Summa de Ecclesia

¹

The adversaries of the truth object many and various things against the conclusion already stated, and they are found in a fourfold difference. For some strive to prove that the papal pontificate depends on the apostles. Some that it depends on councils. Some that it depends on the Emperor Constantine. Some that it depends on the Cardinals. Some others say that although the papal power, considered absolutely, is originally and immediately from God, nevertheless the Pope has received the exercise and use of such power from the Church.

²

The first argue thus: Nothing which depends on the pure choice and will and ordination of the apostles seems to emanate immediately from Christ; this is clear. But that the blessed Peter had the primacy over the other apostles, and consequently over all the faithful, was from the will and ordination of the apostles. Therefore it seems that the papal principate is not derived immediately from Christ; the consequence is good, and the minor is proved through that passage of the blessed Pope Anacletus in ch. in the new, dist. 21, where, speaking of the blessed Peter, he says thus: But the other apostles with him in equal fellowship received honor and power, and they willed him to be prince. Likewise the same is gathered from ch. some time ago, 3, q. 6. Therefore it seems that by the will and ordination of the apostles the blessed Peter had the principate.

³

Secondly thus to the same point: The Roman pontiff is called the vicar of the blessed Peter, as in ch. I Louis, dist. 63; therefore it seems that he received his power not immediately from Christ, but from the blessed Peter.

⁴

Thirdly, to the same point, that the Roman Church did not have the primacy immediately from Christ is proved thus: For if so, it would follow that the Pope could not transfer his see from Rome and establish it elsewhere, because a servant cannot take away the law or disposition of his lord; and yet the consequent seems false, since in those things which are of jurisdiction the Pope now can do no less than the blessed Peter insofar as he was Pope. But he was able to transfer it from Antioch to Rome; therefore even now the Pope could transfer it to another place. The second group argue thus: Nothing which has been instituted in the Church by the ordination of the priests of the Church is to be said to have been instituted immediately by Christ; this is clear from the terms, since the same thing in the same respect cannot have two immediate causes. But the distinction of superiority and inferiority among the priests of the Church seems to have arisen from the ordination of those priests themselves. Therefore the superiority of the pontifical dignity over all the other prelates of the Church does not seem to be immediately from Christ; the consequence is good, and the minor is proved by the authority of the blessed Jerome, who, on the epistle to Titus, as is held in ch. formerly, dist. 95, says thus: Formerly the same man was presbyter who was also bishop, and before, by the prompting of the devil, rivalries arose in religion, that is, dissensions, and it was said among the peoples, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, but I of Cephas, the Church was governed by the common council of presbyters. But afterwards, when each one reckoned those whom he had baptized to be his own and not Christ's, it was decreed in the whole earth that one chosen from the presbyters should be set over them and the seeds of schisms should be removed. And a little after: As therefore the presbyters know that they are subject by the custom of the Church to him who has been set over them, so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord's dispensation, and that they ought to rule the Church in common. From these words it seems manifestly to be held that from the institution of the Lord there is no distinction between bishops and presbyters. Hence formerly every bishop was a presbyter and every presbyter a bishop, and thus, as it seems, the whole distinction between the Pope and the Patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, and between bishops and presbyters, is only from human ordination and not from the ordination of Christ. Therefore the superiority of the papal pontificate seems to be not from Christ immediately, but from the universal councils in which the priests gather. Further, secondly for this side seems to tell ch. the councils, dist. 17, where it is said thus: Knowing that to his see, namely that of Symmachus, first the merit of Peter the apostle, then, by the command of the Lord following, the authority of the venerable councils handed over a singular power in the churches.

⁵

The third group argue thus: That the Pope is head of all the churches, having the primacy in spiritual matters in the whole earth, he has from the gift and institution of the Emperor Constantine; therefore it seems that the Pope does not have his principate immediately from Christ. The consequence is good. The antecedent is proved from what is had in ch. Constantinus, distinct. 96, and is taken from the deeds of blessed Sylvester, where it is said thus. The Emperor Constantine on the fourth day of his baptism conferred a privilege on the pontiff of the Roman Church, that throughout the whole world the Roman pontiffs or priests should so have a head as judges have a king. And below. Therefore decreeing we sanction that he hold the principate both over the four sees, the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Hierosolymitan, and Constantinopolitan, and also over all the churches of God in the whole earth, and that the pontiff who for the time shall preside over that most holy Roman Church be higher and prince than all priests and of the whole world; thus there. From these words it is manifestly given to be understood that both the Roman pontiff and the Roman Church had the primacy over the other churches immediately from Constantine and not from Christ. The fourth group argue thus. The college of the lord Cardinals seems to give the papacy to the one elected by electing him to such a state, therefore also the papal authority, and consequently he does not have it immediately from God. The consequence seems evident, since whatever is the cause of the cause is the cause of the caused. But the lord Cardinals, by electing this or that man, are the cause of his being Pope. Therefore they are also the cause of his power and dignity. Secondly thus: Not only the Church but also the Cardinals before the election restrict in many things the exercise of the future pontiff. Therefore it seems that the papal authority as to its exercise does not depend immediately on Christ. Thirdly thus: A canonical election does not confer upon the Pope the whole exercise of power immediately unless anointing and coronation accompany it, as is clear from the practice of the Church; therefore etc. ⁶

Fourthly, if it were so that the papacy is immediately from God, the Church could not give order to its election, mandating that whoever should conduct himself as supreme pontiff, unless elected by two-thirds, would be excommunicated, as Extra, on election, ch. Licet. But the Church lays down the order; therefore etc. Fifthly: if it were so, then the Church could not restrict the power of the Pope, as in the collation of benefices, and things of that sort. But this seems false; therefore etc. Sixthly: if it were so, as has been said, it would follow that the Pope could not renounce the papacy, which is against the determination of the Church, Extra, on renunciation, ch. 1, book 6, nor be deposed, which is against ch. if the Pope, dist. 40; therefore it seems that the papal authority does not depend immediately on Christ.

⁷

⁸

⁹

¹⁰

¹¹