Summa de Ecclesia

Against the already stated conclusion the adversaries adduce certain things to which answer must come. For they argue first¹ from that which Pope Leo the fourth writes to the emperor Louis, 2, q. 7, ch. Nos: If we have done anything incompetently and have not kept the path of just law among subjects, we wish to emend by the judgment of you and of your envoys, where the Gloss says: here the pope subjects himself to the judgment of others which he can do, yet they cannot depose him, 9, q. 3, Nemo, according to Hugh; they can, because he can also depose himself, as 21, distinct., Ut autem. Secondly they argue² from the Gloss on ch. Si papa, distinct. 40, where it is so said: the pope can be judged by no one, as 9, 3, Nemo, which understand if he should subject himself to another, as 2, q. 7, Nos si. Thirdly³ from the Gloss on ch. In synodo, where it says that the pope could give so much to the emperor that he would depose him and with the consent of the cardinals, nay in all things he can subject himself, as 2, q. 7, Nos. Likewise it is argued fourthly⁴ from this that supreme pontiffs are read to have purged themselves before a council of objected crimes, where they seemed to submit themselves to the judgment of councils, as in ch. Mandastis, 2, q. 5, and through other chapters of the same question. Fifthly⁵ it is argued from ch. Cum ex iniuncto, near the end, de haereticis, where it is had that a prelate, having of his own accord confessed his ignorance, submits himself to the accusation of his subjects, and so in like manner it seems to be said of the pope. Sixthly by reason thus⁶: Pope Adrian to avoid the terrors of heretics and schismatics and tyrants subjected himself and the whole Church to Charles the great the emperor as to the ordination of the apostolic see and the investitures of bishops, as in ch. Adrianus, distinct. 63. By whose example Pope Leo did the same in a general synod, 63, distinct., ch. In synodo, because he submitted himself to the judgment of the emperor Louis, 2, q. 7, Nos si, which is most confirmed through the Gloss in the same place which has been adduced above in the third argument. Seventhly⁷ as he alleges in the Gloss of the said ch. Nos si, the pope can renounce the papacy and depose himself, therefore also subject himself to the judgment of another and be deposed by others.

To these objections answer is easily given. To the first⁸ concerning ch. Nos si, 2, q. 7, answer is given in three ways. First, that that word "iudicio" is expounded, that is, as "by discretion", according to Vincent and the Archdeacon, and not by jurisdiction or power of the emperor. For to the discretion of them the pope said he wished to emend all those things, but he did not say that he would emend by the jurisdiction of them. Likewise although he says that he sends nuncios who should inquire into and examine the things that had been judged, yet he does not say that they should be revoked by the authority of them. Secondly answer is given that the pope there so speaks from a certain humility, as lord Alvarus says in the book on the state and lament of the Church, ch. 33, but not from obligation. Thirdly answer can be given in our judgment, and well, that it is one thing to submit certain causes over which the pope has controversy against anyone, as for instance over Italian rights or of particular causes regarding the person of the pope inasmuch as he is a private man and a singular person, or even concerning singularly the rights of the Roman Church, or even in which the pope himself first judged and from his benignity or humility would wish to revoke the arbitration of some, which we say for so much because he would not be bound to submit to the judgment of any that they should be terminated by their sentence. And it is another thing to submit himself or a cause touching his person and papal dignity to the judgment of anyone who could judge him or punish or depose him. The first he can and of this is understood ch. Nos si and the like, but not the second nor does the aforesaid chapter speak of such.

To the second⁹ Gloss concerning ch. Si papa, answer is given as to the Gloss itself that it is to be understood as has been said concerning ch. Nos si. To the third¹⁰ Gloss concerning ch. In synodo briefly we answer with lord Alvarus where above, that false are the things there noted by John, who certainly in many other things speaks and feels ill of the Church. To the fourth¹¹ which is taken from the purgations made by supreme pontiffs, as in ch. Mandastis and in ch. Auditum, 2, q. 5, ch. Nos si, 2, q. 7, we shall answer below. It is also certain that from such purgations which some pontiffs are read to have made of their own accord it does not follow that they submitted their persons to the judgment of any council which could punish or depose them. Since also those purgations although they were made in the presence of the aforesaid, yet not before them as before a superior judge to whom the pope had submitted himself. Whence those arguments well considered make nothing for the purpose of the adversaries. To the fifth¹² concerning ch. Cum ex iniuncto answer is given first that in that chapter it is not had that a prelate without license of the pope can submit himself to one not his judge, but only that he can submit himself to the purgation of subjects and admit them to his accusation, but this is not to submit himself to them, whence it is not to the purpose. Secondly answer is given that that chapter does not speak of the Roman pontiff but of other inferior prelates. For such have not the supreme power in the Church nor the apex of its principate, nor would that unfittingness and absurdity follow from their submission which would follow in the pope if he should submit himself, as is clear from what has been said.

To the sixth¹³ concerning ch. Adrianus answer is given denying the consequence, because from that subjection which for the aforesaid reasons he made to Charles the great concerning the ordination of the apostolic see, giving to him that with others he should take part in the election, it does not follow for this that the pope subjected his person to the power or judgment of the emperor, just as neither today is the pope subject to the lord cardinals although they have voice in the election of the pope himself. But to ch. Nos si incompetenter, 2, q. 7, answer has been given above that the particle by judgment is expounded that is by discretion according to Vincent and the Archdeacon, and not by jurisdiction or power of the emperor. To the Gloss of ch. Si papa, with others answer is given that the pope cannot subject himself to the judgment of another and although he submit himself of necessity he is not bound to stand, nor even by law would he be bound to it through the laws and reasons alleged above. From all which it is had that by law a council even congregated by authority of the pope in no way can intermeddle concerning the person of the pope, not only in civil matters, for instance by establishing something which he should be bound of necessity to keep, but also concerning criminal matters by judging or condemning his person, except in the case of heresy strictly taken as has been said. And if this a council cannot do even the pope voluntarily submitting himself, to no one is it doubtful that it can less, the pope expressly prohibiting it, establish anything against his person, or intermeddle, or do or dispose anything against the privileges of the apostolic see.

To the seventh¹⁴ concerning renunciation answer is given denying the consequence: since it is not similar, nor do those inconveniences or repugnances follow there which follow here. From which the presumption and temerity of the Basilians is manifestly confuted who attempted to cite, suspend and depose the true and undoubted Roman pontiff lord Eugenius of holy memory, in which they imitated Dioscorus who with a council congregated presumed to excommunicate Leo the Roman pontiff. Which presumption the holy fathers at Chalcedon so detested, as Nicholas says in the epistle to the emperor Michael, as is had in ch. Tantum, distinct. the twenty-seventh, that they damned Dioscorus the Alexandrian bishop among other things without any restitution for this chiefly, because putting his mouth into the heavens, his tongue passing through the earth, he dictated excommunication against the holy pope Leo, so that in the sentence brought against him they seem chiefly to commemorate this, namely the fathers of the Chalcedonian council saying: Since in the second excesses he far transcended the former iniquity, for he presumed to dictate excommunication against the most holy and most blessed archbishop of the Roman Church Leo, etc.