Summa de Ecclesia

AFTER we have explained above, according to the measure of our littleness, both that for the preservation of the Christian faith and for the best government of the Church it was necessary that one ruler and head of the whole Christian commonwealth be given in the Church with fullness of power, and that the Roman pontiff is such a one, it remains now to be seen concerning the relation which he has to the other inferior prelates of the Church regarding the origin of power: whether, namely, the other prelates of the churches receive the power of jurisdiction which they have immediately from the apostolic see, or whether, just as the Pope does, so also the bishops receive immediately from Christ. We say with St. Thomas, both in the second and in the fourth book of the Sentences and in the fourth book against the Gentiles — which St. Thomas among the doctors who speak on this matter seems to speak more reasonably and more in conformity with the sayings of the holy fathers, and consequently more consonantly with the piety of faith — that the whole power of jurisdiction of the other prelates derives, by common law, from the Pope. We intend to prove this conclusion by a threefold way: first, from the ordering of the other apostles to Peter in the power of jurisdiction; second, by reasons; third, from the fitting consequences which follow from the opposite way of speaking. The first way argues thus: the apostles other than Peter did not receive the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, but through Peter as mediator; therefore it follows that even now the prelates who are in the Church receive the power of jurisdiction immediately from the Pope and not from Christ. The consequence is excellent. The antecedent, however, is proved and declared in many ways by authorities and by reasons. By authority, first, that of blessed Anacletus, who, as is found in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. 22, says: Among the apostles there was a certain distinction, and although all were apostles, yet it was granted by the Lord to Peter that he preside over all the other apostles, and that as Cephas, that is, head and beginning, he should hold the apostolate. But since by the name of head and beginning the origin of power is designated, blessed Peter does not seem to be able to be said to hold the head and beginning of the apostolate unless the power of jurisdiction derived from him to the other apostles.

The second authority is that of blessed Cyprian in the letter inscribed on the unity of the Church to Novatian, found in ch. Loquitur dominus ad Petrum, 24, q. 1: I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Upon one man He builds the Church, and although after His resurrection He grants to all the apostles an equal, that is, a common power, and says: As the Father has sent me, so I send you; receive the Holy Spirit; yet in order to manifest unity He disposed by His authority that the origin of that same unity begin from one man. This indeed the other apostles were, what Peter was, endowed with an equal share both of honour and of power (the Gloss: in order and dignity of consecration, not in fullness of administration), but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one. So says Cyprian. Here, when he says that Christ, in order to manifest the unity of the Church, disposed that the origin of power begin from one man, he manifestly gives it to be understood that only one man, namely Peter, over whom he says the one Church was founded, received the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, while the other apostles received it through Peter himself as mediator. Plainly, as it seems, if all the apostles had received the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, the origin of power would not begin in the Church from one of the apostles, since it would have been given at once and immediately to all.

The third authority is that of Aug., who on John, homily 124, speaks thus: The apostle Peter, by reason of the primacy of his apostolate, bore the person of the Church in a figured universality, for what pertained to him properly by nature he was one man, but by grace a Christian, by more abundant grace one and the same man, the first apostle; but when it was said to him: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., he signified the universal Church. And below: The Church therefore, which was founded in Christ, received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Peter, that is, the power of loosing and binding sins. But it seems that he attributed this to Peter alone by reason of primacy; this would not be true if the other apostles had received jurisdiction immediately from Christ together with him, for on that supposition the Church would be said to have received the keys not in Peter alone but also in the other apostles.

The fourth authority is that of most blessed Leo, who, as is found in ch. Dominus, dist. 19, speaks thus: The Lord willed the mystery of this ministry to pertain to the office of all the apostles in such a way that He placed it principally in most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles, so that from him, as from a kind of head, He might pour forth His gifts as into the whole body, that whoever should dare to depart from the solidity of Peter might understand himself to be excluded from the divine ministry. The fifth authority is that of the same Leo in the third sermon for his ordination, speaking thus: It is far worthier to lift the gaze of the mind to contemplate the glory of most blessed Peter, and to celebrate this day chiefly in veneration of him who was so flooded by copious irrigations from the very fountain of all gifts that, though he alone received much, he transmitted nothing to anyone without his participation. And below: From the whole world one Peter is chosen, who is set over both the calling of all nations and all the apostles and the other parts of the Church, so that, although in the people of God there are many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter properly rules all those whom Christ also principally rules. By divine condescension a great and wonderful sharing of His own power was granted to this man, most beloved, so that, although He willed the other princes to have in common with him, He never gave except through him whatever He did not deny to others. Behold with how clear a light this most blessed Leo, of irrefragable authority among the fathers of the Church, says that whatever Christ willed to be common, together with Peter, to the other princes, namely the apostles, He gave only through Peter — whatever, namely, that could be given through man, He did not deny to others. And thus it is manifestly established that the other apostles did not receive jurisdiction immediately from Christ, but through Peter the apostle, their prince, as mediator.

The sixth authority is that of Pope Alexander in ch. Audivimus, 24, q. 1, speaking thus: Hence, when the Lord gave to all the disciples an equal power of binding and loosing, while promising to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter before all others, He says: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever therefore has become estranged from the unity of the Church, which is understood through Peter, can execrate, but cannot consecrate, and has no power of excommunication or reconciliation. In this authority two things are chiefly to be noted. First, that the keys were given to blessed Peter before all others. In this it is given to be understood that blessed Peter was superior and greater than all the other apostles in the power of jurisdiction, even taken together, and consequently that the successor of Peter, namely the Roman pontiff, is superior and greater than all prelates, even taken together. Second, note what is said, that the blessed apostle Peter received the keys of the Church before all others, in which it is manifestly denoted that the other disciples of Christ and their successors did not receive the power of jurisdiction except through Peter, and thus not immediately from Christ.¹ Here it is to be considered that when it is said that Peter received the power for all and before all, it is not to be understood that he received it for all in the manner in which one procurator receives some gift in the name of others, such as a castle or a principality, from a prince; but it is to be understood in the manner in which we say that the sun received light from God before all the stars and for all. Before all, since in greater fullness than the other stars. For all: because in such an order that from him, as from a fountain, light descends to the other stars. And it is similar with the head, which received power before all and for all the members: before all indeed, because in the head alone is the fullness of the senses; for all indeed, because from it the other members receive the motions of the senses and of government. So it is with Peter, who was not only endowed with authority before all others, but was also constituted head and prince, flowing into others, in the whole body of the Church, as was most plainly shown above from the teaching of the saints. Hence Innocent, in the letter which he writes to the fathers, the bishops in the Carthaginian council, says that from blessed Peter the episcopate and the whole authority of this name emerged.

Consequently the same point is proved by the same reasoning, and first thus: From him from whom one does not have a subject, from him one does not have any power of jurisdiction; but the other apostles did not have subjects immediately from Christ; therefore they did not have the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ. The consequence is evident, and so is the major: since no one can bind or loose except a subject, since no one can be bound or loosed by one who is not his judge, on penance and remissions, ch. Omnis. For the power of jurisdiction by which one can loose and bind is spoken of in relation to a subject, and relatives, as Aristotle has distinguished in the Predicaments, when posited posit each other and when destroyed destroy each other: hence if there is no slave there is no master. On account of this, according to Aug. in the book on the Trinity, God was not Lord until He had His creature. So if there is no subject there is no prelate, nor a judge who can judge him, Rom. 14: Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own lord he standeth or falleth. The minor is proved, for if Christ had given subjects to the others apart from Peter, He would have given either all or some. The first is not to be said, that He gave all, because, as has been said, a plurality of principates is not good, as is said in the twelfth book of the Metaphysics; and therefore the conclusion there is: one ruler therefore. Then second, because then the flock of Christ would not be one, nor the shepherd of the sheep one, but many, against that text of John 10: There shall be one fold and one shepherd. Further, the second is not to be said, because, since nowhere is it read that Christ divided the peoples immediately among the apostles, nor is it easy to imagine whom He subjected to whom. Again, it is argued by a second reason thus: If Christ had given the apostles the power of jurisdiction immediately, He would have given it either full and altogether as to Peter, or partially limited and restricted; but neither, therefore none. The consequence is good, the major is clear from a sufficient division, and the minor as to its first part is clear. First, because blessed Cyril says in the book of the Treasures that Christ committed what is His own in full to no other than Peter, but gave it to him alone. Second, because if power had been given to the other apostles in the same fullness in which it was given to Peter, Peter would have been neither greater nor superior, neither prince nor head of the apostles, but all would have been equal in the authority of jurisdiction, which is erroneous, for as holy Anacletus says in ch. Sacrosancta, dist. 22, among the apostles there was a certain distinction: for although all were apostles, yet it was granted by the Lord to Peter that he preside over all the other apostles, and that as Cephas, that is, head and principate, he should hold the apostolate. The second part of the minor, which says that Christ also did not give the apostles any limited power, is clear, since it is not even possible to imagine the definiteness of such a limitation. Concerning such things as are said to have been done especially regarding the apostles, about the keys of the Church, nothing should be asserted which does not have testimony from the sacred Scriptures explicitly or implicitly, which in this matter is not given. And concerning this first point let these things suffice for the sake of brevity.