Summa de Ecclesia

Although from the foregoing, both in the first book around ch. 38, the folly of the aforesaid error appears both in the clearest light and manifestly, so that there is no need to adduce other things for its disproof — especially since it has already been so condemned by the apostolic see in the extravagant of John 22 which begins Licet iuxta doctrinam apostoli — nevertheless, for the ampler illustration of the truth, we shall take care to disprove it with some authorities and reasons, few however. First occurs to us the definition of the eighth universal synod, which is had in ch. diffinimus, dist. 22; thus he says: We define that no one at all of the powerful presume to dishonor or attempt to remove from his own throne any of those who preside over the patriarchal sees, especially indeed the most holy Pope of elder Rome, etc. From this definition it is manifestly gathered that the ordinary judge of the Pope is not the Emperor or secular power. Second, to the same effect is blessed Gregory Nazianzen, who, writing to the emperors of Constantinople, thus says, as is had in ch. suscipitis, dist. 10: Receive ye gladly the liberty of the word of God; receive that the law of Christ subjects you to the sacerdotal power and submits you to these tribunals: for He has given also to us power, He has given a principate far more perfect than your principates. From these words the folly of the aforesaid error is manifestly clear: since by the law of Christ the secular principate is subjected to the spiritual power, it is impossible for the secular power to be the ordinary judge of the spiritual power. Third, to the same effect is what is read in ch. continua, 11, q. 1, concerning Constantine, who, when in the holy synod gathered at Nicaea he saw the complaint of certain clerics, to be brought before him, said: But you cannot be judged by anyone, you who are referred to the judgment of God alone. The same history is also set down in ch. sacerdotibus, 11, q. 1. From these words it is manifestly evident that Constantine, the most Christian Emperor, was not of that opinion that the Emperor is the ordinary judge of the Pope or of the clerics. From this reason Pope Nicholas concludes in ch. satis, dist. 96: It is evident enough that the pontiff is neither loosed at all nor bound by secular power, whom it is established was called God by the pious prince Constantine — whom we named far above — since it is manifest that God cannot be judged by men. Thus far he. Fourth, against the aforesaid error are all the authorities of the holy fathers and of the sacred councils set down in the eleventh question, first, which are several, by which bishops, and the remaining clerics constituted in sacred orders, are most strictly forbidden to be accused at all before a secular judge — whence in ch. placuit, 11, q. 1, and the canon of the African council expressly says: It has pleased us that whatever cleric seeks from the Emperor the cognizance of public judgments be deprived of his own honor. This prohibition, just and reasonable, since it was issued by the holy fathers, manifestly shows the folly of the aforesaid error of those saying that the Emperor, or the secular power, is the ordinary judge of the pope and clerics. Fifth, against the aforesaid error is ch. si imperator, dist. 96, where Pope John thus says: If the Emperor is Catholic — which we say, saving his peace — he is a son, not a prelate of the Church; what pertains to religion, it pertains to him to learn, not to teach. From these words the folly of the aforesaid error is also manifestly clear, for if the Emperor, being Catholic, is the son of the Pope, he cannot be the ordinary judge of his own father — for a son does not correct a father, but the reverse. For the law blushes at sons as correctors of parents, in the Authentics, on marriages, § si vero. Wherefore blessed Gregory, writing to Herman, bishop of Metz, in ch. quis dubitat, dist. 96, says to the point: Who doubts that the priests of Christ are deemed fathers and masters of kings and princes and of all the faithful; for it is known to be of wholly marvelous madness if a son strive to subjugate his father, if a disciple his master, and to subject by unjust bonds to his own power one from whom he believes he can be bound and loosed not only on earth but also in heaven. Thus far Gregory. Sixth, Innocent in ch. solitae, in Extra, on majority and obedience, most openly and wisely confutes the fatuity of the aforesaid error, where, writing to the Emperor Constantine, after many things he subjoins thus: Moreover thou shouldst have known that God made two great lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to preside over the day, and the lesser to preside over the night: each great, but the one greater. To the firmament therefore of heaven, that is, of the universal Church, God made two lights, that is, He instituted two dignities, which are the pontifical authority and the royal power; but that which presides over days, that is, over spiritual things, is greater; but that over the night, that is, over carnal things, is lesser — so that as great as is the difference between the Sun and the Moon, so great is known to be the difference between pontiffs and kings. Thus far he. Seventh, by reason it can thus be argued against the aforesaid error: an inferior is not the ordinary judge of his superior; but the Pope is superior to the Emperor and to every secular power; therefore the Emperor or secular power cannot be the ordinary judge of the Pope. The consequence is good; the major is manifest — for Pope Nicholas says in ch. inferior, dist. 21: We have shown clearer than the sun that no one who is of lesser authority can add him who is of greater power to his own judgments or subjugate him by his own definitions; the minor is also evident from the chapters brought forward above, especially from ch. si imperator and ch. duo sunt, dist. 96, and in ch. solitae, in Extra, on majority and obedience. Eighth thus: the spiritual power has to judge the earthly power if it be not good; therefore the earthly power is not the ordinary judge of the Pope, in whom the spiritual power resides in fullness: the consequence is good; the antecedent is evident in ch. Duo and in ch. Si Imperator, dist. 96, and in ch. Alius, 15, q. 1. Again it is evident by the authority of the venerable Hugh of St. Victor in the book on the sacraments, that the spiritual power judges the earthly, if it be not good; but the spiritual itself, first instituted by God, when it goes astray is to be and can be judged by God alone, as it is written below, 1 Cor. 2: The spiritual man judges all things, and himself is judged by no one. Ninth: as the Pope is not of the forum of the Emperor — neither by reason of the papacy, which he holds not from the Empire but from God alone, John 21: Feed my sheep, and dist. 21, in novo, nor by reason of any earthly thing which he holds from the Emperor. For if the Emperor made a donation to the Church of temporal things, he nevertheless made that donation free, nor did he make the Pope a feudatory or tenant or vassal, as is expressly stated, dist. 63, Ego Ludovicus; dist. 96, Constantinus. If therefore the Pope is not of the forum of the Emperor, it is false that the Emperor is his ordinary judge, in Extra, on competent forum, throughout.