Summa de Ecclesia

It now remains that we lastly satisfy the objection on which the adversaries chiefly rely to prove that the universal Church is superior to the Roman pontiff in authority and power of jurisdiction, saying that every one of the faithful, and consequently also the Roman pontiff, is remitted to the universal Church as to the supreme judge. Answering this, we say that this is false. And to the proof which they make from that passage of Matt. 18, Tell the Church, we say that the authority, rightly and catholically understood, does not support the adversaries. For other is the understanding of the aforesaid authority according to the interpretation of the holy and most illustrious doctors than what the adversaries pretend. For the declaration of this, since the adversaries are chiefly armed with this authority, it is to be noted that that saying of Christ, Tell the Church, is expounded in two ways according to the ordinary Gloss and the expositors. First thus: Tell the Church, namely as to a judge, by denouncing to it the fault of a brother to be corrected. In another way: Tell the Church, that is, to rebuke the offending brother before the Church, so that, according to Jerome in the ordinary Gloss, it may hold him in detestation, and he who could not be saved by shame may be saved by reproaches. With this noted, we shall do five things.¹ In the first we shall prove² that, expounding that Tell the Church as to a judge according to the literal sense, from which alone an efficacious argument is drawn, as both Dyon. and Aug. say, by the Church the universal Church spread throughout the world cannot be understood. Second, we shall prove that by this Tell the Church the universal Church gathered conciliarly cannot be understood literally either. Third, we shall prove that by the Church in the aforesaid authority the prelate is understood. Fourth, we shall solve the reasons adduced against this understanding. Fifth, we shall show also that from the literal sense that Tell the Church cannot rightly be understood, according to the second exposition by which it is expounded, that is, to rebuke before the Church, of the universal Church, whether dispersed or synodally gathered.

For the declaration of all these things we presuppose, with all the doctors of sacred Scripture, that the fraternal correction concerning which general doctrine is given in the aforesaid authority falls under precept. With this supposition³ laid down, let this be the conclusion: by the Church to which as to a judge you are commanded to denounce the sin of any offending brother, from the literal sense or from the intention of Christ, the universal Church spread throughout the world cannot be received. This conclusion is proved in many ways. And first thus: no one can be understood to be rightly assigned by any wise man as judge in any cause to whom it is impossible, or as it were impossible, to denounce the fault of the offender — this is manifest, for such a one would be assigned judge in vain; but to the universal Church dispersed throughout the world it is not, as it were, possible for the sin of any offending brother to be denounced at once, as is evident; therefore from the intention of Christ, the wisest legislator, by the Church to which as to a judge the fault of the offending brother is to be denounced, the universal Church dispersed throughout the world cannot be understood — the consequence is good. And it is confirmed: both because it is of the nature of law that it be possible, as Isidore says in ch. erit autem lex, dist. 4; and because, as Jerome says, let him be anathema who says that God commands anything impossible.

⁴

Secondly thus: to no one as to a judge does a wise legislator remit anyone who cannot go forth into the act or exercise of judgment by hearing complaints, condemning the guilty, or absolving the innocent — and this seems manifest; but the universal Church spread throughout the world cannot go forth into the act of judgment, as is manifest, since it is not gathered in one place; therefore the legislator Christ remits no man to the universal Church which is spread throughout the world as to a judge; therefore by the Church of which Christ says in the Gospel, Tell the Church, the universal Church cannot truly be understood.

Thirdly thus: to the universal Church, which is called the collection of all the faithful, neither in its individual members nor in all together as a university have been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven or the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as we have shown in the foregoing in manifest light; therefore to it as to a judge no one is remitted — the consequence is good, since whose is not the power, his is not the act, as Aristotle says in the book on sleep and waking; therefore it is false that anyone is remitted to the universal Church as to a judge. And this concerning the first point.

But the second point — namely that by the Church to which as to a judge every one of the faithful is said to be remitted, the universal Church gathered conciliarly cannot be understood from the intention of Christ or from the literal sense⁵ — is proved on many grounds. First, from the rarity of the congregation of the universal Church: plainly it is not to be believed that the wisest legislator would have set up in the Church, as universal and supreme judge for the correction of sinners, which is daily necessary in the Church, one whom it most rarely happens to sit for tribunal, and especially one who for many years would not come together for judgment. It is evident: for thus justice would perish, and correction would have no place; but the universal Church is rarely gathered — indeed, at times for more than a hundred years no universal council has been celebrated; therefore in no way is it to be believed that to such a judge the wisest Christ willed or ordained that his faithful be remitted. Second, the same is shown — even granting that some universal synod were always being celebrated — from the fact that the Christian people would be burdened with an insupportable burden if, for fulfilling the precept of fraternal correction, the faithful were bound to come to the universal Church actually gathered. Plainly the grievousness of this insupportable burden is repugnant to the sweetness of the law of Christ, according to that passage of Deut. 30: This commandment which I command thee this day is not above thee nor placed far off in heaven, that thou shouldst be able to say: which of us can ascend to heaven to bring it to us, that we may hear and fulfill it in deed? Nor is it placed beyond the sea, that thou shouldst complain and say: which of us can cross the sea and bring it to us, that we may be able to hear and do what is commanded? But it is very near — the interlinear Gloss: the commands of God are tempered and moderated to human strength; and in Matt. 11 the legislator himself says: For my yoke is sweet and my burden light. Plainly the precept of the divine law concerning fraternal correction would not be light if every one of the faithful, to fulfill it, were bound to come to a universal council actually in being. To which he would undoubtedly be liable to come if by the Church to which the sin of the offending brother is to be denounced the universal Church synodally gathered were to be understood from the intention of Christ. Wherefore it seems manifest that it is not of the intention of Christ the legislator to designate by the Church in the aforesaid authority the universal Church, whether dispersed or gathered. This reason is most confirmed from that place of the divine law where, in Deut. 17, judges are read of as being in the gates, and in 1 Macc. 14 as sitting in the streets — which is believed to have been established by God for this reason, that the administrators of justice might be had at hand and without difficulty, which cannot hold of universal councils.

Thirdly thus: women are bound to fraternal correction just as men are, and the poor just as the rich — this is manifest; but women are not remitted to the Church, neither dispersed nor synodally gathered, as to a judge to whom the committed fault of a neighbor is to be denounced, as is evident; therefore it follows that by that Tell the Church the universal Church, even actually synodally gathered, cannot rightly be received — the consequence is good, for otherwise women would be bound to go to universal councils to denounce the faults and misdeeds of offending men or women, and so all the faithful, whether poor or rich, which is absurd.

Fourth: nothing which is an impediment to justice, disturbing to the peace of the Church, an occasion of many schisms, and through which, by reason of the appeals which would intervene in every cause to that supreme judge, all the tribunals of prelates and judges would be left vacant, is believed to have been instituted by Christ, who is the king of justice and the lover of peace; but all these evils would follow if the gathered universal Church were instituted as judge to whom recourse would be had when a brother offended and did not hear the brother correcting him, and this is evident, since the Church is rarely gathered, and when gathered does not long remain gathered, nor could all the faithful of the world run together to it, nor even send denunciations of all such offending brothers, as is evident; therefore in no way is it to be said that by the Church the gathered universal Church is understood, even when it is said, Tell the Church.

Fifth thus: a universal council receives its institution and the strength of its authority from the Pope, as in dist. 17 throughout, and in Extra, on election, ch. significasti; therefore it follows that the Pope is not remitted to a universal council as to his superior judge — the consequence is manifest. Sixth, it is argued thus: universal councils have been introduced by human institution, as is evident in ch. canones, dist. 16 and 17; therefore by the Church, when it is said Tell the Church, a universal council cannot rightly be understood according to the literal sense. The consequence is evident, for otherwise the institution and celebration of a universal council would be by divine law and not only by human institution, which does not seem to be. Therefore it is manifest that by the Church to which as to a judge the sin of the offending and incorrigible brother is to be denounced, from the literal sense and from the intention of Christ the legislator, neither the universal Church dispersed throughout the world nor that synodally gathered can be understood. And this concerning the second point. But the third point — namely that by the Church to which as to a judge the sin of the offending and incorrigible brother is to be denounced, from the intention of Christ the prelate is to be understood⁶ — is proved by the manifold testimony of holy and most illustrious doctors. First, we argue manifestly from the fact that Christ said not to the universal Church dispersed or gathered, but to the apostles and their successors, the prelates of the Church: Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, where the Gloss of Jerome says thus: here he grants power to the apostles. The prelates of the community, therefore, are those to whom as to judges the faithful are remitted, and not the universities themselves.

Second, this same thing is evidently shown by the authority of blessed Chrysostom, who, expounding Matthew as is contained in the continuous Gloss, says: Tell the Church, that is, to those who preside over the Church. Third, the same is argued from the Gloss of the Decretum on ch. si peccavit, 2, q. 1, which reads thus: Tell the Church, that is, to the priest. Fourth, the same is shown from the interpretation of the apostolic see in ch. novit, in Extra, on judgments, where that Tell the Church is interpreted and expounded of the pastor and ruler of the universal Church. Fifth, it is shown by the authority of blessed Thomas, who, both in bk. 4, dist. 19, and in 2-2, q. 24, in the matter of fraternal correction, expounds Tell the Church, that is, to the prelate presiding in judgment. Sixth, by the authority of the same St. Thomas in the treatise on fraternal correction, where, expounding the aforesaid authority, he says: the precept of correction can pertain to all, or to prelates; if to all in common, then Church here is not called a congregation but the prelate; if it pertains to prelates, then the sense is: Tell the Church, that is, to the congregation of the faithful, and he must be excommunicated before it, so that he be separated from the Church by sentence of excommunication, and until he returns he must be avoided by the Church and held as a heathen and a publican. To the same effect is St. Thomas on Matthew, saying: Tell the Church, that is, to the whole multitude, that he may be confounded, and he who would not be corrected without confusion may be corrected with confusion — for confusion brings grace. Or: Tell the Church, that is, to the judges, that he may be corrected, according to that passage of Deut. 22: If a man beget a stubborn and unruly son, he shall take him and bring him to the elders of the city. Thus far St. Thomas. Seventh, it is evident from the opinion of the lord Altisiodoren. in his Summa, bk. 3, rubric 31, how this precept is to be understood, If thy brother sin against thee, etc., whose opinion is almost in the same form as that set down by St. Thomas in the treatise on fraternal correction. Eighth, to the same effect is the opinion of the lord Hugh the Cardinal, the first postillator of the Bible, who, following the two glosses set down in the continuous Gloss — of which one says, Tell the Church, that is, to those who preside over the Church, and the other says, Tell the Church, that is, to the whole Church, that he may have greater shame — says thus on Matthew: if a private person corrects, it is to be expounded thus: Tell the Church, that is, convict him before the prelate of the Church through the witnesses whom he refused to hear when they corrected him, and this according to the first Gloss; but if the prelate corrects, the sense is: Tell the Church, that is, before the Church, that is, the congregation of the faithful, he is to be excommunicated. Ninth, the venerable master Nicholas Gorr. pursues almost formally the same opinion on Matthew. Tenth, to the same effect is the lord Albert the Great, who thus expounds on Matthew: Tell the Church, that is, to the prelate in assembly or in synod, and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican, that he may be corrected according to the judgment of the prelate. Thus far Albert. Eleventh, to the same effect is the common postillator, Master Nicholas of Lyra, who thus expounds on Matthew: Tell the Church, that is, to the prelate. Twelfth, it is confirmed from the practice and custom observed by the holy fathers and by the whole body of the faithful from the very beginning of the nascent Church. But it is manifest that the practical observance in the Church of God concerning the observance of the precept or order of fraternal correction always was, and is, to denounce the sin of the offending brother to the prelate, and not to the universal Church, whether dispersed or gathered. Since therefore the custom of observance is the interpreter of the law, as Augustine says in the book on lying, from the deeds of the saints we gather what we ought to hold in the Scriptures. It is manifest that the true and proper and principal understanding of the aforesaid authority is that by the word Church, to which as to a judge denunciation is to be made, or to whom the faithful is remitted, the prelate of the Church ought to be understood or received, and not the universal Church, whether spread throughout the world or synodally gathered. With these testimonies considered, it is most ridiculous and quite abominable that the adversaries, despising the testimonies and assertions of so many saints and fathers and doctors, presume to expound sacred Scripture at their own will, like those of whom Pope Clement speaks in ch. perlatum, dist. 37, saying: It has been reported to us that certain men dwelling in your parts oppose sound doctrines, and, as appears, are seen to teach not according to the tradition of the fathers but according to their own sense. And let this much have been said concerning the third article. Fourth, it remains to answer⁷ the reasons of the adversaries. To the first⁸ — when it is said that by the Church the prelate cannot be understood because Christ spoke to Peter, who was to be the prelate of the Church, and no one is remitted to himself, and consequently not the prelate but the universal Church is to be understood in the way in which it can be had, namely synodally — to this I answer that the reason does not hold. For which, first it is to be noted that this doctrine of fraternal correction given by Christ is general, regarding all the faithful, and not Peter alone, although the discourse was directed to him specially in the figure of the whole Church as a sign of his principate to which he had been elected by the Lord; and thus Christ the legislator willed to bind both subjects and prelates to the observance of this precept. But as we recalled above from the opinion of blessed Thomas in the treatise on fraternal correction, and of Hugh the Cardinal and Master Nicholas Gorre expounding on Matthew according to the two ordinary glosses, this text is understood in two ways: one is the understanding of this name Church when a private person corrects, and another when a public person does. For if a private person corrects, then the sense is: Tell the Church, that is, to the prelate; but if a public person corrects, then the sense is: Tell the Church, that is, to rebuke him before the congregation or multitude, so that, as the Gloss says, he may suffer greater shame; or to excommunicate him before the congregation, so that, as Jerome says in the Gloss, by the detestation of many he who could not be saved by shame may be saved by reproaches. But since in this way for a prelate to be remitted to the Church is not to be remitted to a superior or to a judge, as is evident of itself, it is manifest that the reason of the adversaries does not prove its intent. Moreover, the aforesaid second reason does not proceed, since it does not seem unfitting that anyone be remitted to himself considered in one and another relation. For the prelate, as St. Thomas says in bk. 4, dist. 19, q. 2, can be considered in two ways: either according as he presides in judgment — and thus to tell the prelate, he says, is to tell the Church — in which way a person constituted in prelacy can by himself, as he is a private person, be remitted to himself as he is a public person; and then to tell the Church is nothing other than to go forth into the act of judgment by punishing and correcting the offending brother who has been denounced. This blessed Gregory, writing to John the patriarch of Constantinople concerning the usurpation of the title universal, letter 265, shows, saying: We indeed, in whom such and so great fault is committed through nefarious daring, keep what Truth commands, saying: If thy brother sin against thee, rebuke him between thee and him alone; but if he will not hear thee, tell the Church; but if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican. I therefore through my responsales once and twice with humble words strove to rebuke what is sinned in the whole Church; through myself I write; whatever I humbly ought to do I have not omitted; if I am despised in my correction, it remains that I ought to employ the Church. Thus far Gregory. Where to go to or employ the Church is to apply ecclesiastical censure, as he did without convoking for this any universal council. Moreover, in this way Nicholas the Pope says in ch. praecipue, where he thus speaks to king Lothair: Moreover, beware lest at any time we employ two or three witnesses according to the command of the Lord — nay rather, let us tell this to the holy Church — and, what we do not wish, thou henceforth become to all a heathen and a publican. But that there by the Church he understands no other judge than himself is evident from the Gloss, which on the same passage says: therefore in a cause of denunciation the same man can be judge and accuser and witness, as in Extra, on simony, ch. licet. Moreover, blessed Peter himself, in whose person this divine constitution first came forth, without telling it to the universal Church or convoking a universal council, by his own authority condemned Ananias and Sapphira his wife. Plainly it would be most dangerous to assert that blessed Peter and the other holy fathers were transgressors of the divine precept, who proceeded by their own authority to the correction of sins without denouncing to the universal Church. And let it suffice to have said this in reply to the first reason.

⁹ To the second reason — when it says that the name Church is collective, and consequently by the Church the prelate cannot be understood but the university — I answer that the reason is nothing: for oftentimes by the name of the community the prelate or prince of it is expressed and understood. And the reason is: since, as Aristotle says in bk. 9 of the Ethics, the city is that which is most principal in it, whence what the prelate does the Church is said to do. Add that it is understood of that part of the university which is capable of jurisdiction, not of the whole which is not capable. Or it can be understood of the whole Church according as the sentence of the judge is denounced to the Church. To the third¹⁰ reason — when it says that the ordinary Gloss says Tell the Church, that is, to the whole Church, and thus consequently that letter is not to be expounded of the prelate — I answer that that reason does not hold: for that Gloss does not favor the proposal of the adversaries but rather weakens their intention, if the Gloss is read integrally in the manner of those who study not contentions but the inquiry of truth; but that Gloss reads thus: Tell the whole Church, that he may suffer greater shame. In which word no authority is attributed to the community, whence there follows in the Gloss: all these things follow excommunication, which must be done through the mouth of the Church, that is, through the priest. Where he manifestly intimates that the authority of judgment is not with that community of the Church but with the prelate, who is the mouth and head of the Church — by whose excommunicating or punishing, that whole Church which is his body, by whose assent and approval he pronounces the sentence of condemnation against the contumacious brother, is said to act with him. And thus it is evident that that Gloss does not intend to say that when the sin of the offending brother is commanded to be denounced to the community of the Church, it is denounced to it as to a judge, but as before whom that contumacious brother himself is to be rebuked or excommunicated. In what manner that totality of the Church of which the Gloss speaks, when it says Tell the Church, that is, to the whole Church, is also to be understood, we shall explain below in the following article; and this concerning the fourth. It now remains to declare what we promised in the fifth place¹¹, namely to prove that from the literal sense that Tell the Church, that is, rebuke or excommunicate before the Church, could not rightly be understood of the universal Church dispersed or synodally gathered. This we easily show from the reasons by which we proved that even according to the first exposition the universal Church could not be received under the name of the Church when it is said, Tell the Church, namely to the judge. First, from the impossibility of denouncing or rebuking anyone before the whole universal Church spread throughout the world — for the faithful constituted in diverse regions of the world could not fulfill this. Second, from the insupportable burden with which the Christian people, and also the prelates, would be burdened if the faithful were bound to come to the universal Church gathered to rebuke any contumacious brother, or the individual prelates to excommunicate him. Plainly this would be an insupportable burden which the sweetness of the divine law does not suffer, as we showed above. Third, because from such difficulties justice would perish, and all discipline from the Christian commonwealth, since the execution of justice could rarely be made. Therefore that totality of the Church of which it is said in the aforesaid Gloss, Tell the Church, is not to be received so universally that by the whole Church the universal Church is to be understood, but is to be received strictly: namely at times for the college of the lord cardinals, at times for the congregation of one convent, at times for the congregation of one community of one people, at times for the congregation of one household. For in this accommodated speech sacred Scripture oftentimes uses the name of the universal Church, as the Apostle says at the end of Romans: Gaius my host, and the whole Church, salute you, where by the whole Church he understands only the province of Gaius, as the Gloss says. And this concerning the fifth article, and consequently concerning the answer to that authority of Matthew, ch. 18: Tell the Church.