow — whence dist. 19, in ch. Ita, "Dominus" — blessed Leo thus speaks of blessed Peter: "that from him, as from a head, he pours forth his gifts as into the whole body."