Summa de Ecclesia

With reply given to the authorities of sacred Scripture which the adversaries bring in their favor, it follows that we reply to what they bring by the second way, namely from the decrees of the councils of Constance and Basel. Replying to these we say that nothing of what they bring avails against the aforesaid conclusion. But that the things brought from the Council of Constance do not avail is most openly shown in many ways. First, indeed,¹ because it is not true, indeed it is false, what the adversaries say, namely that it was declared or decreed at Constance that the universal synod legitimately gathered in the Holy Spirit, holding a general council, representing the militant Church, has power immediately from Christ, which anyone of whatever state or dignity, even if papal, is bound to obey, etc. Plainly never at Constance under this form is any decree read to have been made. But the declaration made by those fathers gathered under the obedience of John the twenty-third issued under this form: This holy synod of Constance, holding a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and for the union and reformation of the Church in head and in members to be accomplished, declares that it, gathered in the Holy Spirit, holding a general council and representing the Catholic militant Church, has power immediately from Christ, which anyone, etc. Behold manifestly that the decree of those fathers does not speak universally of any universal synod whatsoever, but of that one in particular, for whose time there was not in the Church one indubitable shepherd of the whole Church. And so the first point is clear, namely that it is false that such a decree in the form in which it is proposed was made at Constance.

Secondly, the things brought from the Council of Constance do not avail, since even if such a decree as is said by the adversaries had been made there, it has no binding force, since what the adversaries presuppose, namely that it was by a universal council legitimately gathered and representing the universal militant Church, is very doubtful among many, indeed in the judgment of very many of those who were of the obedience of Gregory and Benedict false, since, as is most openly clear from the acts of that congregation, those decrees, if they are so to be called, were made only by some fathers of the obedience of John 23. For which it is to be noted that that congregation celebrated at Constance had three times. The first was that in which only the obedience of the aforesaid John Balthasar had convened at Constance. The second time was that in which Angelus Corarius, called in his obedience Gregory 12, yielding his right, joined himself to the aforesaid congregation under certain modes and forms. The third time is that in which the kings and princes and prelates obedient to Peter de Luna, called in his obedience Benedict 13, by their orators, a new convocation of the council having been made, united themselves to the aforesaid congregation to give peace to the universal Church, and we were then present constituted in minor orders. For which time alone, with all three obediences concurring together, it was certain to say that the universal Church was congregated at Constance representatively. But no one doubts that to assert that the obedience of John alone made a universal council representing the universal Church would be rash and scandalous to the other two obediences.

Thirdly, the things brought from the decrees of the Council of Constance do not avail, since two other obediences, namely those of Gregory and Benedict, opposed themselves to its authority by most open contradiction in full congregation, and their contradiction was accepted. In the first place Gregory, so called in his obedience, contradicted and protested, who asserting and writing that he was the true Roman pontiff and sending his orators to Constance after the aforesaid declaration made by those of the obedience of John, commits to those lords, namely the cardinal of Saint Sixtus, John the elect patriarch of Constantinople, the archbishop of Trier, Count Palatine Charles de Malatesta, authority to convoke and authorize in his stead the congregation of Constance itself, insofar as called by the royal serenity and not by Balthasar causing himself to be named John 23, into a general council, with the presidency and presence of the aforesaid Balthasar altogether removed by them, etc. These are the formal words of the bull of authority given to the aforesaid orators, which is inserted in the acts of the aforesaid council. But that these words and acts of lord Gregory contradict and oppose the aforesaid decree is manifest. Moreover the obedience of the lords kings, prelates and princes and communities who adhered to Peter de Luna, called Benedict 13, as the true supreme pontiff of the universal Church, contradicted the same decree. For as is clear from the acts of the same council, because they held that the aforesaid fathers congregated at Constance under the obedience of John or even of Gregory did not make a universal council nor did their congregation represent the Catholic Church of God, they refused to unite themselves to it unless first, according to the compacts made at Narbonne with the lord Emperor Sigismund of good memory, a new convocation of the council were made by those among whom they judged the true Church of God to be, as indeed was done, with us present constituted in minor orders. That all these things were so done and accepted by all, the synod of Constance itself most openly testifies through its diverse sessions. With these three obediences at length convening at Constance in the name of Christ with the intention of celebrating a universal council, certitude and faith were had among all the faithful of Christ that a universal council representing the universal Church was celebrated at Constance, and not before, with an ambiguous contention concurring among the faithful as to with which of the three bearing themselves as Roman pontiffs the authority of the apostolic see and the principate resided. For as the most devout Bernard testifies in book 5 on consideration: Faith has no ambiguity; otherwise if it has, it is not faith but opinion. From this contradiction of the other two obediences every learned man perceives most clearly how presumptuous is that assertion, that that obedience of Balthasar convening at Constance made a council representing the universal Church. Fourthly, the things brought from the decrees of the Council of Constance are of no strength or moment, since in their determination not only did the universal Church not intervene, but only one obedience, namely John the twenty-third, as has been said, and indeed not integrally that whole obedience: since many most learned fathers of that obedience did not lend them their consent or assent. Likewise neither did John the twenty-third himself, so called in his obedience: since when, after his withdrawal from Constance, being established at Schaffhausen, he heard that the aforesaid declaration was concluded, to the lord orators of the most Christian king of France visiting him, namely the lord duke of Bavaria, lord Nicholas de Calavilla and their other colleagues, with bitter mind he complained that certain false and erroneous decrees against the authority of the Roman pontiff had been concluded by his rivals after his withdrawal. Fifthly, the aforesaid decrees of the Council of Constance do not avail: since they were never approved by all the other obediences together, indeed not even repeated; indeed the whole synod gathered from the three obediences seems by its statutes to have signified that that decree never entered its mind. Which is clear from two things. First from the fact that in session 36 it is said thus: The most holy synod of Constance ordains and decrees that the future Roman pontiff, shortly to be assumed by the grace of God, with this sacred council, or to be deputed through the several nations, ought to reform the Church in the head of the Roman curia according to equity and the good governance of the Church, etc. And there follows in the 13th article on account of what and how the pope can be corrected or deposed. Behold, how manifestly it is given to be understood that that synod, discerning this, did not approve or bear in mind those decrees of the first Constance. Secondly from the fact that the aforesaid synod of Constance, after Pope Martin was created, observing the custom of the ancient councils, humbly sought from him the confirmation and strengthening of all that it had done, since to confirm and strengthen belongs to superior authority, it is most plain that that synod, whole from all the obediences of Christendom, was not of such a faith as that a universal council has immediately from Christ power which even the pope is bound to obey. Sixthly, the aforesaid decree of Constance does not avail: since it was not approved by the apostolic see; indeed it seems to have been reprobated or annulled by lord Martin in the condemnation of the error of John Wycliffe and John Hus: among which, as is clear in the bull which, with the approval of the Council of Constance, lord Martin sent to all the prelates of the German nation, one condemned article is: That Peter is not nor was the head of the holy Catholic Church. The second article concerning which the aforesaid lord Martin mandates the prelates and inquisitors of the faith to inquire of those suspected of the aforesaid errors: whether they believe that the pope canonically elected, who for the time shall be, his own proper name being expressed, is the successor of blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God; thus there. But it is most clear that these two articles through lord Martin, with the plenary Constance council assenting and approving, namely that the pope is the head of the holy Catholic, that is universal, see, and that he has supreme power in the Church of God, cannot stand together with that decree which is read to have been made at Constance by some of the obedience of John Balthasar concerning the superiority of councils over the pope: since as is had in ch. inferior, dist. 21, the higher see alone fittingly absolves the lower: nor can anyone of lower authority add to or subject to his own definitions one who is of greater power. If the pope, remaining pope, is subject to the judgment of another besides God, that article defined at Constance through lord Martin cannot stand in truth: that the pope has supreme power in the Church, as we have also deduced above. Seventhly, the aforesaid decrees which the adversaries bring from the Council of Constance do not avail: since they are expressly against the canons of the sacred councils and the definitions of the apostolic see, as has been demonstrated above, whatever has been defined to the contrary lacks all force, according to ch. Haec est fides, O most blessed father, C. XXIV, q. 1. Eighthly, those decrees do not avail: since they manifestly contradict the sentences of the holy fathers, whose doctrine in matters of faith the universal Church has already approved: as has been shown by example above where we brought in testimonies for the principate of the Roman pontiff from the blessed Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophilus and Cyprian, and Leo the first: whose sentences in matter of faith, since they have already been confirmed by the universal Church, as is clear in the fifth synod, can be repelled by no authority, by no definition of men. For every contradiction made to the sentences of these fathers would indeed be made to the faith itself of the universal Church. For the first safety, as is had in ch. 1, 15 q. 1, is to keep the rule of right faith and in no way to deviate from the constitutions of the fathers. Ninthly, the aforesaid decrees have no place: since they contradict the common doctrine of the most illustrious doctors both of divine and of human law: who, as has been declared above, concerning the venerable Hugh of Saint Victor, Albertus Magnus, Saint Thomas, Master Alexander of Ales, Saint Bonaventure, etc., demonstrate by the clearest light, with the testimonies of the holy Scriptures and the reverence of the canons consecrated by the whole world and the authorities of the supreme pontiffs, that the Roman pontiff holds in the whole Church such a principate that, apart from the case of heresy in which he falls from the papacy, he has only God as superior judge, whose immediate vicar he is. But it is marvelous that those fathers congregated at Constance wished by one blow not only to delete but to hereticate the doctrine of so many fathers. But here it is not to be passed over what is had in ch. placuit, 36 q. 2, that the authority of a council does not prejudice the authority of Jerome, and most of all when it rests on divine Scripture: where the Gloss says what the reason is, because it is strengthened by the authority of the Old Testament and of the Council of Meaux. But if the authority of one holy doctor, strengthened by the authority of sacred Scripture and the authority of one council, prejudices the authority of one universal council, as is said in the same place: how much more ought the authority of so many doctors and saints, strengthened both by sacred Scripture and by universal councils and by the definitions of the apostolic see, to prejudice the decree of one obedience only and in time of schism. From all which it is clearly gathered that the aforesaid decrees which are alleged from the other side, published at Constance by some fathers of one obedience only in time of schism, have neither necessity nor force to overturn the faith which concerning the principate of the Roman pontiff the authority of the holy fathers has always kept and the piety of the universal Church has venerated.