Summa de Ecclesia

SO firmly established in truth does the preceding conclusion seem, that the jurisdictional authority of all the other prelates of the Church is regularly derived, mediately or immediately, from the Roman pontiff, not only as to execution and use, as some wish to say, as Geoffrey of Fontaines and Henry of Ghent in their quodlibets, and other followers of theirs, but also as to the substance of the power, so that, saving better judgment, it seems in nothing prejudiced by the reasons of the adversaries. This we shall make most manifest when we answer the several reasons of the adversaries one by one. But our aforesaid conclusion has an irrefragable foundation, namely the definition of the apostolic see, which, since it is founded upon the rock, Christ, in it faith undefiled has ever remained and will remain. The apostolic see, moreover, seems to have defined this through several supreme pontiffs. First indeed through Pope Vigilius, who in his decrees, writing to Eleutherius the bishop, thus says: To none, whether slightly learned or fully wise, is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and form of the churches, from which that all churches have taken their beginning no one of right believers is ignorant; so he. Mark well the words, for if no believer is ignorant, that is, ought to be ignorant, that all churches have taken their beginning from the Roman, no one ought also to be ignorant that they have taken beginning and authority as well. Secondly this same is defined through Pope Nicholas the first, who, writing to the Milanese, as is had in ch. Omnes, dist. 22, thus says: The Roman Church instituted all, whether the summit of any patriarch (that is, patriarchate), or the primacy of the metropolises, or the sees of bishoprics or of churches, or the dignity of any order whatsoever; but her alone He Himself founded, etc. Mark the words, that the Roman Church instituted the dignity of whatsoever order. Therefore no faithful ought to doubt that the jurisdictional power of whatsoever order depends on the Roman Church. Thirdly it is defined of the apostolic see through Pope Innocent the first, who, as is had in ch. Quis nesciat, dist. 11, writing thus to Decentius the bishop says: Who is ignorant or who does not perceive that what was delivered by Peter prince of the apostles to the Roman Church and is kept even now by all ought to be observed, nor anything superinduced which ought to take general authority or example from elsewhere, especially since it is manifest that throughout all Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Sicily and the islands lying between, no one instituted churches except those whom the venerable Peter or his successors constituted priests; and so they ought to follow what the Roman Church keeps and from which, it is not doubtful, they received beginning. Mark the words. Therefore also the substance of authority. Fourthly the apostolic see defines or testifies through blessed Pope Gregory, who, writing to the bishops throughout the provinces, as is had in ch. Decreto, second question sixth, thus says of the Roman Church, that she so imparts her turns to the other churches that they are called into a share of solicitude, not into fullness of power. Fifthly this same is attested by the apostolic see through Pope Julius, who, as in ch. Qui se scit, in the cause and question aforesaid, thus says: For that very Church which is first so entrusted her turns to be largely bestowed on the other churches that they are called into a share of solicitude, not into fullness of power. Mark the words: she imparts and has largely bestowed her turns on the other churches. Who can now doubt that all the other churches have their authority from the Roman Church herself, as from her who shares and bestows it? Nor can it be said that that partition and bestowal of vicars is understood of a particular, special, accidental commission which the pope makes to a church as to the primacy and dignity of legation. First because this befits only certain and few and determinate churches and persons, but all the authorities speak of all the other churches in common, as appears from the form of speech. Then secondly because such a commission, which is made to certain persons or churches, is accidental, for those things which are by accident do not fall under art. 2 Metaphysics. Hence the authorities are to be understood of the power which is had from the Church in common and not accidentally, namely that such proceeds from the Roman Church. Our conclusion now thus strengthened by the authority of the apostolic see, which it is not lawful to contradict, answer must be made to the objections. For the solution of these, however, and especially for the clearer knowledge of the matter, we premise first of all this notable point, which is gathered both from blessed Thomas, 1 Sentences, dist. 12, and from the common doctrine of the other doctors, that when someone is said to have power immediately from another, it can be understood in two ways: either as to immediacy of virtue, or as to immediacy of the supposita acting from whom such power is had. If the discourse runs of the first mode of immediacy, then we say that all virtue, authority, power and jurisdiction which is in the Pope or in any prelate whatsoever is immediately from Christ. This is plain, since such power can be conferred by none other except through the power existing in Christ or conferred by Christ, just as no other cause can act apart from the first except through the virtue of the first cause. And of this mode of immediacy we do not speak here, since in this mode of immediacy all power of whomsoever of the Church is immediately from Christ; but we speak of the second mode of immediacy, which is on the part of the supposita acting or conferring power, in which mode one is then said to receive some power immediately from Christ when between the receiver of the power and Christ himself conferring there is no medium, namely no suppositum receiving from Christ and conferring that same power on another. And speaking of this mode of immediacy, here we say that Peter alone received the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ, to whom alone it was said: Feed my sheep, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But all the other apostles received power from Christ through Peter as mediator, as most blessed Pope Leo says, as adduced above, that if Christ willed anything to be common to the other princes of the Church with Peter, he never gave to others except through him whatever he did not deny to others. With these things held, answer must be made to the reasons on the contrary. To the first it is answered in two ways. First by denying the consequence, for the consequence is not good: The apostles and disciples had the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ; therefore also now the prelates of the Church have the power of jurisdiction immediately from Christ. This we make manifest by two examples. The first is from the constitution of the world: it is manifest that although in the beginning of the world the first individuals of species were made by God without medium, yet anew they are not immediately from God as to the order of their agents; indeed they are through the mediating heavenly virtue and through other second causes mediating. Hence Aristotle in 2 Physics says that the sun and man generate man. Just therefore as this consequence does not hold: In the institution of the world the heavens and the elements and the other principal parts of the world were made immediately by God; therefore also in the propagation of instituted things all things which come to be, come to be immediately by God; so also that consequence is not good: Christ in the first constitution and foundation of the Church immediately constituted the apostles, bishops, and curates as to the power of jurisdiction; therefore likewise in the progress of the founded Church the others who follow after those instituted by Christ are instituted immediately by Christ. This likewise appears similarly in the second example, which is considered in the rule of the political order. For although Christ, prince and principal shepherd of the Church, being present in the kingdom of the militant Church according to human converse, had instituted through himself the apostles and disciples in diverse jurisdictions, it does not follow on this account that, he being absent according to human converse, any who succeed in the kingdom of the Church those first instituted by him are instituted immediately by him; for they can be instituted by his general vicar, to whom he commits the care and rule of his whole kingdom, as happens in other secular and also spiritual things, that when the principal lord arranges to absent himself for a long time, he commits to his general vicar that if in the meantime any offices or places happen to fall vacant, he provide fit ministers. This must be believed to have been done here, since when Christ sought the heights of the heavens he withdrew his bodily and visible presence from the militant Church and most fully commended the care and rule of his whole Church to blessed Peter as his general vicar. Hence in figure of this it is read in 1 Esdras 7 that Artaxerxes king of kings gives to Ezra etc., his general vicar, power to constitute all judges in his vicariate province, saying: But thou Ezra etc. appoint rulers who may judge all the people. This is most believed to have been done here, since this would both most conduce to preserving more firmly the unity of the Church and to the fuller obedience of the inferior prelates to their general vicar. And so it is plain that that consequence of the adversaries is null. And to the proof, when it is said that bishops succeed the apostles and priests the 72 disciples, therefore etc., it is answered that that consequence is not necessary: This one succeeds that one in some jurisdictional power; therefore he has it immediately from him from whom his predecessor had it. For it is most clear that many prelates succeed others in likeness of office or power and not in mode of receiving, as is plain by example of two bishops of the same place succeeding one another: although they have a like episcopal power, it is not required that they have it in the same mode, since one can have it through institution by the Pope, another through election. And the example is like of a curate who can be set immediately by the Pope or through confirmation by the bishop. And so, granted that the apostles received power immediately from Christ, it does not follow on this account that bishops and curates in the same mode, namely immediately, receive power from Christ. This also seems manifestly to appear from the Gloss of Augustine and Cassiodorus upon that of Ps. 44: For thy fathers there are born to thee sons, where it says: After the prophets the apostles, and for the apostles the bishops, and others whom the Church begot and constituted in the seat of the fathers; so the Gloss. Behold, it manifestly makes that the Church begot the bishops and constituted them in the seat of the fathers. Therefore consequently the Church immediately conferred power on them, and consequently they did not have it immediately from Christ; therefore this consequence does not hold: Bishops succeed the apostles in likeness of office or power; therefore in mode of receiving, so that they immediately have it from Christ as the apostles. But what is consequently said to the proof, when likeness is adduced of the Pope, who is said immediately to receive power from Christ and to succeed Peter, who had it immediately from Christ, it is answered that it is not like concerning the Pope, who is the universal vicar of Christ in the whole universal Church, and concerning the other prelates, who are particular vicars; since particular vicars are constituted by another than the principal lord, since they can be instituted by the general vicar; but not so concerning the general vicar, since for the amplitude and universality of his power and authority he can be constituted immediately only by the principal lord; and therefore it is not like. But concerning this we shall speak more fully in the following chapter, and the reasons of the adversaries seem plainly of small price. And these things are said as to the first reason. Secondly it is answered to the aforesaid objection by denying the antecedent or assumption, namely that the apostles and disciples received immediately from Christ the power of jurisdiction which they had, since this does not seem well probable according to the authorities and decrees of the holy fathers and the reasons adduced above through diverse chapters. Hence answer must be made to the authorities and reasons adduced to prove the aforesaid antecedent. To the first, which is adduced from Matt. 18: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth etc., it is answered that the authority does nothing for the adversaries, since through those words no power of jurisdiction was then given in act to the apostles, but well promised or intimated to be given in future to them and their successors. For it does not seem that before his passion Christ gave to any of the apostles any power of jurisdiction. This seems gathered from many things. First, from this, that at that time it befitted none to have the power of jurisdiction, for which it befits to exercise an act of jurisdiction in the court of conscience or of contention; but from the sayings of the Gospels it does not appear that any of the apostles exercised any act of jurisdiction before the passion of Christ, especially since at that time they had not yet been made priests. Therefore etc. Then secondly, because Christ before the passion ruled his Church through himself, not through officials or vicars. Therefore it does not seem that then any of the apostles had any power of jurisdiction, especially since Christ had assigned to none of the apostles any subjects over whom they could exercise the jurisdiction given to them. Then thirdly, because if power of jurisdiction be said to have been then given to the apostles by Christ actually ruling the Church, either full and unlimited over all the faithful as Christ himself had it, or there was given to them a power limited over some and not over others, but neither of these seems to be said: not the first, it is plain; not the second, because no such limitation is to be feigned; therefore etc. Then fourthly, because if then power of jurisdiction had been given to the apostles, then it would seem that all the other apostles received an equal power of jurisdiction with Peter, which is not to be said, because he alone was called into fullness of power, who was also himself ordained by Christ as prince of the apostles. Therefore it seems to be said that through those words spoken to the apostles before the passion, namely Whatsoever you shall bind etc., no authority of jurisdiction was given to the apostles, but only promised and intimated to be given in future, as we foretold, just as neither to Peter through those words in Matt. 16: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose etc. And to the words of Jerome saying in the Gloss that he bestowed power on the apostles, we say that bestowed is to be expounded, that is, he promised to bestow, since indeed the promise of God is most certain. Therefore Jerome, speaking of the promised power in the manner of Scripture, speaks as if it had already been given. To the second authority, which is had in John 20: Whose sins you shall remit etc., it is answered that that authority speaks not of any authority of jurisdiction, but only of the power of orders. Hence holy Thomas, answering this authority in 4, dist. 19, thus said: For the absolution of sins a twofold power is required, namely of orders and the power of jurisdiction¹; indeed the first power is equally in all priests, but not the second; and therefore where in John 20 Christ gave to the apostles in common the power of remitting sins, it is understood of the power which follows orders, whence also those words are said to priests when they are ordained; so holy Thomas. But this power which follows orders is that principate of supernal judgment of which Gregory speaks, which the apostles then received from Christ. But when it is argued on the contrary that it cannot be understood of the power of orders, because they had that in the supper of the Lord when they were made priests, we answer with the same holy Thomas in 4, dist. 23, as we noted above in book 1, ch. 92, that the Lord gave to his disciples the priestly power as to the principal act before the passion when he said: Take and eat; whence he subjoins: This do in commemoration of me; but after the resurrection he gave them the priestly power as to the secondary act, which is to bind and loose. And so it is plain that through that authority the intent of the adversaries is not proved. Moreover that the aforesaid authority does not serve the purpose of the adversaries but rather confirms our purpose is plain from the order of time in which Christ spoke those words to the apostles, since, as holy Thomas says in 4, dist. 22: Although to all the apostles there was given in common the power of binding and loosing, yet in this power some order is signified; first it was given to Peter alone, that it be shown that from him it ought to descend to others, on account of which he said to him singularly: Confirm thy brethren and feed my sheep; in my place (as Chrysostom says) set over and head, and be thou unto thy brethren, that they, receiving thee in my place, may everywhere preach and confirm thee sitting on thy throne. To the third authority, which is set from Matt. 16: To thee I will give the keys etc., upon which Pope Leo says that the right of that power passed over into the other apostles, it is answered that blessed Pope Leo says truly, nor is there doubt whether the apostles had the power of binding and loosing; but the question is whether they had it immediately from Christ or not, speaking of the immediacy of the supposita acting. We say therefore that the right of power passed and traveled into the other apostles and princes of the Church, but through Peter. For as the same Leo says in the 3rd sermon on his ordination: Whatever he willed to be common to the rest with Peter, he gave only through Peter whatever he did not deny to others. And this the word transition means, which from extreme to extreme is not made except through a medium; and that the words are so to be understood is plain not only from what was said above, but from what is said at the end of the same authority, where it is thus said that to Peter this is singularly credited, namely to be dispensed to others, according to that of 1 Cor. 9: Dispensation is committed to me. For Peter was that faithful one whom the Lord constituted over His family: the Gloss: the Church. Luke 22. In the same way it is answered to the authority of Rabanus in the Gloss. For we say that the power given to Peter was given to the other apostles, nevertheless differently, as we can say by way of example that God gave light to the sun and the stars, but differently, since to the sun immediately and in fullness, but to the stars through the medium of the sun and in lesser quantity. So Christ gave to Peter immediately and in fullness, but to the others through Peter as mediator, his general vicar and governor of the whole Christian world, and in its quantity and measure to be limited through Peter according to the share of solicitude to which they were to be called.

To the fourth authority, which is had in Luke 6, it is answered² by denying the consequence, since from that authority nor from the saying of Ambrose is it had that Christ then conferred any power of jurisdiction on the apostles or disciples, but well the power of preaching. But this power of preaching is distinct from the power of jurisdiction, just as are many other powers which are read in the Gospels as given to the apostles, as is the power of working miracles, as is the power of baptizing, as is the priestly power or of consecrating, as is the power of reaping temporal things for spiritual things, as is the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience. Hence from the conferral of such powers made to the apostles and disciples it is not argued that any power of jurisdiction was then given to them by Christ. To the fifth and sixth authorities the answer is plain through the same.³ But what was said, that mission is a conferral of the power of jurisdiction, is false; for although it is a conferral of the power of preaching, yet not of any power of jurisdiction. Hence from this, that Christ immediately sent the apostles and disciples to preach, it is not had that Christ immediately gave them any power of jurisdiction. To the seventh authority, which is of Anacletus,⁴ it is answered according to the Gloss of the decree that it speaks of the power of orders or of consecration, but not of the power of jurisdiction of which the present discourse is. Therefore that text in no way favors the adversaries. To the eighth authority, which is of Cyprian,⁵ in ch. Loquitur, 24, q. 1, the answer is easy through the Gloss of the same chapter, which says that that parity is to be understood in order and dignity of consecration, not in fullness of administration. For in this Peter was superior and greater, as prince of the apostles, for blessed Clement says, as is had in ch. In illis, dist. 80, that among the apostles there was not equal institution, but one presided over all. And so it seems that that text speaks not of the power of jurisdiction but of the power of orders, and so it is not to the purpose. To the ninth, in which objection is made concerning the election of Matthias,⁶ it is answered by denying the assumption, and to the proof we say that it does not sufficiently prove the denial, since although it be said that he was immediately elected by Christ to the dignity of the apostolate and written in the sacred number of the twelve apostles, it is not had from this that he was either immediately consecrated bishop by Christ or endowed with any jurisdictional authority. For those have no essential connection to one another, as is manifest. For the apostles were apostles for much time and not bishops, nor having any power of jurisdiction; many also in the primitive Church were bishops who were not apostles. To the tenth objection concerning Paul⁷ it is answered in several ways. First that this argument does not seem to serve the purpose, since when it was said that all prelates of the Church should receive the power of jurisdiction immediately from the Roman pontiff, there was added 'regularly'; we do not wish to deny that some could have received immediately from Christ. For although by common law none is cleansed from original sin without baptism, according to that of John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, which none enters unless clean, because nothing defiled shall run into that glory, nevertheless God, who is bound by no laws, who has not bound his power to the sacraments, can cleanse whomsoever without baptism or any sacrament through the gift of sanctification in the womb, or in another way as pleases Him. So in the purpose we say that God, instituting Peter shepherd, prince and head of the Church, willed by common law, for preserving the unity of the Church, that from him, his universal vicar, and consequently from his successors, all the other inferior prelates and rulers of the Church should receive and recognize the whole jurisdictional power and authority of rule; nevertheless to Paul or to another of the apostles, or even to one not an apostle, as pleases Him, He can and could give that power and even greater than others received through Peter as mediator. Just therefore as this consequence does not hold: A. was cleansed from original sin immediately by Christ without baptism; therefore also others; so neither does that. Secondly it is answered that the things adduced concerning Paul do not proceed, since in them no mention is made of the power of jurisdiction, but of the authority of preaching or evangelizing the word of God, and to this he was immediately elected by Christ according to that of Acts 9: This man is to me a vessel of election, etc. Hence the Gloss according to that of 2 Cor. 10 which is adduced on the contrary: Concerning our power which the Lord gave etc.; concerning the power of the apostolate which the Lord gave to us, not to them. Thirdly it is answered that although in the beginning the apostle Paul had the authority of preaching immediately from Christ, nevertheless afterwards he also received from Peter, when by the authority of Peter Paul and Barnabas were sent through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to preach in Acts 13, as the Gloss of the decree touches, ch. Quis nesciat, dist. 11.