Summa de Ecclesia

With answer given to the objections of the adversaries taken from the order of the apostles to Peter, it now remains to answer their other reasons. And to the first, taken from the authority of blessed Bernard, it is answered that blessed Bernard, saying that not only the papal but also the other powers of the Church are from Christ, speaks truly, and to assert the opposite is erroneous, since as the Apostle says in Rom. 13 all power is from God; but this does not oppose our purpose, since we do not say that the power of jurisdiction of the prelates of the Church is not from Christ—far be this from a Christian mouth—but that it is not immediately from Christ with immediacy of the supposita acting, but thus in this way from the Roman pontiff, who in the rule of the Church and its immediate disposition bears the turns of Jesus Christ as his general vicar. But Bernard does not say that all the powers of the other prelates are immediately from Christ, whence it is not to the purpose.

¹

To the second reason, which Henry of Ghent made, that bishops are spouses of the Church etc., it is answered. First that, as holy Thomas says in the treatise against those impugning religion, and as we touched above in ch. 27, the spouse of the Church properly is Christ, of whom it is said in John 3: He that hath the bride is the bridegroom. For he begets sons of the Church to his name. But the others who are called spouses are exterior ministers of the spouse cooperating unto the generation of spiritual sons, whom yet they beget not to themselves but to Christ. These ministers are called spouses in so far as they obtain the turn of the true spouse, and therefore the Pope, who obtains the turn of the spouse in the whole universal Church, is called spouse of the Church, but the bishop is called spouse of his diocese.

²

Secondly it is answered by denying that consequence: Bishops in this bear the turn of Christ; therefore through a power which they received immediately from Christ. That consequence does not hold, because they bear the turn of Christ through a power which they received immediately from the Roman pontiff, who immediately calls them into a share of his solicitude. To the third³ concerning blessed James who said: I judge, etc., some say, as Henry of Ghent where above in the answer of a certain argument, that although Peter could have borne sentence, nevertheless because it was fitting and decent that each superior permit the inferior to enjoy his ordinary power where he has to exercise it, and therefore Peter permitted James in the bearing of that sentence to use his right, just as when the Pope is in some city he does not on this account take away the official nor the court from the bishop of that city, but judgment of those things which emerge there is said to him. But that answer does not seem reasonable to us, since here is a special cause on account of which Peter ought not to have permitted this; for although it is accustomed to be done and decently, as has been said, in particular affairs brought to the tribunal of the bishop, yet it was not decently and fittingly so when a question of universal faith is aired and to be declared: it is not brought to the tribunal of the bishop but to the tribunal of the Pope or of the universal council where the Pope universally presides, just as concerning that question of legal observances upon which Paul and Barnabas came to Peter and to the other apostles and priests who were at Jerusalem, as is said in Acts 15, since then the definition of the aforesaid question pertained not to the bishop of the place but to the Pope, to whom greater causes pertain and who in every place is ordinary, with the approval of the fathers of the council; and so it was done here, since not James but Peter as prince of all defined. Hence blessed Jerome in epistle 22 to Augustine calls Peter the prince of this decree, that is the institutor, but blessed James not defining but promulgating or pronouncing the definition made through Peter, because, since he was bishop of that special place, he says: I judge. Hence master Nicholas of Lyra upon this place in Acts 15 thus says: Although Peter was principal among the apostles, yet he deferred to James in his diocese to bring forth the determination of the doubt. Mark that he does not say he defined or determined, but that he brought forth before the council the determination already made through Peter.

⁴

To the fourth, when it is said: What befits priests, etc., it is answered by denying the minor, and to the proof it is answered that although to be able to bind and loose for executing in act necessarily requires the power of jurisdiction, nevertheless in itself it pertains to the power of orders.

⁵

To the fifth, when it is said: What is nobler and firmer etc., it is answered in two ways. First that it does not serve the purpose, since we concede that in all governing or having rule in the principate of the Church the jurisdictional power is from Christ, although in some inferiors through their superiors mediating up to the pontiff of the first see, from whom as from the head of all it flows forth to all inferiors, according to the sentence of most holy Pope Leo in ch. Thus the Lord, dist. 19, just as in the celestial Hierarchy, from which the ecclesiastical is exemplified, although the light of revelation descends from God the Father of lights into each angel, nevertheless the law of divinity so holds that inferiors receive it through mediators and mediators through superiors. Secondly it is answered that if the adversaries would so say that nobler is the principate whose jurisdictional power in the several governors is derived immediately, with immediacy of supposita, from God, than one through a mediator, we say that this seems to us false, since it does not seem to make more unto the nobility of a principate that its rulers have power immediately, with immediacy of the supposita acting, from God, than if mediately, provided they have it immediately with immediacy of virtue; whence it does not seem that nobler would be the principate of the universe, in which God presides, if he himself immediately did all things with no order of second causes intervening, than it now is, nor the sacred principate of the celestial Hierarchy; it seems not nobler if the light of revelation which descends from superiors through mediators into inferiors descended immediately from God into each, indeed it seems the contrary, because in this mode God ennobles more the superior and middle angels, whom he not only fills with his light but also makes cooperators by participation of his power, while they, illuminated by God, illuminate and enlighten others. Hence blessed Dionysius at the end of the 3rd chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy thus says: Each order of the hierarchical disposition according to its proper analogy is reduced to the divine cooperation, perfecting that grace and God-given virtue which are in divinity both naturally and supernaturally and are superessentially in inferiors in act unto the possible imitation of souls loving God. The sense is, as Albert the Great says in the second part, that those illuminated by God are reduced to the cooperation of God in this, that just as they are illuminated by God, so they illuminate and perfect others through the grace and virtue given to them by God. Likewise blessed Thomas in the 1st part, q. 103, arg. 6, proves this thus: Since through government the things governed are to be led to perfection, so much the better will the government be as the greater perfection is communicated by the governor to the things governed; but it is a greater perfection that a thing be in itself good and also be a cause of goodness to others than if it were only in itself good; and therefore God so governs things that he institutes some as causes of others in governing, in which there is also an order of derivation of the power of superiors to inferiors, since, as holy Thomas says in the same place, from the order of ministers the royal power is rendered more illustrious.

⁶

To the sixth reason, which is taken from Dionysius, it is answered that it does little or nothing to the purpose of the adversaries. For we concede in the first place that the order of bishops is first and most sublime, namely in dignity of order, in which all bishops are equal, nor in it does the Pope excel the other bishops; but this we say does not serve the purpose, because at present we speak not of the power of orders but of jurisdiction, in which to say that any bishop is highest and most sublime would be heretical, because although any bishop can be called highest priest, as in ch. Seeing, 12, q. 1, and 2, q. 7, accusation, yet one alone is supreme pontiff, the Roman bishop. But what is consequently said, that in Christ Jesus all Hierarchy is consummated, is conceded, that at length in Jesus as in the ultimate consummator and perfecter all Hierarchy is perfected and consummated, yet in the order that in the lowest Hierarchy through mediators, and mediators through the supreme, it be reduced to Jesus the consummator of all, which reduction is to be understood not as to the vision of the divine essence, which all angels have without any medium, but as to the revelation of the mysteries of grace. But what is said, that this would not be unless all power in the ecclesiastical Hierarchy were immediately from Christ and not from Peter, it is answered that this is false, speaking of the power of jurisdiction, as is plain from what was said and can easily be exemplified. To the seventh reason⁷ which is taken from that of Acts 10: Attend etc., it is answered that the major of that reason is true of him from whom as immediately instituting the rulers are set in the Church; but thus not all rulers of the churches are set by the Holy Spirit. And to the authority which was adduced it is answered that that setting by which the Holy Spirit is said to have set those ministers to rule the Church of God is to be understood not by mode of immediate institution or immediate conferral of the power of jurisdiction, but by mode of inspiration, just as those set by canonical institution in the Church as prelates or rulers are said to be called by God or by the Holy Spirit to the rule of his Church, although yet they are not instituted immediately by God but through a superior prelate as mediator; whence the Gloss upon that of the Apostle in Heb. 5: Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, says: Who is rightly elected is called by God.

⁸

To the eighth reason, in which it is said that bishops are vicars of Christ, it is answered. First by denying the major universally of that argumentation, saying that it has truth only of the general vicar constituted by the prince, but not of particular vicars and vicars in a qualified sense, who can be constituted by the general vicar, as is manifest. Hence also bishops are called vicars of the apostles, since they bear their turns in the Church, as in ch. whose turns, dist. 68, and nevertheless the adversaries are willing to concede that they received power immediately from the apostles; therefore that major proposition is not universally true, whence it well follows that such particular vicars are immediately constituted by the general vicar and nevertheless in some way are called vicars of the principal lord, inasmuch as ministerially they cooperate with him in dispensing the sacraments to the faithful, as is plain concerning the parish priest who, although he be instituted immediately by the Pope or by the bishop as pastor or confessor of one people, nevertheless is called vicar of Christ, On penance, dist. 4, § inter haec. Secondly it is answered that it is false that bishops are not vicars of the Pope, for the Roman Church, as is had in ch. by decree and in the following ch., 2, q. 6, is said to impart and largely bestow her turns on the other churches. Likewise to certain curates in their ordination the bishop says: How much the more frail we are, so much the more do we need necessary aids. Those, therefore, bear the turn of him to whose aid they are assumed. Nor does it stand in the way that they are ordinaries, because even a legate a latere is an ordinary and yet is the Pope’s vicar.

⁹

To the ninth reason answer will be given below in ch. 64, in the solution which will be given to the second reason.

To the tenth, however, the answer is easy, because the election of a bishop which is made by the people is not made by the authority of the people but of the Pope, which is plain because the election of the people would be null unless confirmed through the Pope. And when it is objected that at times confirmation is by the archbishop, it is no obstacle, because this too is by the authority of the supreme pontiff, who also has to confirm the archbishop himself. Hence from him all other power depends.

¹⁰

To the eleventh reason, when it is said that the Pope is a ministerial head etc., it is answered by conceding the antecedent and denying the consequence. For this it is to be noted that, as above in ch. 22 we recalled, according to holy Thomas the head flows into the other members in two ways. In one way by a certain intrinsic influx, inasmuch as motive and sensitive virtue is derived from the head into the other members. In another way according to a certain exterior government, inasmuch namely as according to sight and the other senses which are rooted in the head man is directed in exterior acts. But the interior influx is from none but Christ alone, whose humanity, from this that it is conjoined to divinity, has the virtue of justifying; and consequently the Pope and the other ministers of the Church seem to have no ministry as to this influx except as to the disposition of the subject through dispensation of the sacraments. But the second influx into the members of the Church as to exterior government can befit another, and according to this the Pope is called head of the Church inasmuch as he is governor and ruler of the Church, with the Lord saying to blessed Peter, whose successor the Roman pontiff is: Feed my sheep, John last. And according to this exterior influx the influence of the Pope with respect to the Church is considered also as to the conferral of power on those whom he calls into a share of his solicitude, just as in the rule of a kingdom we see that from the king, who is called head of the kingdom according to that of Hosea 6: The princes, heads of the peoples, all power of rule and government of inferior ministers is derived. But what is adduced, that the instrument does not attain to the principal effect but disposes the matter, is not to the purpose, since the power of rule is not the principal effect which Christ the principal agent intends to induce in the souls of the faithful, as is known to all, but is as it were the instrument by whose mediation the people is governed and disposed through the ministers of the Church unto the reception here of divine grace and of glory in the future.

¹¹

To the last reason, in which it is argued that the apostles were foundations of the Church as Peter was, it is answered by denying the assumption, if it be understood that the other apostles were foundations of the Church as Peter was, in every reason or mode in which Peter was; since this is false. Since, as above in ch. 17 we explained, blessed Peter was called foundation of the Church not only by that common reason by which the other apostles were, namely because in faith and the doctrine of Christ they founded the Church, but by a certain special reason, namely by reason of the principate and highest authority given to him; for his principate is as it were a certain base of the whole Church, whence to him alone it was said in Matt. 16: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. And therefore although it is common to the apostles that immediately through faith they adhere to Christ, receiving from him the illumination of doctrine or faith, nevertheless this was proper to Peter: to adhere to Christ through immediate reception of the power and authority of jurisdiction from him, but the others received from Christ through Peter as mediator. And therefore in this mode the Church is not said to be founded upon the other apostles, because the whole power of the Church was conferred on Peter, nor has the Church any other power of jurisdiction except what God granted to Peter. And therefore Aug. says in ch. whatsoever, 24, q. 1, that in Peter the Church received the keys.