Summa de Ecclesia

ALTHOUGH the conclusion established above in ch. 53, stating that the fullness of the power of the Church resides with the Roman pontiff alone, was fully demonstrated both by the testimonies of the holy fathers and by reasons, nevertheless the adversaries strive in many ways to attack it, positing this conclusion, namely that the fullness of the power of the keys is not only in the pope as head and shepherd of the universal Church but in the universal Church herself and in the universal council. But of these men the way of speaking is twofold. For some, from the number of the masters who were at the council of Constance, as is gathered from their treatises, say¹: that the fullness of the power is indeed in the pope and in the universal Church and in the universal council representing it, yet in a different way. To this end they distinguish that a thing can be in something in three ways. First as in a subject, as virtue is in the soul and an accident in substance subjectively. Second as in an object, as an effect is said to be in its cause or in its end, because it tends toward it as toward its final object. Third as in an exemplar, as a thing seen is said to be in a mirror or some doctrine in a book, because it is there representatively. In the first way therefore, as they say, the fullness of power is in the pope as in the subject receiving it and exercising it ministerially. In the second way it is in the Church as in the causal object and finally containing it. Third it is in the general council as in the exemplar representing it and directing it by rule. The first is clear, because the pope, properly speaking, is the minister receiving this power subjectively and dispensing it administratively according to that word of Luc. 22: He who is foremost among you, let him become as the minister. The second is clear, because the fullness of power is not causally and finally on account of the pope, but the pope and his power are on account of the Church and are ordered to her as to an end, that is, to her building up, because according to the sentence of the Apostle in 2 Corinth. ch. 10 and the last chapter, the Lord gave this power for the building up of the Church and not for destruction. The third is clear from the same word of the Apostle, because if the pope should turn this power to the destruction of the Church, the general council would be as the exemplar or mirror representing the said universal Church and in her place and name coercing, regulating and directing abuses of this kind of fullness of power and even punishing them; so say they. But this supposition and imagining of theirs seems to us, with ever better judgment reserved, altogether without understanding²: because it involves many things which cannot stand together; indeed the parts contradict one another. And they imply a contradiction.

Firstly, for in that part in which they say that the fullness of power is in the pope as in the subject administering it, and in the Church as in the final object, and in the council as in the exemplar, their opinion is contradicted in that part in which they say that the fullness of power is more principally and excellently in the Church or in the council than in the pope. This is clear, because any power whatever is said to be more properly and principally where it is subjectively and administratively or dispensatively, as in the craftsman or the leader of an army or the master of a work, rather than in the object or in the exemplar: as the power of medicine has its being more properly and principally in the physician than in the sick body to whose cure it is ordered, and as the art of medicine set down in a book of medicine, as well as that of building, has its being more principally and properly in the craftsman than in the house to whose building it is ordered. Moreover they speak falsely in saying that the Church is the final object of the papal power: for although the papal power is given to him for the building up of the Church, yet the Church herself is not called the ultimate end intended by his power; rather it is blessedness itself, to whose pastures the universal Church herself is to be directed and led through her own shepherd and ruler, who is the Pope, according to that word of the last chapter of Ioan., Feed my sheep, as we shall show more fully below. Furthermore it seems false that the fullness of power should be in the council as in an exemplar and mirror; rather in this way it should be said to be in the law of Christ or of the Gospel, according to which the whole Church is to be ruled; hence in the person of the Church the prophet says of her, Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths. Secondly, that supposition implies a contradiction: for in that part where they posit one and the same power in the pope and in the universal Church and in the council, they contradict what they say, that the universal council can correct, coerce, restrain and punish abuses of the papal power. This is clear, for since such action against the pope can belong only to one who is of higher power, according to ch. inferior, distinct. 21, it is impossible that the council could do these things if it has only the same power in number which the pope has. Thirdly, the supposition of those men implies contradiction: for in that part in which they say that the fullness of power is in the council not as in the subject and administrator but as in the exemplar or mirror, it contradicts what they say, that the council can coerce and restrain the abuses of the pope and correct the abuser. This is clear, because although by way of counsel one can advise and direct another while having no authority of jurisdiction over him for correction, yet the correction which is an act of justice, and to coerce, restrain and the like, can belong only to him in whom the power of jurisdiction is as in the subject administering and exercising it, as is manifestly clear. For whose the power is, his is the act, as the Philosopher says. On account of these things, as we said above, that supposition of the adversaries seems to us without understanding. But others³ from the number of the recent masters who were at Basel, presuming to think higher than those who were at Constance \u2014 greedy, as it were, for glory and principate \u2014 who said that the fullness of power was in the Church not only as in the final object or in the council as in the exemplar, as the aforesaid had said above, but as in the subject administering and exercising it, as they demonstrated in practice by assuming to themselves every administration and exercise of the papal power. For they say that to the universal Church herself, which is called the gathering of all the faithful in all her members together, the power itself of the keys in its fullness was given, and even more principally than to the Pope, just as if we were to say that to one college some authority of some jurisdiction to be exercised or of an election to be held was given.

To prove this conclusion, having read through many of their treatises, we find that they proceed by many means founded on various suppositions. ⁴ The first supposition is that the things said to Peter or to the apostles have been handed on to the Church. They prove such a supposition⁵ through what blessed Aug. says in the letter to Hesychius on the Last Day, for he speaks thus. The words which Christ spoke⁶ to the apostles ought to be understood of their successors, as that word, You shall be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And that word, You shall be witnesses to me in all Judea and Samaria, etc., as also that word, I am with you even to the consummation of the age, which yet who would not understand that he promised to the whole Church, which, with some dying and others being born, will endure even to the consummation of the age? So says he. Here on Ps. 108 the same Aug. speaks thus. Certain things are said which, although they seem properly to pertain to the apostle Peter, nevertheless have no illustrious meaning unless they are referred to the Church. From this supposition the adversaries argue thus.⁷ If the things said to Peter and to the other apostles are to be handed on to the whole Church, therefore the things said to Peter through which the fullness of power is designated in him are also to be understood of the whole body of the Church, and consequently the fullness of power was not only with Peter but also with the whole Church. The second supposition is⁸ that all things said to Peter carrying his authority are also said to the other apostles and in them to the whole Church. They strive to show this supposition true chiefly in the two places in which the power given to Peter is most fully expressed. First concerning that place Matt. 16, where Christ says to Peter, You are Peter, and upon etc. There follows, To you I will give the keys etc. That this was said to all they prove from the fact that, since not only Peter was questioned but also all the apostles, and Peter answered for all, as the Gloss says, it follows that since the conferral of the keys seems to have been on account of the merit of the confession of faith, what was said to him, To you I will give the keys etc., was said not only for Peter but also for the other apostles. This is suggested by the authority of blessed Aug. in sermon 10 on Ioan., speaking thus. Since the number itself was twelvefold, that is, divided fourfold into threes, and all had been questioned, Peter alone answered, You are Christ, Son of etc., and to him it is said, To you I will give etc., as though he alone received the power of binding and loosing, and that word he had spoken for all, and this with all as bearing the person of unity itself he received. Secondly they confirm this by the authority of Leo the Pope, who in a certain sermon on the apostles, treating that word, Whatsoever you shall bind etc., speaks thus. To the other apostles the right of power of this kind, and to all princes of the Church, the constitution of this decree has passed. Thirdly by the authority of Rabanus, who in the Gloss on Matt. 16 speaks thus. Although this power seems given to Peter alone, yet it is given to the other apostles. Consequently they strive to verify the aforesaid supposition from that place in the last chapter of Ioan. where it is said, Feed my sheep. That this word was said even to all they prove through blessed Augustine, who in the book On the Struggle of the Christian speaks thus. Not without cause does Peter among the apostles bear the person of the catholic Church; for to this Church the keys were given when they were given to Peter, and when it is said to him, it is said to all, Do you love me, feed my sheep. Likewise to the same effect blessed Ambrose seems to speak in the beginning of his Pastoral, saying thus. It is said by the Lord to Peter, Peter, do you love me? and he, You know that I love you. And when the answer had followed, it was repeated by the Lord, Feed my sheep. Which sheep and which flock blessed Peter then received not alone, but he received them together with us, and we all received them with him. The third supposition⁹ is that all things said to Peter pertaining to power were said to him in figure of the Church, that is, in the name or in the person of the Church. To prove this supposition they adduce many sayings of Aug., since he alone seems to use this manner of speaking. And first they adduce what Aug. says on Ioan.¹⁰ and is found in ch. quodcunque, 24, q. 1, where he speaks thus. Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven: if this was said to Peter alone, the Church does not do this. But if it is done in the Church, whatsoever is bound on earth is bound also in heaven, and the things loosed on earth are loosed also in heaven. If therefore this is done in the Church, Peter, when he received the keys, signified the holy Church. Where the Archdeacon expounds, that is, Peter received the keys under the sign and name of the Church. Second they adduce that word of Aug. in a certain sermon on the apostles Peter and Paul, speaking thus. The Lord Jesus chose his disciples before his passion, as you know, whom he called brethren; among these almost everywhere Peter alone bore the person of the whole Church, and therefore he merited to hear, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For here the keys were received not by him as one man but by the unity of the Church; hence therefore the excellence of Peter is proclaimed, because he bore the care of unity itself and of the universal Church, when it was said to him, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which was handed on to all; for that you may know that the Church received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hear in another place what the Lord says to all the apostles, Receive the Holy Spirit, and he immediately adds, If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them, and if you retain them, they are retained. This pertains to the keys concerning which it was said, Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

¹¹

Thirdly they adduce that word of Aug. in book 5 On the One Baptism, where he says. As the Father sent me, so I send you; when he had said this, he breathed and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, etc. Therefore if all the apostles bore the person of the Church, and thus this was said to them as though it were said to the Church herself, the peace of the Church forgives sins, and alienation from the peace of the Church retains sins, not according to the judgment of men but according to the judgment of God.

¹²

Fourthly they adduce that word of Aug. on Ioan., sermon 124, where speaking of the Church he speaks thus. Of this Church the apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostolate, bore in a general way the figure of her person: but as to what properly pertains to him, in nature he was one man, by grace one Christian, by abundance of grace one and the same first apostle. But when it was said to him, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind upon earth etc., it signifies the whole Church which in this age is shaken by diverse temptations.

¹³

The fourth supposition is that the things said among the holy doctors to be in the universal Church, or given to the universal Church, are understood as given to the universal Church, as to the whole body or to all her members conjointly. They believe this supposition to be true because the name Church is a collective name, and because the universal sign seems to distribute for all. With this supposition premised, they adduce for their conclusion many authorities of the holy fathers. First is that of Jerome¹⁴ in ch. omnibus, 24, question 1, where he speaks thus. All things considered, I think I do not rashly say that some are so in the house of God that they themselves are the same house of God which is said to be built upon the rock. And after a few words. Which house also received the keys and the power of loosing and binding. Secondly they adduce that word of Augustine¹⁵ on Christian Doctrine, where he speaks thus. There is the Church, the body of Christ, as the apostolic doctrine commends, which is also called the body. And it follows below. These keys therefore he gave to his Church, that the things she loosed on earth should be loosed also in heaven, and the things she bound on earth should be bound in heaven, that whosoever did not believe his sins to be forgiven in his Church, they would not be forgiven him. Thirdly they adduce that authority of Augustine¹⁶ on the canonical epistle of Ioan., Homily 10, speaking thus. Where the forgiveness of sins is, there is the Church. How the Church? For to her were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that the things she loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven, and the things she bound on earth should be bound in heaven. Fourthly they adduce that word of the Extra¹⁷ on the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith, in ch. Firmiter, where it says that no one can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist except a priest who has been ordained according to the keys of the Church; he does not say of Peter (they say) nor granted to Peter and through him to others, but to the apostles and their successors, whence Johannes Andreae in the Gloss says that the keys were granted not to Peter alone but to the other apostles.

¹⁸

Fifthly they adduce that word of Acts 20. Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you bishops to rule the Church of God which he purchased with his blood.

¹⁹

Sixthly they adduce what is found in the preface which the Church sings in the celebration of each of the apostles. Eternal shepherd, do not desert your flock, but guard it with continual protection through the blessed apostles, whom as vicars of your work you have granted to preside over the same as shepherds.

²⁰

The fifth supposition of theirs is that no power is ever read to have been given to Peter except together with the other apostles. They prove this supposition thus²¹, since if the grant of the power promised to Peter be sought, no place is found more apt than that of Matt. 18, Whatsoever you shall bind, whence it seems that that promise, To you I will give the keys etc., should be understood as the words of the grant declare; but those words are directed not to the person of Peter alone but principally to the Church, when he says, Amen amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth etc., from which authority some of the adversaries say certain things are noted. First that the keys of the kingdom of heaven of which it is said in Matt. 16, To you I will give etc., are here granted to the Church, since the same words by which the promise was made are here expressed, nor in the whole sacred canon of the Bible is another place found where it is more expressly read that the power of the keys was given to Peter or to the Church under the same words by which it was promised. Second it is noted that this grant is altogether established in stability, because a word of oath or assertion is added, Amen. Third that in the words a power granted to the Church is understood not limited and in certain cases but in all fullness, which they strive to prove from the sign of universality, whatsoever you shall bind and whatsoever you shall loose, arguing thus. If from that word, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, an unlimited fullness of power is noted in Peter, therefore equally from the other words a fullness of power will be noted in the Church, since quaecunque is of no less comprehensiveness than quodcunque. Therefore the fullness of power resides not only in the Roman pontiff but also in the universal Church herself.

²²

The sixth supposition of theirs is that just as to every creature to which God gave a certain period by which it is determined how long it can live or endure, he gave its own innate and intrinsic power by which it can preserve itself in its being and resist those adversaries working toward its destruction, so to the Church, which he willed to endure even to the end of the age, he gave the power and might by which she could preserve herself in her being, and the power by which she could rule herself, and the power by which she could resist adversaries or those striving toward her destruction. This (they say) is clear from the evidence of the terms²³, indeed with stronger reason, since Christ loved the Church herself more than others. This also seems to be noted (they say)²⁴ in the words said of the Church in her foundation etc.²⁵ For when he had said that upon himself as rock he would build the Church, he immediately adds, And the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.²⁶ From this also another thing is said in the Song²⁷ of the Church: she is perfect, terrible as an army set in array: but how would she be perfect in herself and terrible, if to preserve and defend herself she had no power and might on earth, but had to seek aid from without. For if the Church had from herself no authority to preserve herself, then for the time in which the Church would be without the Pope, or he himself were unwilling to protect her, she could not preserve herself in being, which no one of sound mind would assert. This power therefore the Church has from Christ the founder²⁸ by the very fact that she was founded, for preserving herself in her being, nor does she lose it through the creation of the Pope, because the principles of being and of preserving are intrinsic to anything whatever. Just therefore as the Church through the creation of the Pope does not fall short of the power of being, so neither of the power and might of ruling herself and preserving herself in her being. Afterwards, declaring what that power²⁹ and might of defending herself is, they say that it is the common sentence of the doctors that it is the power of the keys, namely the knowledge of discerning and the power of judging, binding and loosing. From this supposition, concluding the argument³⁰, that the power of the keys and the fullness of the same power was given to the community itself or the body of the whole Church.

³¹

The seventh supposition is that the fullness of power ought always to remain in the Church, for otherwise the Church would not seem sufficiently provided for; but in the Pope it cannot always remain, as is clear, since he does not always remain; therefore it must be said that it remains in the Church. This is confirmed³² by others saying that just as the rule of the city stands with the congregation of the citizens or the stronger and weightier part of that congregation, as Aristotle says in book 3 of the Politics, ch. 3, and conformably it must be said that the rule of the world stands with the congregation of men of the whole world or its weightier part, and the rule of the universal Church, the papacy being vacant, with the universal Church herself, which is represented through the general council, and with the council gathered it stands with the weightier part of that council. From all these things they conclude that the fullness of power resides not only with the Roman pontiff but also with the universal Church, and much more principally, inasmuch as in her it is immovably and indefectibly. Hence to the authorities of the saints saying that to Peter alone the fullness of power was given by Christ, or that the Roman pontiff alone was called into the fullness of power, they answer that through the word alone an exclusion of inferiors or of particular persons is made, but not of the community itself of the Church, and also that the word none does not distribute for the community but for singular persons.