Summa de Ecclesia

Now it remains to answer the objections by which the adversaries strive to show in particular that curates receive the power of their jurisdiction not from the Pope nor from the bishops, but immediately from Christ. Where yet it comes as a matter of wonder that the aforesaid adversaries wish to exempt curates not only from dependence of power on the Pope and bishops, but also to equal them to bishops in the right which they have in the parish, although they are not properly prelates but helpers of the bishops, to whom principally, indeed totally, the care of the people is committed. Hence in their ordination the bishops say.

How much the more frail we are, so much the more do we need these aids. Hence also the Apostle in 1 Cor. 13, when he says: Others are governors, others helpers; through helpers, according to the Gloss, he understands those who bring aid to their superiors, as are archdeacons and curates. On account of this holy Thomas says in the book On the perfection of the spiritual life, that if one rightly considers, in this way in the rule of the Church archdeacons and parish priests are compared to the bishop as in a temporal kingdom provosts and bailiffs to the king. This also seems from this, that since the people is committed principally to the bishop, they can do nothing except as much as is committed to them by the bishop; whence in ch. whatsoever things, 10, q. 1, from the council of Antioch it is thus had: Whatsoever ecclesiastical things there are, it befits them to be governed and dispensed with all diligence, with the judgment and power of the bishop, to whom the souls of the whole people seem to be committed; and in ch. to all, 16, q. 1, Pope Clement thus says: To all the faithful, and most especially to all priests and deacons and the other clerics, it is to be attended that they act to none without the leave of their own bishop; not indeed let any of the priests celebrate masses in his parish without his command, nor baptize, nor do anything without his permission. So there. Plainly if parish priests had power immediately from Christ and not from the Pope or their bishops, they could not be bound by any inferior, so that without special or at least general leave of the bishops they could not do those things which befit them by divine right.

¹

It is therefore to be answered to their reasons, to which, that answer be made more openly and fully, we shall resolve the whole process of their argumentation into 20 points. But it is said in the first that holy scripture says the state of curates was instituted immediately by Christ, and also the curates themselves; this seems false, as Master Peter of Palude says, because Christ through himself made but one curate, Peter, when to him alone he said: Feed my sheep, and before he had promised to him, saying: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 16, and Confirm thy brethren, Luke 22; If thy brother sin against thee, correct etc., Matt. 18. All these pertain to a curate, and were given to Peter alone, whence to him alone is Christ read to have committed the care of souls; but because it was impossible that through himself alone he perfectly exercise the care of the whole flock, therefore consequently he committed to him to make other curates, as many as he knew to be needful for his aid and the salvation of the people; nor did Christ through himself institute but one sole care of his whole Church. For he did not divide his shepherds, saying to Peter: Feed the sheep of the circumcision, and to Paul: Feed the sheep of the Gentiles etc., but he instituted one care of the whole fold, which he committed to Peter, that there be one fold and one shepherd; but Peter afterwards through himself and through others divided provinces and dioceses and parishes, as is gathered from ch. In those, dist. 80. Hence the state of curates, as distinguished from the state of bishops and the state of the Pope, was not instituted immediately by Christ, since he distinguished no parishes or limitations of cases and power under bishops, nor were the curates themselves instituted by Christ in their parishes, but Peter alone, as has been said.

²

To the proof of the first, that the state in which jurisdiction is, is continued in diverse times from him by whom it was instituted and preserved, it is to be said that it is true according to the intention of the institutor and not against it, and mediately and immediately. But what they say in the third place³ that the successor of one in some dignity or office is instituted by him by whom the predecessor was, we say that it is true when he who institutes the predecessor retains to himself the institution of the successor, and he can do this.⁴ But otherwise if he did not retain it to himself but committed it to another. Hence when the Pope erects anew a cathedral see, he himself first institutes the prelate there, but the successors he does not always reserve to be instituted by himself; but he commits the election to those whom he makes canons, and the confirmation, and consequently the institution, to the Metropolitan to whom he subjected it, as in bailiffs and provosts: the same one is the institutor of predecessors and successors, when the king instituting reserves this very thing to himself, to another not. In priors also and abbots it is commonly accustomed that the first be instituted by one at least more immediately than the successors, just as blessed Bernard was set over as abbot of Clairvaux by the abbot of Citeaux, giving subjects and sending both together, but the successors were made through election, in which manner also all religious orders use in forming new convents; nevertheless ever according to truth the institutor of the first prelate in the prelacy is also institutor of the successors, immediately or mediately, inasmuch as by his virtue institution is made by another to whom he himself committed it, just as the archbishop to whom the Pope submits the bishop whom he institutes received from the Pope himself the right of instituting. But what they say in the fourth place to prove what they had said, that the successor would not be reckoned the same person as the predecessor unless instituted by the same, is not true, since by whomsoever he is instituted, provided he succeed into the same, as to that he is reckoned the same, as is plain in the examples set a little before of prelates who are newly instituted in religious orders and their successors, which successors are reckoned the same person with their predecessors although instituted by diverse. Of this also we can set an example, that the fisc, succeeding one having no other heir, by its own right, although not instituted by him by whom the deceased was instituted, yet in the inheritance to which it succeeds is reckoned the same person with the deceased and is called true successor.

⁵

But what they say in the fifth place, that the state and power of the disciples was continued in curates as the state and jurisdiction and power of the apostles in bishops, and that curates succeed the disciples as bishops succeed the apostles, does not seem true, understanding that the state of parish priests explicitly preceded in the disciples of Christ before the ascension of Christ and was always continued in parish priests. This is plain, because the disciples for the time of the discipleship of Christ, that is until the passion or ascension, were neither priests nor curates, although after Pentecost some of them were priests, some bishops, and some deacons, and some neither priests nor curates. Hence they did not have, from when they were called disciples, the state of curates, neither as to order nor as to care of a determinate parish, and so their state was not continued in curates. But it is true that their state was a figure of the state of curates as to the state of preaching and reaping temporal things, and as to this they succeed them, that is, they have this power as they did, and so are understood all the authorities which sound this. And likewise it is to be said of the apostles, that before the passion they did not have the state of bishops and of orders, as above in ch. 61 we showed. What therefore they say, that the state of the apostles is continued in bishops, is true as to the first state, and as to the power and authority of preaching, if yet that was not interrupted in them, and as to dignity over others, and as to the last state, because finally all the apostles were bishops.⁶ And likewise what it says of the disciples, that the state was continued in curates in part, says truly, namely as to something, since in some way their state is continued in curates, because just as they under the apostles had the power of preaching, so also curates, and they after them; hence such is the succession by which bishops are said to succeed the apostles and curates the disciples: although it well has some likeness of succession as to some of the things that have been said, yet it does not have the truth of succession as now a bishop succeeds another bishop who preceded in the bishopric, or a curate who now is another curate in the parish who was before, as is plain from what was said. But what they conclude in the sixth place from the aforesaid, namely that the state of curates was instituted by the same by whom the state of the disciples was instituted, does not follow, because curates are not true and proper successors of them, as has been said; nay rather, inasmuch as priests, curates differ totally from them, because neither were they priests. Hence blessed Mark, who was among the more eminent of the disciples, as Jerome says in the prologue upon Mark, afterwards cut off his thumb that he be reckoned unworthy of the priesthood. Nor were they curates, because they had no determinate people committed to them as curates have, nor could they absolve or bind anyone; whence it is a totally other state, although in some things there is likeness, as in the power of preaching and reaping temporal things and in inferiority to the apostles. For this reason it is said in the Gloss on Luke 10 that the disciples bore the figure or form of priests of the second order.

⁷

In the seventh place they say that curates are instituted by the same by whom also the disciples. It is to be said that it does not follow, even if that state and this were the same, because the Lord, who first instituted the disciples, granted that they had been the first curates, did not reserve the following curates to Himself to be instituted, but committed to His general vicar the care of all the sheep, committing it saying: Feed my sheep, John, last ch. But those sheep Peter feeds which he himself commits to be fed, because he who does through another is seen to do through himself; but those Peter is not seen to feed which someone feeds not in the name of Peter nor instituted by Peter, but by another. Whence whosoever says that any pastors or curates in the fold of Christ are instituted not by Peter but immediately by Christ seems to falsify the word of the Lord saying to Peter: Feed my sheep; but he ought to have said: Feed my sheep together with the pastors whom I join or shall join to thee. And it is well marvellous, if Christ was going to institute immediately all other pastors through the world in particular as the successor of Peter universally, why He does not so say of the other apostles for bishops and the disciples for curates: Feed my sheep, both you with Peter; as the father of the family says to all the workmen whom he has hired immediately: Go you also into my vineyard, etc., Matt. 20. Moreover, if He was going to give to them equally immediately as to Peter the keys of jurisdiction as to the successor of Peter, it is marvellous why He did not so say to them: At some time I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven with Peter, as He said this to Peter. For as to the other things which he gave to them as to Peter, as the understanding of the scriptures and the grace of preaching, He said commonly: I will give you a mouth and wisdom which they shall not be able to resist. And of the power of miracles He says: I have given you virtue and power, etc., Luke 10. Whence, since Christ is not read to have given to the apostles the keys of jurisdiction, nor the care of souls to the other apostles nor to the disciples as to Peter, granted that bishops succeed the apostles and curates the disciples as the Pope succeeds Peter, it does not follow that they have charge or power, as Peter and the Pope have immediately from Christ.⁸ But what they say in the eighth place, that as the apostles did not have their power from Peter, nor the disciples from the apostles nor even from Peter, but all immediately from Christ, so bishops and curates have not from the Pope but from Christ, they sin in two things, as we have said above in ch. 61. First because, as has been said above, all the apostles and disciples received all power of jurisdiction from Peter. Secondly they sin because, granted that it were so that all those, as the first bishops and the first curates, had received immediately from Christ, it does not on that account follow that the other successors receive immediately from Him, but rather from his successor, because Christ did not retain this to Himself but committed it to His general vicar.⁹ What they consequently say in the ninth place, that Christ immediately gave the power of preaching and baptizing even after the Resurrection and on the day of the Ascension, avails little, because from this it is not had that He gave them the power of jurisdiction, as was maintained above in the preceding ch. For the rest, neither does it follow that if Christ, still present in body and ruling His Church through Himself, gave through Himself to the apostles the power of preaching and baptizing or any other power whatever, that on that account He gives to their successors; but rather that the successor of Peter gives to the successors of those, especially because the deeds of a few do not make common law. Whence, if those, on account of their holiness, had had this, who being confirmed could not abuse it, it need not be so of others; but the common cause of utility had to be kept, that from one head all should receive their limited power.

¹⁰ But what they say in the tenth place, that there was given to the disciples at the Resurrection the power of binding and loosing together with the apostles, is manifestly seen to be false from what has gone before, especially because they themselves were not priests. But that saying at the Resurrection: Whose sins you shall forgive, etc., speaks only of the power of loosing and binding in the forum of conscience.

¹¹ And when they say in the eleventh place, for proof of what has been said, that when Christ said: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, that then He gave the power of preaching to the disciples as to the apostles, it seems that it must be said that it is not so, because from the time the sacrament of orders was instituted, which was at the supper, since the order of doctors in the Church is principal, from then it was not lawful to preach except for one ordained at least to the diaconate. Whence even after the mission of the Holy Spirit, when they were made holier saints and more learned, none but a deacon is read to have preached; whence, since then the disciples were not deacons but were afterwards ordained, it is not likely that Christ gave them the power of preaching, and that the power of preaching which they had before expired when, namely, that time came when only the ordained had to preach, which was after the sacrament of orders was instituted.¹² But what they say consequently in the twelfth place, that the disciples received the power of preaching on the mount of Galilee and at the Ascension with the apostles, is not true, even granted that they had been present, because, namely, they were not capable of that power in congruity and decency. And what has been said of preaching, appropriated to the sacred order, is also to be said of baptism, namely that after the institution of orders, baptism itself, since it is the door of the sacraments, is due to priests who have the keys, or to their immediate ministers, as deacons. For these alone baptized in the primitive Church, for then in baptizing the Levites aided the priests, as Philip the deacon baptized the eunuch and many others in Samaria, Acts 8. Whence the acts of the active principles are in the patient and in the one disposed. Since therefore the disciples were not yet deacons, and consequently were not fit nor disposed according to the exigency of the new law for preaching nor for baptizing, consequently Christ for then gave them no power, granted that they had been present. Whence also Matthew and Mark, where they relate this, namely in the last ch., make mention only of those disciples who are understood as the apostles, keeping silent of the other disciples; which is only either because they were not present, or if they were present, the speech of Christ was directed to the apostles alone, and to them alone was power given in the manner said above. Master Nicholas of Lyra too, above the last ch. of Matthew and Mark, understanding only of the apostles, expounded that letter. And if it be asked what is the case concerning the power which they had at first before the Passion, Lord Peter of Palude answers in his treatise on ecclesiastical power that it seems to have failed in the Passion, because He had not sent them simply to preach in every place, but into every city and place whither He Himself was to come. Whence, after the way of Christ ceased, their power over others ceased, as the force of legal observances ceased with the coming of truth, for whose coming they had been imposed, and as the Apostle says, Gal. 4 and Heb. 11. And the same reason, he says, seems to hold of the apostles in particular, because in the Passion all strayed from the faith except the blessed Virgin, as blessed Anselm seems to say; they lost the power and authority which they had. Whence after the Resurrection they received power anew in the manner said above, and containing as it were the contrary, because first it was said: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the cities of the Samaritans enter ye not. But afterwards it was said, Matt., last ch.: Teach all nations; and Mark, last ch.: Going into the whole world preach the gospel to every creature; Acts 1: You shall be witnesses to me in Judea and Samaria and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

¹³ But what the adversaries consequently say in the thirteenth place, that it is heretical to say that the seventy-two disciples, as also the eleven apostles, were not always with Christ, is perilously said, since to say the opposite manifestly contradicts the gospel in several passages. For John 4 it is had that the disciples went into the city to buy food, when He was found alone with the woman. Whence the apostles marvelled that He talked with a woman; otherwise they would not have marvelled, because, with others present, He often spoke with women, even strangers, as to the Canaanite woman, Matt. 15, to Magdalene, Luke 7, and of others; whence then the disciples were not with Him, nor the apostles. Whence Master Nicholas of Lyra upon that word, Give me to drink, says etc. Likewise when He spent the night alone in prayer, with the disciples labouring in the sea, Matt. 14. Likewise at the Transfiguration and the raising of the girl there were with Him but three, Matt. 7 and Luke 9, nor at the supper but twelve, Matt. 16 and Mark 14 and Luke 22. Otherwise those alone are named in vain. Whence also the Church testifies to this in the office of the Body of Christ when it says: At the last supper of the night, reclining with the brethren, the law fully observed with legal foods, He calms with His own hands the food of the twelvefold crowd. Likewise at the Resurrection when He showed them His hands and feet and side. Thomas, one of the disciples was not with them when Jesus came. Not therefore were all the apostles, and much less all the disciples, always with Christ. What therefore Peter says: It must needs be of these men who have been gathered with us in all the time wherein the Lord Jesus entered and went out, beginning from the baptism of John until the day wherein He was taken up, etc., is not of his intention that the seventy-two, of whom one was to be elected an apostle, were always actually with the apostles and with Christ in every place, because this, as has been shown, conflicts with the gospel in many places, especially Matt. 20, where it is said: And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart; where Master Nicholas of Lyra says, assigning the reason, that secret mysteries are to be revealed and disclosed only to the greater, of which sort were the apostles. But of his intention it was to say that they were always of their familiar congregation with Christ, not going back as some altogether, nor as the crowd of all the disciples who went and returned, as if Peter says not of the common disciples nor of the crowd, but of those who were of the household of Christ, who had by Christ Himself been already elected and formed for preaching, as the apostles, like to the apostles themselves in manner of living; of those, I say, not of others, was an apostle deservedly to be elected; whence the sense is: Who have been gathered with us in all the time, that is commonly, who, as Nicholas of Lyra expounds, knew by experience the conversation of Christ and His works.

¹⁴ But what they say consequently in the fourteenth place, that the state of curates and the state of the disciples are one state, as the state of bishops and apostles, as those states are not other than a hundred years ago, although it be granted to be so in a certain way, yet it does not necessarily follow, as has often been recalled above, that successors have power immediately from the same from whom their predecessors, since for unity of state this is not required, but it suffices that they have it from the vicar of him to whom he committed his right fully. Moreover it is false what they say, that Christ made the disciples curates in those places. Whence never in the New Testament is it read that the disciples were made curates by Christ; likewise neither were the apostles made bishops except Peter; but all the other bishops were made immediately or mediately by Peter.

¹⁵ But what they say in the 15th place, that no reason can be given why the power given to Peter is continued in the supreme pontiff from Christ, and that given to the apostles and disciples is not continued in bishops and curates, is not true; rather for this a manifold reason is given, and a manifold difference is assigned between the Pope and other prelates of the Church. The first indeed, because the supreme pontiff succeeds Peter in the same material see, in the Roman Church in which Peter sat and last resided; but there is no giving another bishop who succeeds in the same any other apostle, unless perhaps the patriarch of Jerusalem, who succeeded James of Alpheus; whence it is not like. The second reason, because the power given to Peter cannot be given by a mere man, whence it behoves that by him by whom the power was given to Peter, that is Christ, it be continued to each successor; but the power given to the other apostles and disciples, since it is limited and straitened, can be given by man, as is done at least when the Pope gives to someone a bishopric or a cure, or anew instituting a new bishopric or a new cure, because then he gives to him whom he promotes as much power as another bishop or curate has, even if he had been immediately instituted by Christ. Third reason, because particular vicars can be instituted by another than the principal, namely by the general vicar. But the general vicar cannot be instituted except by the principal lord, and therefore it is not necessary that the particular vicariate be instituted or conferred or continued immediately by the principal lord, as the general vicariate. Fourth reason, because to the state of bishops and priests the power of jurisdiction is not annexed as it is to the state of the papacy. The proof of which is that those things which are annexed by divine right man may not separate from one another, according to that Matt. 18: What God hath joined together let not man separate; but the Pope can make a true bishop and a true priest who has no subject nor any jurisdiction in any forum, nor from this, that anyone is a greater priest as bishop or a lesser priest, has he any power of jurisdiction unless along with this it be given to him from elsewhere; nor is the converse plain. But to the papacy, although likewise the power of orders is not annexed as from debt, nevertheless the fullness of power is annexed to it. For the papacy says the state of prelacy over the whole Church with fullness of power; whence this power is annexed to it inseparably by God, and therefore the papal power is continued to successors, which is not done of the others. Fifth reason and difference is on account of the determination of the community on the one side and indetermination on the other; for the community to which pertains the election of the Pope is certain and determinate, namely the community of the universal Church; the community to which pertains the election of bishops is not so determinate, because it is sometimes expedient to divide bishoprics or multiply them; new peoples too are often acquired, where new sees must be founded, to which it may pertain to elect their prelates; on account of which it behoved to commit to the general vicar to ordain concerning such things. Sixth reason and difference of unlikeness is that bishops do not so succeed the apostles, nor curates the disciples, as the Pope succeeds Peter, because the Pope succeeded Peter in a determinate and certain power, both as to territory and as to cases or extension of power; not so bishops to apostles nor curates to disciples, as is manifest. Seventh reason can be given, because it pertains more, or makes more, for keeping the unity of the Church that the powers of other prelates be derived immediately from the general vicar immediately than if they were immediately from Christ, as is the power of the Pope, as has been shown above.

¹⁶ But what they say consequently in the sixteenth place, that curates are true and ordinaries having ordinary jurisdiction, is to be granted to be so in the forum of conscience; nor yet on that account does it follow but that their state and jurisdiction is from the Pope, who can give ordinary jurisdiction not only to a person, as to a legate, but also to churches, as to monasteries, even of certain nuns which have their own official, to whom the Pope alone can give the keys of jurisdiction, although not the keys of orders.

¹⁷ But what they say in the seventeenth place, that curates have ordinary jurisdiction not given to them by human right but immediately from Christ from the first institution of the Church, does not seem true, because if we speak of jurisdiction in the exterior forum, it is certain that curates have this only by human right, since not except by custom, of which in a few cases they excommunicate even with the order of law not kept, On the Office of the Ordinary, ch. 2, nor was that power given to them in the first institution, in which neither was it given to the disciples, as has been said above. The ordinary power in the forum of conscience cannot be said to be had by them from Christ in the first institution, that is in the disciples, because neither did the disciples have it, since they were not priests. ¹⁸ But what they say in the eighteenth place, that Christ instituted these orders alone, in part seems true and in part false. True indeed if it be referred to the power of orders, since Christ instituted the order of simple priests at the supper, when through Himself He made all the apostles priests. Likewise He instituted the order of bishops when He consecrated Peter, who in this was equal to all bishops; but He did not institute the order of bishops in the other apostles as in first bishops made by Himself, because they were not made bishops by Him, as has been said, nor did He institute the order of priests in the disciples, because He nowhere made them priests. But if those two orders be considered as to the power of jurisdiction proper to them, as that a curate in one parish under a bishop should have a subjected people for the forum of conscience, and a bishop under the Pope should have power over his diocese in both forums, so those two orders were not instituted in the first institution of the Church, when, namely, He chose the 12 apostles and two of the seventy disciples, as if He had given to the apostles for themselves and future bishops the power of jurisdiction in both forums, and to the disciples for themselves and for all future curates, as He gave to Peter for himself and his successors, as those of the contrary opinion intend; and that it was not so appears from what has gone before, because He conferred no jurisdiction on them, but on Peter alone, for himself and his successors, the whole power of jurisdiction of the Church to be distributed to bishops and curates and others as he should judge expedient. Yet the state of bishops and curates can be said to be instituted by God in two ways. In one way by Christ in general and implicitly and in virtue in Peter, because Peter was true curate of any parish whatever and diocese. Whence, as in the quaternary the binary and ternary are contained materially and not formally, so in Peter Christ instituted each state materially. Likewise virtually, because in him was the power of assigning dioceses and parishes to bishops and priests. In the second way by the Holy Spirit, by whom inspired the apostles in the primitive Church placed bishops through dioceses and priests through parishes, and from those first bishoprics and rectories were truly and properly continued to those succeeding in them. What therefore was said of those two orders, that they were instituted by Christ, if they be understood as instituted prefiguratively or preordinatively and in general and implicitly in the way expounded above, is granted. But from this it does not follow that the Pope in special and expressly did not institute such powers, but only follows that he has this from the commission or ordination of Christ. But if it be understood that they were instituted explicitly and as to their proper according to such determinate powers, both as to cases and as to territories, it seems false, as has been seen above.

¹⁹ But what they say in the nineteenth place, that if it were so that all other powers depended on the Pope, then with the see vacant those powers would perish, is not true, nor does this follow, since the duration of statutes and offices in the republic is not measured according to the measure of the life of the institutor, whether he institutes anything pertaining to morals or institutes anything pertaining to jurisdiction; otherwise, with any prince or prelate whatever dying, all his statutes would perish, which is false. But the duration of statutes must be measured according as the institutor wills, with that authority remaining in the republic, as is also plain in princes who come by election, since there is no doubt that with such princes dying, their statutes still remain in their vigour, both as to morals and as to offices and as to grades of offices, as is plain through many chapters, q. 2, cause 25, where among others Anacletus says in the chapter Privileges: The privileges of churches and priests we decree to remain whole and inviolate for all times. And the same says Pope Leo in the following chapter. But what they say in the 20th place, that the Pope cannot take away from inferior prelates the power given to them and confer it on others not prelates, and change the state instituted by Christ, is true, but as to the power which bishops received immediately from Christ, which is of orders and not of jurisdiction, as has often been repeated above.

²⁰