Summa de Ecclesia

FURTHERMORE¹ secondly, the things brought in from the Council of Basel from its various sessions in no way serve their cause, for many reasons. First, when they say that the holy catholic Church in the holy Council of Constance, etc., they presuppose two things. The first of which is manifestly false, as they say: that in the Council of Constance it was universally defined that a general council, etc., since that definition or declaration was not made universally or indefinitely but singularly, as was fully said in the preceding chapter in the answer to the things brought in from the Council of Constance. Secondly they suppose that that decree was made by the holy universal Church: for this is false; in no way can it be proved to be true, although we have already said so before. Indeed it seems exceedingly rash and scandalous to wish to define that the obedience alone of John Balthasar, which alone met at Constance, made that decree in the time of schism to be of the universal catholic Church, lawfully gathered by the true and undoubted pastor of the universal Church, making a holy universal council. For this would be to say that the obedience alone of John Balthasar among the three obediences had been the Church and the bride-chamber of Christ, and that the other obediences, namely those of Gregory and of Benedict, had been brothels and the synagogue of Satan; and this is nothing else than to rouse again the ancient schism in the Church of God. Secondly the aforesaid decrees of the Basel council do not serve: because that council refused to receive the presidents of the Pope in their due authority according to the custom of the ancient universal councils, concerning whose authority in the sixth action of the Council of Chalcedon, as Isidore reports in his book of councils, it is thus had: in all synods the apocrisarii of the apostolic see first confirmed and subscribed the decrees and sentences on account of the supreme authority of the same holy see, because otherwise they had no force. Whence Paschasius writes, etc. From these things it is clear that those decrees are altogether void of authority. Thirdly the same is clear: because they were not concluded by the unanimous consent of the whole synod. But if a council does not act, as Isidore says in bk. 6 of the Etymologies and in ch. 1, distinct. 15, those who do not consent into one: what they conclude cannot be called the conclusion of a universal council, especially in a matter of faith, whose unity is most required in the body of the Church, which does not emanate from universal consent. But that universal consent did not intervene in those Basel decrees is clear. First because they were issued, with many prelates and doctors graduated in both laws dissenting, most illustrious in wisdom and virtues: several of whom, attending to the aforesaid decrees as adverse to the doctrines of the holy fathers, not only contradicted and protested in their deputations, but also refused to be present in the very sessions of the council in which such decrees were published to the fury of certain enemies of the apostolic see with a multitude of people of small worth and of no authority. Secondly they were not unanimously concluded universally: because the universal Church was not fully awaited nor the synod integrally gathered: for they were concluded without awaiting the ambassadors of several kings and princes, although they knew some of them to be already on the way. Whence the men of Basel, eager to renew their decrees after lord Eugenius of holy memory had at the prayers of princes revoked the dissolution of the council which he had made, fearing the ambassadors of the lords of Castile and of England, whom they already knew to be near, would not, for their wisdom and zeal for the faith and the apostolic see, lend consent to their conclusions, plotted that the renewal of their decrees be made before the arrival of the aforesaid lords' ambassadors: which was done in the eighteenth session. No man of sound mind indeed who knows with how much gravity and integrity and modesty the judgments of faith are to be treated will judge to have been concluded by the universal consent of the whole Church and dictated by the Holy Spirit those things in which factions and practices of this kind intervened.

Fourthly the decrees of the men of Basel are shown to be invalid because the assent of the apostolic see, which confirms every synod by its authority, as in ch. Consideremus, 25, question 1, did not intervene in them. But what the Basel adversaries say to this, that in the 17th session, when the presidents of lord Eugenius had been admitted, they swore to defend the decrees of the aforesaid council, and especially the decree concerning the authority of councils, is of no weight, and among other things from this, that as is had in the acts of the same council the aforesaid lords swore in their own names, namely as particular persons, and this compelled by the greatest necessity: because otherwise they were not admitted to the presidency, to the greatest scandal of the whole Church: but they did not swear to hold those things as apostolic nuncios; nay, as such they protested to the contrary, nor did they wish to be present at the sessions in which such things were concluded. But who now, learned in the letters of the holy fathers, will say to have been concluded by the unanimous consent of the universal Church those things that were concluded with the apostolic see, in which the Lord set the principate of the whole Church, not consenting but rather contradicting through its ambassadors and protesting: as is clear from distinct. 17 throughout. But the Basel adversaries reply that indeed the consent of the apostolic see did intervene in their decrees: since lord Eugenius through his bulls concerning the council, and with the assent of the lord cardinals then with him in the curia, decreed and declared many things concerning the aforesaid Basel council. First, that the general Basel council had been lawfully begun for the extirpation of heresies, for the peace of the Christian people, and for the general reformation of the Church in head and in members, and things pertaining to them. Secondly, that from the time of its beginning it had lawfully existed as begun, and had always had and has persecution, etc. Thirdly, he declared the aforesaid dissolution null and void. Fourthly, that he intended to pursue the general council itself purely and simply and with effect and with all devotion and favor. Fifthly, he revoked whatever had been attempted by him or in his name to the prejudice and derogation of the aforesaid Basel council or against its authority. To these things the answer is easy, especially if those things are true which were said in the curia by several men of great probity and gravity, namely that the aforesaid bulls were extorted more by threats than emanated from the mind of lord Eugenius. For as is reported, lord Andrew the Venetian, then ambassador of the lord of the Venetians, and some lord cardinals then present with lord Eugenius, fearing a future great scandal in the Church, threatened the aforesaid lord Eugenius that unless he granted those bulls of adhesion they would leave him alone, departing. Whence the aforesaid lords are reported, with the aforesaid lord lying in bed, to have expedited those bulls in such fashion as they could and to have sent them to Basel. But leaving these things aside we answer otherwise, saying: that none of the things contained in the aforesaid bulls aids the adversaries: since lord Eugenius never lent consent to the decrees of the Basel council, nor did he himself, as the men of Basel fable and prate, embrace with the holy catholic Church the doctrine which the adversaries feign concerning the authority of councils: since neither the supreme pontiff himself nor ever the universal Church embraced such a doctrine, but he himself always held with the holy catholic Church what Holy Scripture and the authority of the sacred ancient canons confirm, and what the common doctrine of the holy fathers and of the most illustrious doctors from the very beginning of the nascent Church holds. And to the proof which they bring in from the parts of the bulls of adhesion it is answered by denying that from any of those parts it can be argued with truth that lord Eugenius embraced or approved the aforesaid Basel doctrine. Which we make manifest by running through the single parts. Not indeed from the first, in which he says the Basel council to have been lawfully gathered for the extirpation of heresies, is it clear: since from this concession it in no way follows that the supreme pontiff himself embraces or approves whatever shall have been instituted or defined through that council. For although the Second universal Ephesine council had been lawfully begun by legitimate authority for the sake of extirpating heresies, nevertheless Pope Leo did not embrace the definitions of the aforesaid council: indeed he instituted and condemned them to be reprobated in the following Council of Chalcedon as heretical. Moreover although the holy fathers proceeded in universal councils in legitimate continuation: nevertheless for the force and firmness of their canons they are always read to have had recourse at the end to the apostolic see: as the book of councils and of the supreme pontiffs openly testifies: which we shall also show in the third following book. Further, neither from the second part of the bulls of adhesion do the adversaries have their intent: since although lord Eugenius declared the aforesaid council to have been continued and that it ought to continue: from this it does not follow that he approved its decrees or statutes, over which his see was never consulted, and yet as Pope Nicholas of happy and holy memory writes in the letter which he wrote to the emperor Michael, it was observed by the holy fathers in councils that without the consent of the Roman pontiff no end be given to the deliberation of anyone rising up. Whence he himself, namely Eugenius, at Florence in a public disputation, concerning which when we were set in lesser orders we were answering, to one alleging in favor of Basel, the most reverend lord Julian of Cesarini, cardinal priest of St. Sabina, with several lord cardinals and many other prelates and officials of the curia present, answered an argument from bulls of this kind by saying thus: We indeed approved the progress of the council well, wishing that it proceed as it had begun: but we did not approve its decrees: and in this he acted most wisely. For who but a most imprudent prince would approve decrees which he had never seen or which he had not first examined, whether anything less right, less true, or less expedient were contained in them. Whence it was the custom of the supreme pontiffs, when the decrees of universal councils at which they had not personally been present were to be confirmed, to gather a synod of the prelates who were under the Roman patriarchate, and there, a diligent examination having been made, they confirmed them, as is read concerning blessed Silvester when he had approved the decrees of the Nicene council. Likewise in later days Pope Clement the fifth is read to have done thus: as John Andrea in the beginning concerning the constitutions made in the Council of Vienne, which, because as he says some of them were inept, some prolix, some composed defectively, some also were not expedient, Clement had those reviewed by the more skilled, who reserved some of them wholly, changed some as to the words with the mind preserved: but to some of them, with certain things removed as to the words and as to the mind, some things were added. Moreover that lord Eugenius, in approving the process of the council, did not approve its decrees is manifestly gathered from this, that although the men of Basel with the greatest zeal repeatedly supplicated, prayed, and required through their ambassadors that lord Eugenius approve and confirm their decrees, they could nevertheless never have such approval or confirmation from him. And deservedly: because the apostolic faith, in which the Christian religion has always remained and will remain immaculate, would in no way have suffered him to confirm such decrees as seemed alien to evangelical truth and to the doctrine of the holy fathers. Further, neither from the third particle of the aforesaid bulls do the adversaries have their intent. First because lord Eugenius did not declare the dissolution made of the council to be null: because he who was prince of the Church could not have made it, but because, from causes untrue although esteemed true from the report of some, he had made it, whence, the non-existence of the causes having been known, and because, as he says in the bull, grave dissensions had arisen from the aforesaid dissolution, and graver ones could arise: and also because they furnished an impediment to the execution of the holy works for which the synod had been gathered, with promise given by the synod, and security by the princes, whereby the honor of the apostolic see and of his holiness might be preserved unblemished: he changed his sentence, and wished the dissolution made to be held as null and to have had no firmness for the good of the peace of the Church, revoking and annulling it. For it is not new that the sentences of the supreme pontiffs be changed for the better for consideration of times and places and persons and of grave occurring necessities. For Pope Nicholas says in ch. Sententiam, 25th question, 7: We do not deny that the sentence of the Roman see can be changed for the better when either something has been purloined or she herself has decreed to ordain certain things by dispensation for consideration of ages and times or of grave necessities: since, and we read that the excellent apostle Paul did certain things dispensatorily which he is afterwards read to have revoked. Furthermore, neither from the fourth particle does anything of favor fall to the adversaries: since although lord Eugenius said he wished to pursue that council with all devotion and favor: this is nevertheless to be understood in those things which justly and reasonably, with faith safe, with the doctrine of the holy fathers safe, with the authority and reverence of the apostolic see safe, would be constituted through the council. Moreover, granted that the Pope then promised to pursue that council with all devotion and favor, if he is understood to have approved its decrees: he is to be understood to have approved those which do not offend the papal jurisdiction and authority, and do not oppose or stand against the honorable preeminence of the apostolic see, which as was repeated above recognizes no superior but God, from the Decretals, ch. Licet. Likewise neither from the fifth particle do the adversaries have their proposition, since from such revocation and cassation of those things that had been attempted to the prejudice of the Basel council it does not follow that lord Eugenius wished to assert or wished to believe those things concerning the Basel council or any other council whatever which do not with truth befit councils: nor is it against the authority of a council to deny to befit it those things which according to the doctrine of the holy fathers do not befit it. Further, neither through that revocation did lord Eugenius wish to deny from himself and from the see those things which according to the Holy Scriptures and the sentences of the holy fathers have been divinely granted to the apostolic see, since he could not do this: among which is that concerning the dependence of the authority of councils on the Pope, and not conversely: as is clear in distinct. 17 throughout, concerning which also, with Christ as leader, there will be a fuller treatise in the following third book of this Summa. Fifthly the aforesaid Basel decrees are not valid: since just as concerning the decrees made at Constance by certain fathers of the obedience of John Balthasar, who was called among them John 23, it was said: they are adverse and contrary to the sentences of the holy fathers and of the more excellent doctors in the whole theological school. Where it is not a little to be wondered at that the Basel adversaries, enveloped in such darkness of mind and blinded by malice, that in defining and declaring matters of faith they preferred to follow men condemned by the Church of God in their doctrine: as was Marsilius of Padua and Ockham with their accomplices, from whose doctrine those aforesaid Basel decrees were for the most part extracted, and certain other novel little doctors renewing the erroneous opinions of the aforesaid Ockham and of certain fratricelli, than the holy doctors approved by the Church, and other most excellent ancient doctors and most reputed in the theological school, by whose doctrine the Church shines as the sun and moon. Against whom Jerome says, and it is had in the canon Non afferamus, 24th question, first: Let us not bring deceitful balances nor weigh what we wish at our own discretion, saying: This is heavy, this is light: but let us bring the divine balance from the Holy Scriptures as from the treasuries of the Lord, and in it let us weigh what is weightier, thus far Jerome.