Summa de Ecclesia

Against the aforesaid conclusion, which we have effectively established concerning the privilege of the apostolic see and of the Roman church by authorities and reasons, there is a great crowd of adversaries and enemies of the apostolic see who strive to assail it with many reasons. And first they strive to weaken the foundations of our aforesaid conclusion. First thus¹. For that authority of Luke 22, in which Christ is said to have prayed lest faith fail, cannot be understood of the personal faith of Peter, for it immediately failed in him when he denied Christ. And if it be said that it is understood of the final perseverance of Peter, it does not hold, for it is doubtful whether such final perseverance in faith always belongs to the other supreme pontiffs. Hence that authority seems to be taken concerning the faith of the universal Church, which never fails, and not concerning the personal faith of Peter. Therefore it is falsely founded on the aforesaid authority that there is any firmness of the judgment of the see or of any church of Peter; the consequence seems good.

Secondly thus². That authority cannot be understood of the faith of the Roman church. Therefore the aforesaid conclusion has no firmness of truth. The consequence is good. The antecedent is proved: for when Christ spoke those words to Peter, Peter was no more the head of the Roman church than of that of Antioch, but was then first to have his see in Antioch and afterwards in Rome. Since therefore in the aforesaid words no more mention is made of Rome than of Antioch—for general words stand equally to all particulars—but the aforesaid words ought not to be understood of Antioch, for the faith of that church has already failed—therefore neither ought they to be understood of the Roman church.

Thirdly thus³. The doctors expounding those words of Scripture do not expound them of the Roman church insofar as the Roman church is a part distinct from the other churches; but they expound the words of Scripture speaking on that matter of the catholic and apostolic Church, which comprehends every church holding the faith of the apostles, whether it be at Rome or in Spain or in Gaul. Hence the doctors do not say, say the adversaries, that the Roman church cannot err or will never err against the faith; although they sometimes assert that it is never found to have erred in its whole self, although at some time it erred for the greater part, as in the time of Liberius after he consented to the Arian treachery.

Fourthly thus⁴. What is promised to the whole and not to any part ought not to be attributed to any part, even a principal one; but never to err against the faith was promised by Christ to the whole congregation of the faithful, and was promised to no part. Therefore this ought not to be attributed to any other particular church of catholics; since therefore the Roman church is a part of the Church and not the whole Church, inability to err against the faith is not to be attributed to the Roman church.

Fifthly thus⁵. When you say that the Roman church cannot fail in faith, I ask you what you understand by the Roman church. For either you understand the pope or the multitude of Romans, whether clerics or laymen dwelling in the Roman districts. And in this sense it is not true, for all Romans inhabiting dwellings at Rome can err against the faith, just as all those of Jerusalem erred. Or you call the Roman church the clerics holding titles in Rome. In this sense also it does not seem true that the Roman church cannot err in faith, for such clerics holding titles at Rome do not seem more chosen by God than those who held titles at Jerusalem; but all those erred. Therefore etc. Or thirdly you call the Roman church the pope with the cardinals, or the pope alone, or the college of cardinals alone. Nor does this seem true, that the Roman church does not fail in faith; indeed it seems rash to say that the pope with two cardinals, if more had not been elected, cannot err against the faith⁶.

Or fourthly you call the Roman church those who hold the faith which the apostles founded and preached at Rome: then it seems well true that the Roman church taken in this sense, which is the universal Church, cannot err; but since this comprehends Romans no more than Spaniards, it is not to the point.

⁷ Sixthly thus. The Pope can err in faith and be stained with heretical depravity: this is manifest. Both by reason, for since the pope is a wayfarer and is not confirmed in faith by the papacy, he can err. Both by authority, as in ch. Si papa, fortieth distinction. And by examples, as is clear concerning Marcellinus and Anastasius the second; therefore it follows that he can also err in judgment, and thus it is not true that the judgment of the apostolic see is indefectible and undeviating in those things which are of faith.

⁸ Seventhly it is argued. It is possible that the Roman pontiff fall into a condemned heresy, and that he define such a heresy in judgment with his accomplices; therefore the judgment of the apostolic see in such a case will err in faith.

⁹ Eighthly it is argued concerning that declaration which Anastasius made, of which there is mention in dist. 19, in ch. 1, According to the custom of the catholic Church: in which those whom Achatius, after the sentence pronounced against him, had ordained priests or levites, Anastasius decreed ought rightly to exercise their functions with benefices received. But Gratian calls these rescripts illicit, and given not canonically but against the decrees of his predecessors, and the apostolic see seems to err here.

¹⁰ Ninthly it is argued from the history of Pope Stephen who, having gathered a council, condemned Pope Formosus and decreed all his ordinations to be void. And concerning John the ninth who confirmed the ordination, and, a synod having been gathered at Ravenna, reprobated the synod which Stephen had held against Formosus.

¹¹ Tenthly it is argued concerning John 22: it cannot be denied by any evasion that his doctrine concerning the poverty of Christ and his apostles, and concerning the abdication of poverty of all temporal things in particular and in common, of evangelical poverty, is said to be opposed to the doctrine of Nicholas III and of the other supreme pontiffs; since therefore those matters pertain to faith or to good morals, it is known that one or the other of these doctrines is contained under heretical depravity. But whichever be granted is against the aforesaid conclusion. Therefore etc. That the doctrine of John 22 concerning the poverty of Christ and the apostles etc. is opposed to the doctrine of Nicholas III is clear. For Pope John 22, in a certain declaration of his which begins Cum inter nonnullos, declares first that to assert pertinaciously that our redeemer and lord Jesus and his apostles had nothing in particular nor in common is heretical. This declaration seems manifestly to be repugnant to the declaration and determination of the lord Nicholas III, who in his decretal which begins Exiit qui seminat—which declaration was inserted by Pope Boniface into the sixth book of the decretals and received by the universal Church—in which declaration the aforesaid lord Nicholas thus says: Moreover, since the rule itself expressly contains that the brothers appropriate nothing to themselves, neither one nor any thing, and since it was declared by the same our predecessor Gregory the ninth and by several others that they ought to observe this both in particular and in common, and since to treat thus of abdication, defamed by the poisonous detractions of certain men, is depraved by the cunning of detractors, lest the brightness of those same brothers be torn by the unskilled speeches of such men, we say that such abdication of ownership of all things, both in particular and in common, for God's sake is meritorious and holy, which also Christ, showing the way, taught and confirmed by example, and which the first founders of the Church militant, as they drew from the very fount, thus wishing to live by faith, derived through the channels of their life and doctrine: thus far there. But to this declaration, in which the lord Nicholas seems to assert and define that Christ and the apostles, showing the way of perfection, had nothing by right of ownership in particular nor even in common, the aforesaid declaration of John 22 seems manifestly repugnant; therefore etc. ¹² Moreover the lord John seems to have revoked in his constitution what the lord Nicholas III determined: namely that the Friars Minor in things offered to them have no right and dominion except only bare usufruct stripped of all right and dominion and ownership, both in particular and in common.