Summa de Ecclesia

Now¹ we answer the authorities of the doctors which the adversaries bring in in their favor. And first to that which is said to be of blessed Peter to Clement² it is answered that that authority does not serve against our conclusion, for many reasons. First, since blessed James had been dead a long time before blessed Peter, a good eight years at least, as is gathered from the chronicles, it does not seem likely that blessed Clement had written that letter after the death of blessed Peter to blessed James. Secondly because many texts have, where the adversaries put "be deposed," "be punished": and this is understood of God, and not of others. Even if it be said "be deposed," it is to be understood, namely by God. And that it is so to be understood is sufficiently clear from the testimony of blessed Anacletus, who immediately followed blessed Clement, who says in ch. Eiectionem, distinction 79: The ejection of the supreme pontiffs God reserved to himself. Thirdly because, granted that it be said in the aforesaid authority "be deposed," and it be understood through the Church, it does not follow that he is to be deposed through the Church outside the case of heresy, whence only the case of heresy is touched in the aforesaid authority when it is said: From this it comes that you also, as one who has not taught the things that pertain to the salvation of men, be deposed or punished, for this we grant, that if the Pope has not taught the things that pertain to the salvation of men but errors and heresies, he deservedly comes to be punished as an enemy of Christ and overthrower of his faith. And thus the reason does not proceed against our conclusion. To the second,³ which is taken from the gloss on ch. Si papa, fortieth distinction, it is answered that little care is to be taken of that gloss. First because, as is clear from its manner of speaking, it speaks not assertively but opinatively, for it says "I believe." Secondly because it is confirmed by no reason: for contumacy is not properly called heresy, but by symbolic, transumptive locution. Whence arguments taken from such things as though they were properly said avail nothing, as Augustine says to Vincent. Thirdly, because it is manifestly against the text of one supreme pontiff and martyr, who is of much greater authority than that glossator. Fourthly: because it is against many texts and canons of the sacred councils and of the holy fathers, concerning which many things were commemorated above in ch. 93. Fifthly: because it is contrary to the doctrine of most illustrious doctors of both laws, as is clear from the things above. Whence also the Archdeacon in the Rosa, through that gloss Whether the crime of the Pope can be denounced, says that denunciation is made for correction, to which he cannot be compelled since he has no superior. Sixthly: because it is contrary to many other glosses: to that in ch. Mandatis, 2nd question, 5, which says: that the Pope cannot be judged by anyone nor even by a universal council. Likewise that in ch. Nemo, 9th question, 3, on the word "by all the clergy": which says as an argument that the council cannot judge the Pope, as in Extra, On election, ch. Significasti. Whence if the whole world felt in any matter against the Pope, it seems the sentence of the Pope is to be stood by, as in 24th question, first, Haec est fides. Likewise against it is the gloss in ch. Si quis pecuniam, 79, which wishes that only for heresy alone can the Pope be judged and deposed, namely if he sins against the articles of faith. Which contradiction of the glosses having been seen, whether they be of one glossator or of several, that sentence is more to be held which the greater number of glossators makes. Secondly it can be answered to that gloss what certain theologians answer, and especially master Augustine of Ancona in his Summa on ecclesiastical power: that for the Pope to be incorrigible can be understood in two ways. In one way by continuation of crime, for example, because admonished he does not cease to sin with the sin of fornication or another worthy of accusation, without his believing it lawful to do. In a second way through pertinacious defense of his crime itself, as when he says and defends that such a crime, which has enfolded malice, is not a sin. But the gloss has no place in the first way but truly in the second, for then it agrees with the gloss on ch. Si quis pecuniam, distinct. 79, concerning which a little before. But if it be said that the Pope is incorrigible only in the first way, namely through continuation in sins, he would still give scandal, and thus it seems he would come to be judged, it is answered that he would not for this come to be judged. First because that would not be a scandal of peril to the Church, whence it is that although the Lord foresaw such scandals in his Church, nevertheless the Lord says concerning prelates, Matt. 23: Upon the chair of Moses, etc. And this is what ch. Si papa openly says. Secondly: because, as Gregory says, it is more useful that scandal be permitted to arise than that truth be abandoned. But since according to the canons of the holy fathers and the doctrine of the holy doctors the Pope, unless he deviate in faith, comes to be judged by God alone, for the sake of any scandals whatever the truth of doctrine founded on such unshaken roots of the holy fathers is in no way to be abandoned. Moreover, as the Apostle says, evil things are not to be done that good things may come: but it is evil to act against the divine dispensation or to usurp the divine judgment. But since these are mortal sins: therefore these things are not to be done on account of any other goods whatever.

To the third objection taken from the authority of blessed Gregory⁴ it is answered, as master Alexander of Hales says in his third book: that what Gregory did was done for an example of humility, not from necessity of law. For that the Pope wished to submit himself in some cause to the judgment of others is of supererogation, and such does not infer necessity. Whence from this it is not argued that he has an ordinary superior judge. To the fourth authority⁵ which is said to be of blessed Thomas in his book On the rule of princes: it is answered that it does not make for the proposition, granted that the book be St. Thomas's, if those things which the same doctor set down there be well understood. For St. Thomas speaks there only of a community which has the right of providing itself with a king through institution or donation of jurisdiction, as is commonly the case in the institution of kings and secular princes: otherwise it is concerning the prince of the Church, whose authority depends immediately on God himself and not on the community of the Church, as many laws say, as in ch. Quamvis, dist. 21, and in ch. Omnes, dist. 22, and in ch. Sacrosancta. Moreover this is also clear from the fact that although some college of canons of some cathedral church awaits being provided for itself with a bishop through election: nevertheless however much he be turned to a tyrant or scandalize the Church, it does not pertain to it to depose him, but recourse must be had to the superior. From these things the deception of those adversaries is clear who from the condition of a mundane community, to which as they say belongs the correction or total deposition of the prince if he persevere incorrigible, argue concerning the community of the Church that so it is or ought to be in it with respect to the prince of the Church himself: but they are basely deceived, since in no way is it alike here and there, as has been said.