Summa de Ecclesia

¹

Notwithstanding the objections of the adversaries set out above, it must unhesitatingly be held that the primacy of the Roman pontiff and of the Roman Church has proceeded immediately from Christ alone. Hence it is not to be said that it depends on the apostles or on general councils or on the universal Church or on Constantine or even on the college of Cardinals. Answer must therefore be given to the reasons on the opposite side. To the first reason, which is that of those who say that Peter's primacy had its origin from the apostles, it is answered by denying the minor. For it is false that the blessed Peter had the primacy by the disposing will or ordination of the apostles; rather he had it immediately from Christ himself, by whom he was constituted summit and head of the apostolic college. For Chrysogonus says on that passage in the last chapter of John, Feed my sheep: But the Lord, passing over the others, speaks to Peter, for Peter was the outstanding one of the apostles, and the mouth of the disciples and the summit of the college; hence, the denial being forgiven, he commits to him the prelacy over the brethren; this is what he says. But a head does not have from the members over whom it presides that it is their head; rather it has authority from him who forms the whole body. Hence the blessed Pope Anacletus says in ch. Omnes, dist. 21: The most holy Roman Church obtained the primacy not from the apostles but from the Lord and our Savior himself, as he said to the blessed Peter: You are Peter, etc. Moreover that Peter did not have the primacy from the apostles by their disposing will is manifestly gathered from that passage in Matt. 18, where the disciples ask the Lord, saying: Who do you think is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? They ask this, as the Gloss of Jerome says, because the disciples, seeing that in the rendering of the tribute Peter had been made equal to the Lord from the equality of the price, reckoned that Peter was set over all the apostles. And Chrysogonus to the same effect, as holy Thomas adduces in the continuous Gloss on Matt., says thus: Hence they suffered something human, which the evangelist indicates, saying: At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who do you think is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? Being indeed ashamed of the passion they had suffered, they do not say openly: Why have you honored Peter above us? But they ask indeterminately who is the greater. But when they saw the three honored above them, namely Peter, James, and John, in the Transfiguration, they suffered nothing of the sort; but when he conferred the honor on one, then they grieved; this is what he says. From these points it is most manifestly given to be understood that the primacy was given to Peter immediately by Christ alone, with no disposition or preceding will of the apostles intervening to this end. But when it is said in the chapters adduced by the adversaries that the apostles willed Peter to be their prince, this is to be understood of a consequent or accepting will with respect to the disposition of Christ, not of an antecedent and causing will. And this is what the blessed Anacletus says in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. 22: Among the apostles there was a certain distinction of power. And afterwards: although all were apostles, yet to Peter it was granted by the Lord, and they themselves willed among themselves that he should preside over all the other apostles, and should hold cephas, that is, the headship and principate of the apostolate; this is what he says. It is clear therefore that the will of the apostles did not precede by demanding Peter, or electing, or disposing as to his primacy; rather theirs followed, accepting and giving thanks for the disposition made through Christ. And thus the error of certain adversaries is struck down, who say that Peter was constituted by Christ as prince and prelate of the others from the election of the apostles. ²

³

⁴

To the second it must be said that he speaks improperly who says that the Roman pontiff is the vicar of the blessed Peter, since he is the vicar of God alone, whose stead he bears on earth. But Peter the apostle, though he was the vicar of Christ, could not make another vicar, as in ch. Clericus, Extra, on the office of vicar. That letter must therefore be expounded thus: vicar, that is, successor of him, or vicar, that is, holding or exercising the vicarial power which Peter himself bore. ⁵

To the third it seems answer must be given according to the opinion of Peter de Palude, that the lord Pope cannot transfer his see from Rome to another place without a special revelation of Christ, by which sort of special command it was transferred to Rome. And when it is said that this is false, it is denied, and to the proof it is answered that the Pope's inability to change his see is not because he is of lesser authority than Peter, but because here there intervenes a special command of Christ, against which a servant cannot go.