Summa de Ecclesia

CONSEQUENTLY answer must be given to the objections of the fourth way, namely to the reasons. To the first reason¹ taken from ch. Si papa, concerning the Pope, it is answered by denying the consequence. And the reason is: since the Pope falls from the papacy, which is not through other sins: and thus since through heresy the Pope becomes less than all the faithful, as St. Thomas says in 4, and the Gloss has in ch. Achatius, 24th question, first, he can be judged through the Church² or declared as judged by God: which cannot be on account of other sins. But that the Pope through notorious heresy, contumaciously defended, falls from the papacy, and thus is by the law itself deprived, is clear from many things. First from the fact that, faith having been lost through which there is the first union to the body of Christ which is the Church, he ceases to be a member of the Church, and consequently to be head. For how can it be understood that one be head of the body of the Church whose member he not only is not but who is not even in the body itself but outside it? Secondly because the Church is founded upon the rock, namely the faith of Christ. Matt. 16: Upon this rock I will build my Church. Therefore he who falls from the rock, namely Christ or his faith, notoriously and contumaciously, falls wholly from the Church of Christ, and consequently from its principate which is imported by the name of papacy. Thirdly it is clear from the things St. Thomas says in the second part of the second part, question thirty-nine, argument third, where asking whether schismatics have the power of absolving, and distinguishing a twofold power, namely sacramental and jurisdictional, he answers: that they do not lose sacramental power as to the essence of the power, although well as to its lawful use. But jurisdictional power, which is given not through consecration but through commission alone, schismatics and heretics lose as to the essence of the power. Whence they cannot absolve or excommunicate nor give indulgences nor anything of this kind: and if they do, nothing is done. He brings in for this the authority of Cyprian who in ch. Novatianus, seventh question, first, says thus: He who observes neither the unity of the spirit nor the communion of peace, and separates himself from the bond of the Church and the college of priests, can have neither the power of a bishop nor the honor. Fourthly this is gathered from the same St. Thomas in the fourth book, distinction nineteenth, where he says: that if the Pope lapses into heresy he is made less than any faithful: and the Gloss has this same thing on ch. Achatius, 24th question, first, which thus has: This is the case in which a Pope can bind a Pope, in which the Pope falls into a canon of sentence already passed. Nor does the rule stand against this: an equal cannot loose or bind an equal: because if the Pope is a heretic, in that wherein he is a heretic he is less than any Catholic, thus far the Gloss. Fifthly this seems to be gathered from many chapters in the Decree: as from ch. Quod autem and from ch. Achatius, and from ch. Audivimus, 24th question, first, whence in ch. Audivimus it is thus expressly had: But if in his heart he has fashioned a new heresy, from the time he began to preach such things he could condemn no one: because he who is already prostrate cannot cast down anyone. Likewise from ch. Omnis qui recedit, and does not remain in the doctrine of Christ etc., chapter, cause, and question, and from ch. Didicimus, in the same place where blessed Cyprian says thus: We say that all heretics and schismatics whatsoever have no power or right. Likewise from these authorities, in that cause and question, where it is thus had: By these authorities it is clearly shown that from the time anyone has begun to teach anything against the faith he can neither cast down nor condemn anyone. Whence, properly speaking, neither is the Pope deposed by a council on account of heresy, but rather he is declared not to be Pope when it is shown that he has collapsed into heresy and perseveres obstinately incorrigible in it. Whence the Gloss in ch. 1, Extra, On schismatics, on the word "lack firmness," says: because while the Church has a heretical or schismatical pastor it is understood to be vacant, above, On prescriptions, ch. 1. But that one who has lapsed pertinaciously into heretical depravity is by the law itself deprived of all ecclesiastical power is shown more fully in the fourth book of this work when there will be discourse concerning heretics. But to the first proof of the consequence it is answered. First that, granted Holy Scripture had not openly expressed it, the canon law nevertheless has sufficiently expressed this difference, as in ch. Si papa, and in many others, as ch. Oves, making a great difference in this place between the sin of heresy and sins of other kinds, and this suffices. Secondly it can be answered by denying that in Sacred Scripture such a difference between heresy or infidelity and other sins is not found expressed. For concerning the sinner of infidelity it is said, Matt. 10: He who shall deny me before men, I will deny him before my Father. Likewise John 3: He who does not believe is already judged. Likewise 2 John 1: If anyone comes to you and brings not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say hail to him: for he who says hail to him communicates with his evil works: where, says the Gloss, receive not, that is, not only do you not assent but do not receive even for an hour. And thus they extend to the prelates not receiving the doctrine of Christ just as to subjects. But concerning other sins divine Scripture does not so speak: but it says, Matt. 23: Upon the chair of Moses sit the scribes and Pharisees; whatsoever they shall say to you, keep and do, but according to their works do not do. Behold that the Lord does not say that evil pastors who have good doctrine but evil life are to be cast away: but to be heard in doctrine, but not to be imitated in works. Whence Augustine in his letter to Generosus, assigning the reason why even evil prelates, as for instance even an evil Pope in morals, are to be obeyed, says thus: From Peter himself we number the bishops, and below in this order of succession of bishops which is drawn from Peter himself down to Anastasius who now sits in the same chair, even if any of the betrayers had crept in through those times, it would prejudice nothing to the Church and to the innocent, for whom the Lord provides, that concerning evil rulers, what they say do, but what they do do not do, so that the certain hope of the faithful, which is placed not in man but in God, be never dissipated by the tempest of sacrilegious schism: thus far he. Likewise it is gathered from the Apostle in Rom. 13: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, the Gloss: good or evil, 1 Pet. 2: Obey your rulers not only the good and modest but also the froward. Behold how clear a difference is gathered from Sacred Scripture between the sins of infidelity in pastors and other sins.

To the second proof³ it is answered that a falsehood is presupposed, namely that it is greater to judge the Pope in the case of heresy than in the case of other sins. And the reason is because in the first, by falling from the rock of faith he falls from the papacy as has been said, and thus is made less than any faithful, and thus it is less in this case to judge him, which is not so in other sins in which he does not fall from the superiority of office. But to what is said, that where the greater is conceded etc., it is answered that this is true where the greater and the lesser are of the same order or nature, as is clear of itself. To the second reason⁴ where it is said that to no body, etc., it is answered that the reason does not proceed, for many things. First: because that major fails in truth concerning a member and a head, because on it depend the sense, motion, and strength of the body, and without which the body does not live. Hence it is that Christ in Matt. 18, among the members to be cut off by reason of scandal, does not name the head but those members with whose cutting off the life, sense, and motion of the body stand. But on the Pope, as is had in ch. Si papa, dist. 40, after God the salvation of the whole body of the faithful specially depends. Secondly the reason does not seem brought in to the purpose: because however much the Pope is made by evil morals a putrid member, he cannot infect the whole body, this not being permitted by the Holy Spirit himself, by whom the body of the Church both lives and is quickened and on whom its salvation principally depends, especially since Christ promised to remain always with his body, saying: I am with you even to the consummation of the age. Matt., last chapter. Thirdly the reason does not proceed: because even if he did not commit the cutting off of such a member to others of the Church or to the Church, he nevertheless reserved it to himself according to the words of Symmachus in ch. Aliorum, ninth question, third, saying: The causes of other men God willed to be terminated through men: but the prelate of this see he reserved without question to his own judgment. But it would be foolish to think that less provision was made for the body of the Church through this, that Christ reserved the causes of his vicar without question to his own judgment, than if he had willed them to be terminated by the judgment of others. Nor is it to be wondered at if some things remain unpunished in this life, and justice sometimes in exile: because many things are reserved to the divine examination which in this age remain unpunished, as in ch. Si ostenditur, sixth question, first. To the third reason⁵ as from a like, the answer is clear. For we say that that consequence of the adversaries is null: indeed Christ, in instituting that the Pope, his general vicar, outside the case of heresy, on account of any other sins whatever on account of which he does not fall from the papacy and his vicariate, cannot be corrected by others than by him, did most ordinately: because thus there shines in the order of the Church the order of divine providence, which has it that in things ordered to him the first act upon the posterior by ruling, admonishing, correcting, and not conversely. Whence since the Roman pontiff is first and supreme in the whole order of the Church, according to the due order of it he ought so to have been instituted that he himself correct others, and he himself come to be corrected by God alone. Whence the Gloss on the words of the Psalm, Against you alone have I sinned, says: because he is king superior to all, therefore he is to be punished by God alone, who is greater than he. And to the proof it is answered that it is null. First: because one thing is in the case of heresy, and another in other sins, as has often been repeated. Secondly: because one thing is to resist one wishing to demolish the community, and another to punish one wishing to demolish or unjustly attempt something. The first can befit inferiors: the second not. Thirdly: because as was said in the first answer, that case is not possible concerning the community of the Church as concerning others, with Christ promising, Matt. 16, that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

To the fourth reason⁶ when it is argued: Everything that we owe etc., it is answered that that reason makes nothing to the purpose: for one thing is to impede some man wishing unjustly to kill another, either by holding him or removing the sword from his hands or something of this kind, and another is to be the superior judge of him and to be able to proceed against him by way of law to punish him. Whence if the argument proceeded, all men could judge and punish their superiors, whoever they be, when they act evilly, even laymen judging clerics. Whence those arguments were of the Bohemians to prove that their community could correct a dissolute clergy. To the fifth⁷ when it is argued if the Pope wished the wife of another etc., it is answered as to the preceding, that the reason does not serve. For one thing is to resist, and another to punish or assail. The first can befit an inferior: as Paul withstood Peter: but the second not except a superior. To the sixth reason⁸ and seventh, in which it is objected that a defamed Pope ought to purge himself to avoid scandal: it is answered that those reasons serve in nothing: because granted that the Roman pontiff when defamed is bound to purge himself from a debt of conscience to take away scandal, it does not follow from this that anyone is his judge as superior in causes: since he can purge himself without purging himself before any superior judge, as is openly gathered from purges made in earlier times by supreme pontiffs: as we read concerning Leo in ch. Auditum, second question, seventh, which he nevertheless did not make before a superior judge or a universal council: but before twelve bishops only, as in ch. Omnibus, in that cause and question, whence he says: It has been heard, dearest brethren, how evil men have fastened grave crimes upon me, wherefore I Leo, Pope and pontiff of the holy Roman Church, purify myself in your sight before God and his angels etc. Likewise Pope Sixtus purged himself in a council but not as before a superior judge. Whence in ch. Mandatis, 2nd question, 5, writing to all bishops he says thus: Know that I am accused by a certain Bassus, and unjustly persecuted: which hearing, the emperor Valentinian Augustus commanded a synod to be gathered by our authority. By our authority, and with the council held, with great examination satisfying all, although I could otherwise have escaped: because as the Gloss says there, the Pope can be judged by no one, ninth question, third, Aliorum. Nor by a universal council, 17th dist., § Hinc etiam; ff. On princely law; yet fleeing suspicion I purged myself, namely freeing myself from suspicion and emulation, but not giving a form of doing to others who have not willed or have not spontaneously chosen this. These things there. Likewise the same is clear concerning Pope Damasus, who purged himself not before a superior judge but before 42 bishops, as in ch. Nos si, 2nd question, 7, at the end. Gather therefore from the words of blessed Sixtus in the aforesaid ch. Mandatis that the Pope is not bound to purge himself of crimes objected to him or of any infamy arisen from whomsoever, good or evil, if he does not wish: even if some, as he himself from humility, are read to have done these things.