Summa de Ecclesia

CERTAIN of the adversaries, concerning the order of curate priests, wishing to be wise beyond what is fitting, as it seems, have presumed so to extol the state of curate priests as to assert that their state, and they themselves, were instituted immediately by Christ, so that their jurisdiction and authority depends in nothing either on the Pope or on the bishops. For this side John of Pouilly, in Quodlibet 5, q. 14, argues thus:¹ Sacred Scripture says that the state of curates was instituted, and they themselves by Christ² because I take as manifest that the state in which power and jurisdiction resides is continued in diverse times from him by whom it was instituted at the beginning, for whom it was instituted, and is preserved in all following times.³ And that his successor in any dignity⁴ office or state is instituted by that same one in the same in which the predecessor was instituted, since he succeeds in the same state as it were the same person, as is clear through jurisdiction over all bailiffs, provosts, priors, and masters of orders, and so of others; otherwise the successor would in no way be reckoned as the same person with the predecessor. But the state and power and jurisdiction of the seventy-two disciples⁵ is continued in curate priests, just as the state of the apostles and their power and jurisdiction is continued in bishops: curate priests succeed the seventy disciples, just as bishops succeed the apostles, with the Gloss on Luke 10 saying: As in the apostles there is the form of bishops, so in the seventy-two the form of priests⁶ of the second order. Therefore it follows that from the very same⁷ from whom the state of the disciples was instituted at the beginning, the state of curates is now instituted. And by whom the disciples were instituted,⁸ by him the same curates having authority and jurisdiction were instituted, by the same by whom also the seventy-two disciples. But the state of the disciples was instituted by Christ,⁹ and they were instituted by Him, and, having been sent, receiving power immediately from Christ Himself and not from any of the apostles, just as the other apostles did not. For to the disciples He conferred, conjointly and on very many, the power¹⁰ of preaching and the power of the keys — on both — when He said: As the Father sent me, so I send you¹¹ — namely to preach. And afterwards: Whatsoever sins you shall remit, etc., as to the power of binding and loosing. Likewise in the last chapter of Matt., at the end, the Lord says¹² on the mountain in Galilee, shortly before the ascension: Going therefore, teach all nations. Behold that He gives them the office of preaching. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: behold He gives them the power of baptizing. Likewise in the last chapter of Mark: Going into the whole¹³ world, preach the Gospel to every creature. There follows afterwards: But they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord cooperating and confirming the word with signs following. Perhaps you will say that the seventy-two disciples were not there when He said this to the apostles; indeed they were, and to deny this seems manifestly heretical and against sacred Scripture, which otherwise cannot be saved. Hence in Act. 1, when they had returned from Mount Olivet, whence Christ ascended, Peter said: It is necessary that from these men who have assembled with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until He was taken up from us, a witness of His resurrection be made one of these; and they appointed two, Joseph and Matthias, who were of the seventy-two disciples. Therefore they and the other disciples were at the ascension of Christ, when He sent them again to preach and to baptize. Indeed, if that Scripture was to be verified, the seventy-two disciples must always have been with Christ, just as the twelve were; therefore the apostles and the disciples were instituted immediately by Christ, and received power from Him without intermediary. Therefore both the state of curates and they themselves were instituted immediately by Christ, and have power immediately from Him. For the state of these is not one state¹⁴ and another, just as these states are not other than they were a hundred years ago, but it is one state continued always from Christ, and the power given to them by Christ is continued in them. For why the power conferred on Peter¹⁵ was continued in the Roman pontiff, and the power conferred on the other apostles was not continued in the other bishops, and the power conferred on the disciples was not continued in the curates, no reason can be given. And therefore curates are true ordinaries,¹⁶ having ordinary jurisdiction, given to them not by human law but immediately by Christ in the first institution of the Church, in which He instituted these two orders and only them; and they are also not vicars of the bishops but of Jesus Christ, instituted by Him, inferior nevertheless and less than bishops; nor can they be deposed by them except for reasonable cause, just as bishops cannot be deposed by the Pope, since they are not their vicars but those of Jesus Christ. Likewise bishops have their inferior power¹⁷ immediately from God under the Pope but not from the Pope, because then, were the papal see vacant, the power in inferior prelates would perish, just as, when the head is cut off, the senses fail in the other members. And if it were so, it would still more manifestly¹⁸ appear that an ordinary bishop in time of vacancy would have no power; and since that vacancy could last for many years, it would follow that the power of the Church would totally perish — which it is wicked to say. Likewise it can be argued that curates do not have their power either from the Pope or from the bishops; therefore, etc. From this it is clear that neither can the Pope take away from prelates the power given to them by Christ and give it to others who are not prelates, nor destroy and change the state of the Church instituted by Christ, since power was given to them for edification and not for destruction, as the Apostle says in 2 Corinth. 10. And this Pope Urban beautifully says in 25, q. 1, Sunt quidam, where he speaks thus: In such cases the Roman pontiff can frame new laws where the evangelists have said nothing at all. But where the Lord or His apostles, and the holy fathers following them, have definitionally settled anything, there the Roman pontiff cannot give a new law, but ought rather to confirm what was preached even unto soul and blood, etc.