Summa de Ecclesia

THE ELUCIDATION in the foregoing, from the amplitude and superiority of the primacy of the Roman pontiff, is evident in the clearest light: that the true and indubitable Roman pontiff, outside the case of heresy, by the sublimity of his principate has no superior judge on earth. This conclusion, although it is held in the foregoing by the most open consequence, is nevertheless demonstrated for the ampler illustration of the truth in manifold ways: first, by reasons; second, by examples of sacred Scripture; third, by the authorities of the holy fathers; fourth, by the definitions of sacred councils; fifth, by the determination of the apostolic see; sixth, by the opinion and doctrine of the most illustrious doctors. Concerning the first way¹, namely through reasons, it is argued: first thus — he who is superior to all on earth has no superior judge on earth. This proposition is evident, since the same cannot with respect to the same or in the same way be superior and inferior; but the Pope is superior to all Catholics, since he is their prince and head, as we showed above both from the sacred Scriptures and from the testimonies of the holy fathers. Therefore the Roman pontiff has no superior judge on earth. Whence the Gloss on that passage of the Psalm, Against thee only have I sinned, says: because the king is superior to all, therefore he is to be punished by God alone, who is greater than he; if anyone of the people err, he sins both against God and against the king; but the king has no man to judge his deeds, and therefore he says: Against thee only have I sinned. This reason is confirmed: if the Pope outside the case of heresy had any superior judge on earth, that judge would be either the power of some secular prince or the power of a universal council — this seems manifest from a sufficient division. Not a secular power, as is evident and is gathered in open light from many sources, as from ch. Suscipitis, dist. 10, which is of Gregory Nazianzen, and from ch. Diffinimus, which is of the eighth universal synod. Neither can it be said that it is a universal council — this is evident, since a council does not have a power superior to the power of the Pope; indeed the very power of a council, since it is from the power of the Pope, as in ch. Significasti, on election, and dist. 17 throughout, is one and the same with it by a unity of order and dependence, as we say of the light of the stars and of the sun; and consequently a universal council cannot be the judge of the true and indubitable Pope, since ordinary judgment cannot be exercised except through a superior power, as in ch. Inferior, dist. 21. Second thus: among all things ordered to one another, the first act upon the later, and not conversely; but the Roman pontiff is first and supreme in the whole order of the Church; therefore his it is to correct and judge others, and not conversely. The consequence is manifest, and the antecedent is evident. Third thus, confirming the same reason: as in the order of the whole universe with respect to the being of nature, in the genus of movables and movers there is no process to infinity nor retrogradation of order, as Aristotle demonstrates, but one is reached which so moves all that it is moved by no other in that genus, so it seems must be said in the order of the ecclesiastical universe with respect to the being of discipline: that one must be reached who has to correct and judge all, and in that order can be judged by no one. The consequence seems known, since the beauty of divine wisdom shines forth not less in the genus of grace than in the genus of nature. But this is the Roman pontiff, who in the genus of rulers and judges holds the supreme place, as prince and ruler of the whole Church. Therefore on earth he has no superior judge. Fourth thus: he than whose authority there is no greater judgment on earth has no superior judge on earth. This is manifest of itself, and is openly gathered from ch. Inferior, dist. 19. But the Roman pontiff is such: for Pope Nicholas says in ch. 9, q. 3: It is indeed evident that the judgment of the apostolic see, than whose authority there is no greater judgment, is to be retracted by no one, nor may it be lawful for anyone to judge of its judgment. Therefore it follows that the Roman pontiff has no superior judge on earth. Fifth thus: he who is reserved to the judgment of God alone has no judge on earth to whose judgment he is subject. But the causes of the Pope are singularly reserved to the divine judgment; therefore as long as he remains Pope he has God alone as judge. The consequence is known; the major is evident; the minor is had in ch. aliorum, q. 3, where Pope Symmachus thus says: The causes of other men God has willed to be terminated by men, but the prelate of this see He has reserved to His own arbitration without question — namely that the successors of the blessed apostle Peter owe their innocence, that is, the account of their innocence, to heaven alone, as the Archdeacon expounds. Sixth thus: the Roman pontiff is the first and supreme vicar of Christ, bearing His place in the Church, as shown above, and thus his power is not primary but delegated or vicarial; but such a power has above it none but the principal power by which it was instituted, unless the principal has submitted it to another. But it is not found that Christ, who is the principal rector and pastor of the Church, submitted the Roman pontiff, His vicar, to any person or community; but as the holy fathers say, as in ch. Aliorum already adduced and in ch. Facta subditorum, God reserved to Himself the judgment of him. Therefore the same follows as before. Seventh: a power from which it is not lawful to appeal has no superior on earth. From an inferior to a superior it is lawful to appeal, 2, q. 7, Placuit; but from the Pope it is not lawful to appeal, 9, q. 3, ch. Ipsi sunt, etc. Therefore the Pope has no superior judge on earth.

The second way², namely by examples of sacred Scripture, the same conclusion is stated. Ex. 19: Whosoever touches the mount shall be stoned, and in 2 Kings 6 it is had that Oza was slain by the Lord because he touched the ark. By the ark and the mount the prelate is understood, but by the beast and Oza are designated the subjects, as is noted, 2, q. 7. From these we are manifestly instructed, by the very punishment, that they grievously offend the divine majesty, whether dispersed or gathered, who presume to touch their prelate for the sake of correction. Moreover, the history of the kings teaches this same thing, 1 Kings 24, where it is had that although Saul had already been rejected by the Lord, and from envy sought David, the elect, unto destruction, nevertheless David, grieving sorely, struck his own heart because he had cut off the hem of his cloak, and said to the men who strove to extinguish Saul: The Lord be merciful to me that I do not this thing to my lord, the anointed of the Lord, that I lay my hand upon him, for he is the anointed of the Lord. Whence Gratian says in the place aforenamed: by Saul are understood the prelates, and by David the subjects. But he cuts off the cloak of the king who strikes his prelate with a sentence of damnation, which is by no means lawful for subjects, since the deeds of the shepherd are not to be struck with the sword, although they may rightly seem to be reprehended, as in ch. Oves, 2, q. 7, which will be adduced below. This history is deemed to serve our purpose most if we hear Augustine in the first book of questions on the new and old testament, thus asking and answering: for what reason does David call Saul the anointed of the Lord and defer to him, not unknowingly, after God had departed from him? Because the tradition in the office of the royal order is divine: therefore Saul, still placed in that same tradition, is to be honoured, lest he should seem to do injury to God, who decreed honour to these orders. For the king does not have the image of God as the bishop of Christ does; as long therefore as he is in that tradition he is to be honored, if not for himself, yet for the order. Whence the Apostle says to all: be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but from God; whatsoever are, are ordained of God. Moreover, this is confirmed from that passage of Luke 12, where the Savior says: Who thinkest thou is the faithful and prudent dispenser whom the Lord has set over His household? — the interlinear Gloss: the Church — that he give them in due time the measure of wheat; blessed is that servant whom when the Lord comes, etc. And there follows: But if that servant say in his heart: My Lord delays to come, and begin to strike the menservants and maidservants, and to eat and drink and be drunken. And there follows: The Lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopes not and in the hour that he knows not — the Gloss: the judgment either of death — and will divide him — the Gloss: from the consortium of the faithful — and will set his portion with the unbelievers. Thus far there. Behold, the Saviour reserves to Himself the judgment of the delinquent servant, namely the supreme pontiff, whom He constituted pastor and ruler over His household, that is, the Church.

The third way³ is demonstrated by the authorities of the holy fathers and of the Roman pontiffs in the aforesaid conclusion. And first to this effect is blessed Anacletus the Pope and martyr of Christ, who, as is found in the canon on election, dist. 79, thus says: The election of the supreme pontiffs the Lord reserved to Himself, although He had granted their election to good priests and spiritual peoples — where the Gloss says: and thus the rule fails, to which institution and destitution belong, 16, q. 2, at the end. Second, to this effect there is expressly the authority of blessed Boniface the Pope and martyr, who in ch. si papa, as is had, says: Of this one, namely of the Roman pontiff, no one presumes to rebuke the fault, since he himself, about to judge all, is to be judged by no one, unless he be found devious from the faith. But to what the Gloss says here, answer will be made below. Third to the same effect is the authority of Innocent, who in ch. nemo, 9, q. 3, thus says: No one shall judge the first see, since it is judged by no one. For the judge shall be judged neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by kings, nor by the people. These words come to be understood severally and jointly. Whence the Gloss here says: an argument that a council cannot judge the Pope, as in Extra, on election, Significasti. Fourth to the same effect is Pope Gelasius, from the same cause and question, in ch. Ipsi sunt, where he thus says: These are the canons which willed the ecclesiastical appeals of the whole Church to be deferred to the examination of this see, but sanctioned that from it appeal ought never at all be made — and thereby that it judge concerning the whole Church, and come to the judgment of none, nor did they ever prescribe that its judgment be judged, and they established that its sentence ought not to be dissolved, whose decrees they rather commanded to be followed. From these words it is manifestly given to be understood that the Roman pontiff is superior to all and judge of the whole Church, and not conversely. Fifth to the same effect is Pope Gelasius, from the same cause and question, in ch. Cuncta, where, writing to all bishops, he thus says: The Church throughout the world knows that the most holy Roman Church has the right of judging concerning all, nor may it be lawful for anyone to judge concerning its judgment. From these words is had the same as before, where that which he says is singularly to be weighed: The Church throughout the world knows. From which it is manifestly gathered that the doctrine of the adversaries is against the ancient faith and doctrine of the universal Church. Sixth this is gathered from the allocution of the holy Pope Adrian in the council at Rome, which was also read in the eighth synod, where he thus says: If indeed we read that the Roman pontiff judges concerning the prelates of all churches, we do not read that anyone judges concerning him — although anathema was said to Honorius by the Orientals after death, yet it is to be known that it was because he had been accused on a matter of heresy, for which cause alone it is lawful for inferiors to resist the motions of their superiors or freely to reprehend their depraved opinions. Thus far he. Note however what he says: that by the Orientals and after death, since that Honorius was never found, neither while he lived nor after death, to hold in Christ one only will and one operation: whence neither by the apostolic see nor by the western fathers was he so judged; indeed Pope Agatho, under whom that sixth synod was celebrated, condemning those who posit in Christ one will only and one operation, namely Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Cyrus, made no mention of that Honorius, whom the Orientals say favoured the errors of Sergius. Whence it is believed that the Orientals did this, deceived concerning the aforesaid Honorius by evil and false and sinister information. Whence Emmanuel Calecas, also a Greek, a man of great wisdom, a brother of the order of preachers, in his treatise against the Greeks says that blessed Maximus, who was at the time when the sixth synod was gathered, in the disputations against Pyrrhus the patriarch of Constantinople, who had been condemned in that same synod, clears the aforesaid Honorius, whom some were accusing as a heretic, though the heretic Pyrrhus then ruled the church of Constantinople and put forward Honorius as the bulwark of his error. To which he replied that Honorius cultivated piety, and that his meaning was consistent with what he himself said, and at the same time he set forth his words to Pyrrhus, asserting that certain men, ignorant of his meaning or else calumniating, had spread a false report about him. Thus far he.

Seventh, Innocent III testifies the same thing, who in the sermon for the consecration of the Roman pontiff which begins Quis putas fidelis est servus says: Faith is so necessary to me that, while I have God as judge concerning other sins, for the sin alone which is committed in faith I could be judged by the Church — for he who does not believe is already judged. Thus far he. Eighth, the same lord Innocent testifies in another sermon of the same solemnity whose beginning is Qui habet sponsam sponsus est, where he thus says: On account of fornication alone — I do not say carnal but spiritual, since the marriage is not carnal but spiritual, that is, on account of the error of unbelief, since he who does not believe is already judged — and this is understood in the Gospel which you have heard, You are the salt of the earth, etc. Thus far he. Ninth, St. Eusebius the Pope testifies this same thing, who in ch. oves, 2, q. 7, thus says: The sheep which are committed to their shepherd can in no way reprehend him, unless he has strayed from the faith, nor accuse him at all, since the deeds of the shepherd are not to be struck with the sword, although they may rightly seem to be reprehended. From these words it is manifestly evident that as long as the Roman pontiff has not strayed from the faith, he can be judged by none of the faithful, however gathered together. Consequently the aforesaid conclusion is shown by the fourth way⁴, namely by the definitions of sacred councils. First indeed this is evident from the definition of the universal Roman council, under the presidency of blessed Sylvester, wherein it is read as defined — and it is the last canon of that same council: No one shall judge the first see, since all desire justice to be tempered by the first see, since the judge shall be judged neither by all the clergy nor by all the people — and there subscribed 284 bishops, and 42 priests, and 5 deacons, and Augustus Constantine, and Helena his mother. Second, this same sentence is gathered from the profession of the synod which on the occasion of blessed Pope Marcellinus, who for fear of death had burned incense to idols, came together copiously at Rome — concerning which in ch. Nunc autem, dist. 21, where, the Pope confessing his guilt and offering himself ready to receive whatever the fathers of the council should wish to impose upon him, the synod did not dare to pronounce sentence against him. And assigning the reason, it says: since the first see is judged by no one — where the Archdeacon says: except for heresy, dist. 40, ch. papa. Third, the same is confirmed from the Chalcedonian council in the sentence against Dioscorus, in which the holy fathers most gravely noted the presumption of Dioscorus, because he had dared in the second synod to give excommunication to blessed Pope Leo — concerning which in ch. Tantum, dist. 21. Fourth, this same sentence is strengthened by the profession of that synod which was gathered at Rome by mandate of king Theodoric over the charges against Pope Symmachus, in which, when the aforesaid king ordered that the holy synod judge concerning the things impugned to the venerable Symmachus by the adversaries, the synod itself answered concordantly that the prelate of the apostolic see is not subject to the judgment of inferiors — concerning which in § Hinc etiam, dist. 17, where Hugh says on the word would be subject: except in the crime of heresy, as in dist. 40, si papa. Fifth, this same sentence is confirmed by the definition of that synod which is read to have been lawfully gathered at Rome over the crimes which certain evil men had attempted to charge against Pope Sixtus, where, when the Emperor Valentinian, being present, heard the synod saying that it is not lawful to give sentence against the Roman pontiff, he rose and left his own judgment to the arbitration of the prelate — concerning which in the aforesaid § Nunc autem, dist. 21. Sixth, this same sentence is had as synodally defined from the Roman synod of 219 bishops under the presidency of the most holy Pope Symmachus in the times of king Theodoric, where it is thus had: It is not necessary to establish new things concerning these matters, but to recite and confirm the old. And it has been decreed and confirmed synodally by many of our predecessors that the sheep which have been committed to their shepherd presume neither to reprehend him, unless he has strayed from right faith. Seventh, this same sentence is strengthened by the definition of the eighth universal synod of Constantinople, in which among other things it is read as defined: Moreover, if a universal synod has been gathered, and whatever ambiguity has arisen concerning the holy Roman Church, it behooves with veneration and with fitting reverence to inquire concerning the question proposed and to receive a solution, and to profit or make progress — yet not boldly to give sentence against the supreme pontiffs of elder Rome. Where the words of this holy synod are to be noted. For it says that one must not dare or presume to give sentence against the Roman pontiff, and this it says most reasonably, since if the Roman pontiff were to be judged by another than Christ outside the case of heresy, he would already not be supreme pontiff nor supreme and general vicar of Christ, since he would have a superior judge on earth. Eighth, the same sentence is gathered from that universal Lateran council in which Alexander III, as in ch. Licet, in Extra, on election, thus says: In the Roman Church anything is spiritually constituted, since recourse cannot be had to a superior — where the Gloss of Hostiensis: since there is none superior, but it is over all. And the same John, adding: therefore it is left to the judgment of God, 9, q. 3. Ninth, this same sentence is had from the definition made in the council of Constance by all the fathers of either obedience, and confirmed by Pope Martin, in which, as is had in the letter which the aforesaid Martin issued, it is had as to be held for an article of faith that the canonically elected Pope has supreme authority in the Church of God. From this determination it is most clearly had that the Roman pontiff, outside the case of heresy in which he falls from the papacy, would be subject to the judgment of no power but of God alone; otherwise the supreme power of the Church would not be in him but in another to whose judgment he would be subject — since, as is had in ch. inferior, dist. 21: Only the mightier see fittingly absolves the inferior, nor can anyone who is of lesser authority add to his judgments him who is of greater power, or subject him to his own definitions. Thus far there.

Fifth,⁵ namely by the determination of the apostolic see, the same truth is proved. For Pope Boniface VIII in his decretal extravagant letter which begins Unam sanctam, defining among other things, thus says: If the earthly power deviate, it is judged by the spiritual; if the lesser spiritual deviate, it is judged by the superior; but if the supreme, it can be judged by God alone, and not by man. Thus far there.

But concerning the sanctions of the apostolic see, Pope Agatho says in ch. sic, dist. 19, that all these sanctions of the apostolic see are to be received as confirmed by the divine voice of Peter himself.

Moreover, by the sixth way⁶, namely by the doctrine of the most illustrious doctors and by their most open opinions and determinations. For the venerable Hugh of St. Victor, most illustrious in letters and religion, in the second part on the sacraments, says on the Psalm thus: The power of the supreme pontiff was first instituted by God, and when it deviates it can be judged by God alone. The same opinion is followed by other most illustrious men, and especially masters in the theological faculty, as the lord Albert, St. Thomas in the fourth, dist. 19, Alexander of Hales in the 3rd, the lord Bonaventure the cardinal in the 4th, Peter of Tarentaise, Innocent V in the 4th, the lord Ulrich in his Summa, the lord Richard of Alta Villa in the 4th, the lord Peter de Palude, patriarch of Jerusalem, in his treatise on ecclesiastical power, Master Hervaeus in his treatise on ecclesiastical power, Master Augustine of Ancona in his Summa on ecclesiastical power, Brother Alexander de Al pido in his treatise on ecclesiastical power — who all most openly hand down and attest that the true and indubitable Roman pontiff, outside the case of heresy strictly taken, has no superior judge on earth, but only God in heaven, whose place he bears on earth. There are besides, of this conclusion, all the chief doctors of canon law, as Hostiensis, John Andreae, Guido, the Archdeacon, Innocent in diverse passages, and also the lord Alvarus in the book on the state and lament of the Church. By this opinion, confirmed by so many and such irrefragable testimonies, the presumptuous assertion of the adversaries is manifestly convicted, by which, against manifest reasons, against the traditions of the holy fathers, against the sacred councils and the definitions of the apostolic see, and also against the opinions of the most illustrious doctors and the chief men in the whole Church of God, they have not feared to dogmatize that the true and indubitable Roman pontiff, outside the case of heresy, for whatever mortal sin concerning which he appears incorrigible, is subject to the judgment of men.