Summa de Ecclesia

Now let us answer the eighth objection, taken from the fact that the Church is named queen. But we say this consequence is null: the Church is called queen, therefore she is greater than the Pope in authority of jurisdiction. For which and for many like things it is to be noted that, since the gifts of grace making pleasing are distinct from the gifts of grace freely given, the gifts of grace making pleasing do not argue the gifts of grace freely given, as is clear, since from the fact that one is in charity it does not follow that he is a prophet, doctor, or prelate, nor conversely from the fact that one is a prophet, doctor, or prelate does it follow that he is in charity, or from the fact that one is a more excellent doctor or prophet, or a sublimer prelate, does it follow that he is in greater charity. Whence St Thomas in the question on truth, q. 12, art. 2, answering that authority of Matt. 11, There hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist, no one was simply greater, yet it does not follow that no one was more excellent than he in the degree of prophecy. And his reason is, because since prophecy is not a gift of grace making pleasing, he can be a greater prophet who is less in merit, says St Thomas.

Secondly, it is to be noted that the name of queen, as the name of king, can be attributed to one in two ways. In one way by account of virtuous rule by which one rules himself well, according to that saying of Seneca: If thou shalt have ruled thyself well, thou art worthy of the name of king. And Cassiodorus says, as in Ps. 37: Kings of the earth are they who by divine gift exercise lordship over their bodies. And Gregory in the Morals, book 11: They who know how to rule well the motions of their members are not undeservedly called kings. In this way we read being queen attributed to the devout rational soul and to the universal Church, which is gathered into one out of holy souls, as Aug. says on Ps. 44. But that holy souls are named queens is had in Cant. 6, where it is said: There are sixty queens, where the interlinear Gloss says: begetting sons from love of the bridegroom and of the kingdom. But of the universal Church there follows immediately: One is my dove, my perfect one, where the Gloss of Aymo has it thus: One is my dove, this which is the Catholic Church diffused through the whole world, which consists of queens and young maidens. Enough of this, since how the universal Church is called queen we have fully said in the first book, ch. 43. Thirdly, considering that in this way being queen regards the gifts of grace making pleasing, as is clear from the very prophetic text which was adduced by the adversaries, for the prophet says: The queen stood on thy right hand in gilded clothing, surrounded with variety, that is, adorned with the gold of charity and with variety of merits, as the Gloss, 2, says. And hence it is that the Church is not called queen in all her members, but in those which are in grace and charity. Whence the ordinary Gloss on that word of Cant. 6, There are sixty queens etc., says thus: Queens are those who serve with regard to the heavenly kingdom. And therefore they are said to be sixty, because by love alone of the commandments of God they have perfection of works. Or because they make the five corporeal senses obey the rule of apostolic doctrine. From which it is clear that the Church will be called queen in those members which, disposing the five senses of their bodies to the rule of the divine law, draw near through grace and charity to the throne of the eternal king. From which it is most openly gathered that it often happens that the Church has a higher degree of ecclesiastical authority and power in those in whom she will not have the aforesaid name of queen, as in evil prelates, or evil-living, ruling themselves ill, and conversely in many she will be queen in whom she has nothing of ecclesiastical authority, as is clear of many saints. Wherefore to argue from this appellation of queen a higher degree of superiority of ecclesiastical power seems to smack of the error of the Waldensians and John Wyclif, saying that the keys of the Church are with those alone existing in grace making pleasing. We have therefore it manifest that this consequence is null: the Church is queen, therefore she is superior to the Pope in authority of power, most of all if we consider that although the most blessed Virgin Mary is queen not only of men but also of angels, yet the keys of the kingdom of heaven were not given to her, but to the apostles, as is had in Extra, On Penance and Remission, ch. nova.

In the second way the name of queen can be attributed to the Church by account of prelation or principate, and this in the prelates, who are her rulers, as we have often said, and most of all in the Roman pontiff, to whom all the primates of the world bow the head by divine right, who also could be called kings, as we fully showed above in ch. 33, according to Ps. 44: The daughters of kings have delighted thee in thine honour, where the ordinary Gloss says: He calls the apostles kings, who rule themselves and others in virtues: whose daughters are all the churches begotten through them in faith. But what the adversaries say, that the Pope cannot be called king, is denied as false, since as we showed above, since a king is so called from ruling, as Isidore says, and the Roman pontiff is ruler of the universal Church, he could most fittingly be called king. And to the proof, when it is said that the rule of the Church in respect of the Pope is not royal, but political, we say that this is false, as has been sufficiently proved in the foregoing, most of all about ch. 2. And to the proof which they adduce from Matt. 20, Ye know etc., answer is given that that proof is of no force, since by those words of Christ it is not denied that the principate of the Church is royal or monarchical, but only that the principate and lordship of the prelates of the Church ought not to be after the manner of lords or princes of this world, who are for this, that they exercise lordship over their lesser ones, but prelates, that they serve. Whence blessed Chrysostom on that word says thus: The princes of the world are for this, that they exercise lordship over their lesser ones, but the princes of the Church, that they serve their lesser ones, that they neglect their own advantage and procure that of their lesser ones, thus Chrysostom. But what they adduce last, that Christ fled lest they make him king, is foolishly adduced nor does it make for the point, since he is said to have fled lest they make him king for this reason, as St Thomas says on John: first, because since he himself was truly king, he would have derogated from his dignity if he received a kingdom from men, who was so king that by sharing in him all kings are kings, Prov. 8: By me kings reign. Secondly, because he would have prejudiced the brightness and strength of his doctrine had he received it from men, for so he worked and taught, that the whole be ascribed to divine virtue and not to human favour, John 5: I receive not brightness from men. Thirdly, that he might teach us to contemn worldly dignities, John 13: For I have given you an example etc. Ecclus. 7: Seek not leadership from man. And so it is clear that that authority in no way proves the point of the adversaries.