Summa de Ecclesia

THERE ARE other adversaries who, although they do not assert that the pope is subject to the jurisdiction of the Emperor or of any secular power, nevertheless strive to affirm that the Roman pontiff, not only for heresy but for any notorious crime concerning which he appears incorrigible or would scandalize the Church, has as judge the universal Church, which could judge and punish him. And concerning this they do two things. For first they strive to answer¹ all the authorities which seem to say that the pope can be judged by no one unless he deviates from the faith, saying first that those distributive names, no one, none, are taken for the individual men of the congregation of the faithful, but not for the congregation itself which, being united, cannot be pluralized; and therefore they say that a distributive name cannot befit it, just as it cannot properly be said, every God, since there can be but one. They conclude therefore that in the aforesaid authorities, or the like, comparison is made of the pope to other persons of the Church as of a member and part to other members and parts of the Church, but not to the whole body itself which is the Church.

Secondly, they say² that the aforesaid authorities do not avail, because the judgment of the universal Church is called the judgment of God. In the second place they strive to show this opinion of theirs to be true by a manifold way: first by authorities of sacred Scripture; second by authorities of councils; third by authorities of doctors; fourth by reasons; fifth by examples.

The first way, and first from Matt. 18³, where Christ thus says to Peter: If your brother sins against you, etc. If he will not hear you, etc. There follows: Tell the Church. It is certain, however, that the pope is our brother, since there is one father, namely God, and one mother, namely the Church, to all the faithful; therefore it follows that the aforesaid authority extends to him: If he sins, etc., where therefore, having been corrected concerning his sin, he refuses to amend, it must be told to the Church, just as to other brethren, and this for no other end than that justice be done, for otherwise it would be said in vain; but judgment is made by a superior; therefore it seems that the pope has on earth a superior judge, namely the universal Church, which, should he prove incorrigible, can judge and punish him.

Secondly, argument is made from Gal. 2⁴, where Paul is read to have withstood Peter to his face because he was blameworthy; therefore if Paul did this, much more will the universal Church be able to resist the pope where it befalls him to err and danger threatens the Church; otherwise it would be in the power of one man to destroy or confound the Church, which is absurd.

Thirdly, argument is made from Acts 11⁵, where it is read that those who came from the circumcision reprehended Peter, disputing with him, saying: Why did you go in to men having the foreskin and eat with them? Therefore much more could the universal Church do this.

The second way argues by the authority, as they say, of the sacred councils. For they say that⁶ against the aforesaid conclusion there is a decree of the Council of Constance, in which they say it was decreed that a general synod legitimately gathered in the Holy Spirit has power immediately from Christ, which anyone of whatever state or dignity, even if papal, is bound to obey, etc. Likewise, second, there is the Council of Basel⁷, in which both in the second session and in the twelfth the aforesaid decree of the Council of Constance is resumed. From these it manifestly follows that the pope has a superior judge on earth.

The third way, namely by the authority of the doctors, they argue. And first by the authority of blessed Peter⁸, who is said to have spoken thus to blessed Clement, as is said in the letter of Clement himself to James: For if you are occupied with worldly cares, you will both deceive yourself and those who hear you; for you will not be able more fully to distinguish for any whomsoever the things which pertain to salvation; and from this it comes about that, as one who has not taught the things which pertain to the salvation of men, you shall be deposed.

Secondly, they argue from the authority of the Gloss⁹ in ch. Si papa, dist. 40, which runs thus: I believe that if his crime, namely the pope's, be notorious, any whatsoever by which the Church is scandalized, and he be incorrigible, he can on that account be accused. For contumacy is called heresy, as in 81, dist. Si qui presbyteri. Thirdly, they argue by this way¹⁰ with the authority of blessed Gregory, which is had in ch. Si quis, 2, q. 7, who speaks thus: If anyone wishes to rebuke us on this matter or asserts that we have acted beyond authority, let him come to the apostolic see, that there before the confession of blessed Peter he may justly dispute with me, so that one of us there may receive his sentence. Therefore it seems that the pope has a superior judge on earth. Fourthly, they argue by the same way¹¹ with the authority of blessed Thomas Aquinas, for they say that the same doctor says in the book on the rule of princes that if it pertains to the right of any community to provide itself with a king, by the same the king, once instituted, if turned into a tyrant, can be deposed and his power restrained, if he abuses the royal power tyrannically; but to the community of the Church pertains through the cardinals the right of electing the pope; therefore to the same pertains to correct and punish him if he scandalizes the Church. And so it appears that the pope has a superior judge on earth.

But they argue by reasons.¹² First thus:¹³ if the pope, should he deviate from the faith, can be judged by the Church, by ch. Si papa, dist. 40, therefore equally if he is found in any other crime by which the Church would be scandalized. The consequence is proved.¹⁴ First because it is not read in sacred Scripture that in a cause of faith God gave greater power to the Church than in other cases. For Christ in the giving of power used general terms, saying: Whatsoever you bind, etc., Matt. 18. Second¹⁵, because he who can do the greater can do the less, and where the greater is conceded the less is seen to be conceded, as the text says in ch. Ex parte, Extra de deci.

Secondly, they argue thus:¹⁶ no body seems sufficiently provided for unless a putrid member which can infect the whole body can be cut off; but the whole militant Church is one body ordained by Christ, as Paul says in Rom. 12: We are all one body in Christ. Of this body, however, the pope is one member, in that he is the head. If therefore it be harmful, notoriously scandalizing the Church, it follows that the body of the Church is not sufficiently provided for unless it could be cut off by her. Since therefore Christ did not fail in things necessary to the militant Church, it follows that through the Church the pope, not only if he be a heretic, but also where by any other notorious crime he scandalizes the Church, is subject to the judgment of the universal Church.

Thirdly, thus:¹⁷ if the pope, when sinning, could not be corrected and punished by others, for instance by the Church, it would follow that Christ had not perfectly and sufficiently ordained her nor duly provided for her. But this is heretical, since the works of God are perfect, Deut. 32. The consequence is proved, however, thus: because that community does not seem sufficiently ordained or provided for which cannot meet its own perdition or demolition. But so it would be with the Church in the case where the pope, apart from manifest heresy or notorious tyranny or another notorious crime, should strive to subvert or scandalize the Church, and the universal Church could not resist him by correcting and deposing him. For this would be to concede that power was given for destruction, against the Apostle and Acts 10.

Fourthly, thus:¹⁸ all that we owe the pope to avoid bodily death we owe him to avoid spiritual death; but in the case where the pope unjustly and without any cause wished to kill his neighbor, anyone is bound and able by right to hinder the pope. Therefore where the pope notoriously scandalizes the Church, where he leads the souls of the faithful to the pit of hell, anyone can and ought to hinder him. Fifthly, thus:¹⁹ if the pope wished to know another's wife or to seize his property, it is lawful to resist him. Therefore where the Church sees the pope himself scandalizing the faithful by evil morals, she can resist him and oppose him, especially since the Apostle says in 1 Tim. 4: Rebuke before all him who sins. Sixthly, thus:²⁰ if the pope is defamed by provident and honest men concerning some crime by which the Church is scandalized, I ask whether the pope is bound to purge himself of this or not. If you say not, against this: he who is bound to avoid scandal is bound to remove and allay it when aroused if he can. Therefore he ought to purge himself, as is read of Pope Damasus, accused by his subjects of adultery, as Jerome relates in his book on illustrious men. But purgation pertains to the sentence of judgments. Therefore it follows that on earth the pope has a superior judge. Seventhly, argument is made thus²¹, confirming the reason given: a prelate who is bound to free his subjects from a lesser loss or danger is bound a fortiori from a greater; but the pope is bound to snatch his subjects from temporal loss and danger, according to the text: Rescue the needy and the poor. Therefore much more from the spiritual, as for instance from the scandal had concerning him, but this by purging himself. Therefore the same as before; whence so did Sixtus, Leo, and Symmachus, Roman pontiffs, as is had in 2, q. 7.

The fifth way, also by six examples²², the adversaries strive to show that the Roman pontiff has a judge on earth: since, as they say, the universal Church has often corrected, judged, and punished supreme pontiffs, whether delirious from the faith or notoriously scandalizing the Church by depraved morals.