Summa de Ecclesia

The conclusion laid down above, namely that the Roman pontiff by reason of the excellence of his principate has no judge on earth apart from the case of heresy, has been so strengthened above by the testimonies of the holy fathers, so supported by irrefragable reasons, and so illumined by the lights of the sacred canons, that it would be deemed superfluous to bring in further testimonies. Whence nothing remains but to reply to the objections of the adversaries. But we shall do two things here. First, we shall show¹ that the replies given by the adversaries to the laws and sayings of the holy fathers who say that the pope is to be judged by no one are to be understood of individual persons and not of the whole community of the Church, which is easily gathered from many things. First, indeed, from the fact that the reason of superiority and of the dependence of the papacy on God alone, assigned by the doctors for why the pope is to be judged by no one, runs for the community itself just as for individual persons: for the Roman pontiff is superior in authority not only to individual persons, but also to the whole body of the Church, inasmuch as he is the shepherd and head of the whole Church. Second, their reply is shown to be empty from the text with the Gloss; for the text runs thus: No one shall judge the first see; there follows: For the judge shall be judged neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by kings, nor by the people. Behold, the text excludes from the power of judging the pope individual persons, and every community, both spiritual, which is designated by the name of clergy, and secular, designated by the name of people. Moreover the Gloss on the word, by the whole clergy, says: an argument that a council cannot judge the pope, as in Extra de elect. Significasti. Thus the Gloss. From this it is clear that the word no one in the aforesaid authorities is to be taken not only for individual persons severally, but also for individuals jointly or collectively. But what the adversaries say, that distributive names cannot properly befit the congregation of the faithful, which is one and incapable of pluralization, avails little: for names or such signs added to collective names, such as people, clergy, household, church, etc., are not taken distributively but collectively, for they signify that which is whole, as is that which is had in Heb. 3: As Moses, supply, was faithful in all his house, which is expounded, that is in his whole house, namely the synagogue of the Jews. Likewise in the same way seems to be taken that in 3 Kings 8: And the king turned his face and blessed the whole church. Likewise that in 1 Paral. 19: But he commanded the whole church: Bless our God; and the whole church blessed the Lord of their fathers. Likewise that in Matt. 2: All Jerusalem was troubled with him, that is the whole. And so in the aforesaid authority that phrase, nor by the whole clergy, is expounded, that is nor by the whole clergy, according also to the Gloss which says: an argument that a council cannot judge the pope.

Thirdly, that such is the understanding of the aforesaid laws is gathered more clearly than light from the confession and testimony both of the council gathered at Rome in the time of Marcellinus, concerning which in dist. 22, in ch. Nunc autem, and of the council gathered in the time of Pope Symmachus, concerning which in dist. 17. which manifestly confessed that the Roman prelate can be judged by no one, including even the universal council; otherwise they would not speak to the purpose. Fourthly, the same is gathered from ch. Si papa, dist. 40, where the text says that the pope is to be judged by no one unless he is found to deviate from the faith. It is clear, however, that it does not belong to any single person whatsoever to judge the pope even if he is found to deviate from the faith, but only to the universal council; therefore by the word 'no one' there are excluded not only single persons, but also the universality itself of the faithful, which is also manifestly had from this, namely that there may be conformity of this text with the other laws and the determinations of the councils, of which mention was made a little before.

Moreover the second reply of the adversaries², in which, replying to the authorities saying that the pope is reserved to the divine judgment, they say that the judgment of the congregated Church is the judgment of God, and so the pope does not seem absolved from the judgment of the universal Church, is null, because although the judgment of the Church is also God's, as is also said of any priest whatsoever, in de poeniten. dist. 3, par. Sed quem: that whom the priest judges God judges, whose person he bears. And in ch. Nemo, 11 q. 3, blessed Chrysostom says: Let no one contemn ecclesiastical bonds: for it is not man who binds, but Christ, who gave this power, and the Lord has made men of so great an honour; yet this is the judgment of God through men. But in the aforesaid authorities speaking of the pope all men are excluded from his judgment. Whence in ch. aliorum, 9 q. 3, it is had that God willed the causes of other men to be terminated through men, but reserved the prelate of that see to his own arbitrament without question; he willed the successors of blessed Peter to owe their innocence to him alone. Mark the word alone.

Likewise in ch. Electionem, dist. 79, blessed Anacletus pope and martyr says: The Lord reserved to himself the election of the supreme pontiffs, although he granted their election to good priests. Behold, how manifestly the reply of the adversaries does not answer the authorities of the holy fathers, but is manifestly opposed to them; and the same is shown by the other authorities which we brought in above. And this concerning the first point. But it remains to reply to the objections of the adversaries, to which, for the fuller illustration of the truth, we shall reply in five chapters according to the five ways in which they proceed. To the first objection therefore, taken from Matt. ch. 18: If your brother sins against you, etc., reply is made by denying the consequence.³ And to the proof, when it is said that the pope is a brother, we say that this does not avail: since although the pope is our brother by conformity of nature and by the religion of faith, he is also the prince and head of the whole universal Church, having supreme power in the Church. By reason of the first, namely that he is our brother, the aforesaid authority extends to him in that part in which simple fraternal correction is touched upon, which denotes a certain simple admonition, which, since it is an act of charity, extends to every neighbor whether superior or equal or inferior, just as the effect of charity itself. But by reason of the second, namely that he is prince and head, having supreme power in the Church, the aforesaid authority does not extend to him in that part in which, against one not receiving fraternal correction, denunciation is commanded to be made, because, since the denunciation of one not acquiescing in fraternal correction is ordained to this end, that such a one be corrected by punishment who is not corrected by simple admonition, it is made only to a superior; a prelate who has no superior cannot be denounced, unless his sin be such as that by which he falls from superiority, of which sort is the sin of heresy. Wherefore that consequence of the adversaries, which among them was deemed an Achilles, is utterly null. For the process laid down in the Gospel concerning fraternal correction has no place in one who has no superior on earth. But it is most clear from what was said above that no one in the Church is superior to the pope except Christ, whose general vicar he is on earth. Nor can it be said that the congregation of his subjects or of his sheep is greater than he in superiority of authority, unless one wished to overturn the doctrine of Christ and should say that although Christ says in Matt. 10: The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord, nevertheless the disciples are above their master and subjects above their prelate.

Hence it is that the most shining testimonies of the saints and of the sacred councils and of most excellent doctors most openly proclaim that God is said to have reserved the causes of the Roman pontiffs to his own judgment. Whence lord Albertus Magnus in 4, dist. 19, where he asks whether fraternal correction belongs to all, answering says thus: Every man is bound with reverence and gentleness to admonish and correct every man concerning his fault, but he cannot further denounce him if disobedient when he is the supreme prelate, because he has no judge. Thus Albertus. To the same effect is Saint Thomas in the fourth book on the same distinction, saying thus: although prelates are to be rebuked by their subjects, yet no punishment is to be inflicted on him, but recourse is to be had to a superior by denouncing, or if he has no superior, to God, that he may amend him or take him from their midst. Likewise Master Ulricus in his most excellent sum of theology, where in book 6, treatise 3, ch. 15, speaking of accusation says thus: Some also cannot be accused on account of the excellence of their dignity, as the pope cannot be accused except for the crime of heresy, as is said in the acts of Boniface the martyr, and the authority is placed in dist. 40, ch. Si papa; yet the apparatus says there that although mention is specially made of heresy because concerning it he can be accused even if it be hidden when he refuses to be corrected, for otherwise he could not be accused, yet he can also be accused of another crime if it be notorious by confession or by the evidence of the deed, and he be incorrigible and the Church be scandalized thereby. He proves it by this, that contumacy is called heresy, dist. 91, Qui presbyteri, and the contumacious is called unfaithful, 27 dist. Nullus. Therefore some say the same of any notorious crime, concerning which he does not correct himself despite fraternal correction; but this I do not believe to be true, because while his authority remains stable so long as it is founded on the rock which is Christ, and this also holds through unformed faith, with faith alone remaining he has no superior by whom he can be judged. Moreover what is attributed to infidelity alone is denied concerning other crimes. But by a symbolic and transferred manner of speaking contumacy is called unfaithfulness or heresy, and arguments from such expressions as though they were properly meant avail nothing. Thus lord Ulricus.

Likewise the same in book 6, treatise 3, ch. 17, where speaking of evangelical denunciation he says thus: The first, namely private admonition, has place even in a prelate having no superior; but the subsequent members have no place there, because he has no superior to whom he himself may be denounced or before whom it may be communicated or by whom he may be excommunicated, and therefore if he is not corrected by admonition nothing remains but to pray for him, either that he be amended or that he be taken from their midst, lest the Church perish by his example. Thus there. Likewise for this reason Host. says that the crime of the pope cannot be denounced if he would be corrected. Likewise Ioan. in the sum of confessors, book 3, title 9, par. 9, where he says: although the first, namely admonition, has place in a prelate having no superior, yet the subsequent steps have no place there, because he has no superior, etc., as lord Ulricus says. To the same effect many other most enlightened doctors, such as lord Peter de Palude, lord Herveus, Master Augustine of Ancona in their books on ecclesiastical power.

Moreover this sentence is manifestly gathered from blessed Bernard, who writing to lord Innocent the pope says thus: Who will do me justice concerning you? If I had a judge to whom I could drag you, I would even now show you. As one in travail I speak of what hangs over me; there stands indeed the tribunal of Christ, but far be it from me to appeal you to it, etc. Behold how manifestly blessed Bernard intimates that the pope has no judge on earth. And so it is clear that the reasoning of the adversaries was null, because since the pope has something more of dignity than other men, since although he is a brother he is also father and prince, it is no wonder if the aforesaid authority, If your brother sins against you, etc., extends more to other brethren than it extends to the pope. But concerning the true understanding of the aforesaid authority in that part in which it is said, Tell the Church, disputation has been most amply made above against those of less sound judgment concerning it.

To the second objection⁴, which is taken from Gal. ch. 2, where Paul is said to have withstood Peter to his face, it is answered that that authority does nothing for the adversaries. For it is one thing to resist and oppose the pope where danger to the faith threatens, or if he commanded anything against the law of the Lord, and another to judge by coercion of punishment or to punish, because the first can belong to an inferior, but the second only to a superior, according to ch. Inferior, dist. 21; and in the fourth chapter to the Corinthians it is said: But he who judges me is the Lord. Whence we concede that where manifest danger to the faith threatened, the universal Church or the universal synod could resist the Roman pontiff as Paul resisted Peter; but from this no superiority of authority is argued in the Church over the true Roman pontiff, just as neither in Paul from the aforesaid correction over Peter, but charity and liberty are well argued and commended in Paul, and humility in Peter in patiently receiving correction. Whence the Gloss, which is Augustine's in his letter to Jerome on the words, I said to Cephas before all, says thus: Peter himself received what was done by Paul usefully with the liberty of holy charity and the benignity of humility, and so gave an example to posterity not to disdain, where perchance they had left the right path, to be corrected by their juniors; praise indeed of just liberty in Paul, and of holy humility in Peter. Thus the Gloss. Likewise Augustine himself on the letter to the Galatians, speaking of that rebuke of Peter by Paul made before all, says thus: But that he said these things to him before all, necessity compelled, that all might be healed by his rebuke. For it was not useful to amend in secret an error which openly did harm. To this is added that the infirmity and charity of Peter, to whom it was said three times by the Lord: Do you love me? Feed my sheep, most gladly bore such a rebuke of his junior for the salvation of the flock. Thus Augustine. Following this doctrine of Augustine, blessed Thomas says in the fourth book of the Sentences, dist. 19, that blessed Paul withstood Peter to his face, exceeding the measure of fraternal correction which is owed to prelates by their subjects. For prelates are not to be corrected by their subjects before a multitude, but humbly in private, unless where danger to the faith threatens.

To the third objection⁵, which is taken from the rebuke made to Peter in Acts ch. 11, for having turned aside to the Gentiles, it is answered that that authority does nothing for the adversaries, as is manifestly gathered from the words of blessed Gregory, who, as is had in ch. Petrus, 2 q. 7, says thus: Peter had received the power of ruling, and yet the same first of the apostles answered the complaint made against him, why he had gone in to the Gentiles, not from the power of his office, by which he could have said, sheep should not accuse nor reprehend their shepherd, but from the authority of the divine power by which the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit, saying: The Lord gave to them the same grace as to you. Thus Gregory. From this it is clear that, since, as Gratian says in the same place, blessed Peter could by virtue of his office have repelled their complaints and bore them only by the dispensation of humility, no argument can be taken from their reprehension that prelates are compelled to receive the reprehension of their subjects; and still less can argument be taken from this that the universal Church apart from the case of heresy can judge the pope.