Summa de Ecclesia

Notwithstanding the aforesaid objections of the adversaries, to which it was not difficult to answer, it seems to be held—always saving better judgment—that, as we proved above, the apostolic see, to which by reason of the sublimity of its principate it belongs to define and interpret sententially those things which regard the faith and the doctrine and religion of the whole Christian people, cannot err, in view of the immutable decree of the divine promise, in those things which by the judgment of its apostolate it decrees or defines publicly to the Christian people as to be held and believed of faith. Both because, as the argument runs, otherwise there would be no firm and undoubted belief in those things which would be established concerning faith by the Church, since all such things were established by the Roman pontiffs. And because it is agreed that the books of the canon are held by the authority of the Church, which is chiefly conferred in the Roman pontiff as the head and prince of that same Church; whence whether those books are to be believed or not is agreed only through the authority of the Church. Hence Augustine against the Fundamental Epistle: I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the catholic Church moved me to believe; because the Church was directed by the Holy Spirit in the choice of canonical holy Scripture. Therefore it is likewise to be believed that the Roman pontiff is ruled by the Holy Spirit in the judgment of those things which are of faith, and consequently does not err in them; otherwise anyone could with the same ease say that error was made in the choice of the four Gospels and of the canonical epistles, and in the approval of the universal councils and of the other books of the doctors, approving some and reprobating others—which nevertheless, as is clear, is defined by the Roman pontiffs, namely Gregory and Gelasius, concerning which it is read as determined. And thus no certain faith would remain; it is to be believed that nothing dangerous or even absurd could be devised in the Christian religion. Therefore it does not seem that the Roman pontiff can err in judging in those things which by the judgment of his apostolate he defines as to be believed by faith or to be detested. Wherefore it must be said to the reasons to the contrary. To the first¹ when it is said that that authority of Luke 22, I have prayed for thee, etc., is not to be taken as concerning the faith of Peter, it is answered that this is false, which is manifestly clear both from the very words of the Lord Saviour and from the expositions of the holy fathers and doctors. From the text of the Gospel indeed it is clear: for Christ says to Peter, I have prayed for thee, Peter. Behold that he says for thee in particular; that thy faith fail not. Behold that he says thy faith; and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren. But it is clear that he prayed for the personal faith of him who after his fall is bidden, having confessed, to confirm his brethren; but this was Peter and no other, nor the congregation of the universal Church itself, because those words cannot be adapted to it. Both because its faith will not fail. And because it is not said to be at any time converted. And because its faith is not properly said to have the faithful as brethren but rather as sons. But to what the adversaries say, that the faith of Peter immediately failed, it is answered that if it failed for an hour, it did not fail finally, and this is what Christ prayed for. Hence the Lord did not say: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thou deny not or that thou fall not, but that thy faith fail not, namely finally. Hence Bede in the Gloss does not say thou art not held, but thy faith shall not fail, so that after the fall of denial thou mayest rise by repenting to thy former state; thus far he. This also the Saviour manifestly implies in the following words when he says: And thou being once converted confirm thy brethren, in which case the Saviour manifestly implies that Peter was at some time to fall or to deny. Therefore he prayed not lest he fall, but lest he remain in his fall; which was fulfilled at his prayer, so that afterwards he never fall again. And thus it is clear from the very text of the Gospel and the word of the Saviour that the Lord speaks literally concerning the personal faith of Peter.

This also is most openly shown from the expositions of the holy fathers which we adduced above in ch. 109. Hence Pope Leo expounding this text in the second sermon of his consecration thus says: The spiritual care is undertaken by the lord Peter, and supplication is made properly for the faith of Peter, as though the state of the others would be more certain if the life of my prince were not; in Peter therefore the strength of all shall be fortified etc. Behold the clearest testimony of what we have said. But as to what the adversaries consequently say, that the exposition given concerning the final personal faith of Peter does not hold—for, as they say, personal faith in the other pontiffs, successors of Peter, has not had nor has final perseverance in faith—it is a false saying; for the aforesaid text speaks of the personal faith of Peter, not of the personal faith of the other pontiffs. For which it is to be noted that the Roman pontiff succeeds blessed Peter not in personal graces and prerogatives but in the see and office of the pontificate, and consequently in the privileges of the see and office. But Peter had the privilege after the resurrection of Christ of not finally failing or erring in faith; and not only he had this, but also the other apostles who remained with Christ. Hence, as blessed Chrysostom says, he prayed for all also when he says in John 17, Holy Father, keep them in my name. Hence the common doctrine of the saints holds that all the apostles were confirmed after the resurrection. Hence the Gloss upon that of Ps. 74, I have confirmed the pillars thereof, thus says: Which wavered in the passion, the apostles who were confirmed in the resurrection. But in this privilege the Roman pontiff does not succeed Peter, just as neither do the other bishops succeed the other apostles. And therefore what the adversaries adduce concerning the personal faith or prayer of the Roman pontiffs is not to the point. But Peter himself had, singularly above those other apostles, and the privilege of not erring in faith extended itself to his see or chair, so that in his chair catholic doctrine should always flourish, and in his see judgment in those things which are of faith from every stain of error by its effects, as we established above by many sentences of the holy fathers. But this prerogative was not given to the sees of the other apostles, since all have in some way been put to shame: as is clear concerning Achaia where blessed Andrew preached, concerning Asia where John the evangelist preached, concerning India where Thomas, concerning Ethiopia where Matthew, concerning the other India where blessed Bartholomew, concerning Jerusalem where James. All these have as it were utterly failed from the faith; only the Roman church remains immaculate and, God helping, will always remain.

² To the second objection, when it is said that the aforesaid authority cannot be understood of the Roman church etc., it is answered by denying this assumption, for it is false. And to the proof, when it is said that when Christ spoke those words to Peter, Peter was no more the head of Rome etc., it is answered that that proof is nothing; for although Peter was then the head of no church, but was well to be head in the future, nevertheless when Christ prayed for the faith of Peter he prayed for the faith of whatever church was to be in the future over which Peter as prince and head was to preside. Hence when Peter presided over the church of Antioch, the church of Antioch had this prerogative; but when Peter transferred his see thence, the said prerogative was transferred into the Roman church, which by God disposing providence inseparably follows and accompanies the very see of Peter. Hence blessed Leo in the second sermon of his consecration thus says: While the disposition of truth remains, and blessed Peter persevering in the fortitude received has not relinquished the undertaken helms of the Church; for thus is he ordained, that he be called rock before he be pronounced foundation, while he is constituted doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, while as arbiter of binding and loosing he presides over the ministry even in heaven for the definition of his judgments, of what kind this fellowship is to me we might know through the very mysteries of his appellations; and below: If therefore anything is rightly done or discerned by us, if anything is obtained from the mercy of God by daily supplications, it is of his works and merits in whose see power lives and authority excels. For this, beloved, that confession obtained which, inspired into the apostolic heart by God the Father, transcended all human operations on earth, and received firmness which would be shaken by no illusions. Thus far he. Likewise Pope Nicholas thus writes to the emperor Michael: Peter ceases not to fortify by his prayers—to confirm the structure of the universal Church, unshaken, of the rock which is Christ, and clearly solidified by faith—so that he hastens to reform the madness of the erring by the rule of right faith, that he may procure to reward them consolidating it intrepidly, so that the gates of hell, the suggestions of malignant spirits and the assaults of heretics, may not prevail to break the unity of that same Church.

³ To the third objection, when it is said that the doctors expounding those words of Christ do not expound them of the Roman church etc., it is answered by denying this as false and iniquitous, which is clear from the testimonies adduced above for the truth of the conclusion, of the holy fathers Cyril, Chrysostom, Jerome, Leo, Agatho, Bernard, Anselm, Albert the Great, Saint Thomas and many other doctors; for all these speak of the Roman church insofar as it is a distinct part, as head and mistress against the other churches.

⁴ To the fourth objection, when it is said that what is promised to the whole and not to the part etc., it is answered by denying that not to err against the faith was not promised to the Roman Church, for this is false as has now been shown in the answer to the second. Hence blessed Cyril, as we adduced above, thus says: According to this promise of the Lord the apostolic church of Peter remains immaculate from all seduction and heretical circumvention above all powers etc., as above. ⁵ To the fifth, when it is asked what is meant by the Roman church when it is said that it cannot err in faith. It is answered, first, that the Roman church is not taken here with so extended a word for the congregation of those faithful who hold the faith which the apostles preached at Rome. For that way of calling the Roman church seems improper. Both because the apostles preached elsewhere than at Rome the faith which the faithful dispersed through the world hold and observe. And because even the confession itself of faith by which Peter confessed Christ God and man, saying Thou art Christ the Son of the living God etc., upon which Christ is said to have built his Church, was made not first at Rome but at Caesarea Philippi, as is said in Matt. 16. Secondly, the Roman church is said to be that in which the Christian religion from the time of the apostles Peter and Paul is said always to have persevered immaculate and to be bound to persist unto the end of the world; it is called the congregation of the faithful Roman people with its pastor. But as to what is said from the adversaries, that all Romans can err just as all those of Jerusalem did, it is answered that this is false, for this grace was given to the Roman church which was not given to that of Jerusalem; concerning which grace Pope Agapetus in his report in which he wrote to the emperor Constantine thus says: This apostolic Church of Christ by the grace of almighty God is declared never to have erred from the path of apostolic tradition etc., as above in the text. ⁶ To the sixth objection, in which it is argued: The Pope can err in faith by holding a bad opinion concerning those things which are of faith; therefore he can likewise err in judgment by judging ill concerning faith, it is answered by denying the consequence: for although the first is possible, the second is not. And the reason of the diversity is that the spiritual assistance promised by Christ regards not the person of the pope but his office, see; and therefore, since to opine is of the person but to judge is of the office, although it is possible for the pope to opine ill, yet to err in sentencing in judgment concerning those things which are of faith is not possible while the divine promise stands. For which it is to be noted with Saint Thomas in the eighth quodlibet, in which, asking whether all canonized by the Church are in glory or some of them are in hell, he says something can be judged considered in itself which referred to something extrinsic is found impossible. But if the divine providence be considered, which directs the Church by its Holy Spirit—over which Christ promises in John 16, He shall teach you all truth—it is certain that it is impossible for the divine universal Church itself to err in those things which pertain to faith; hence one must stand more by the sentence of the pope which he brings forth in judgment concerning faith than by the sentence of any men soever in opinions of the Scriptures. For even Caiaphas, whose pontiff he is, although not to him a prophet yet of a prophet, John 11: thus Saint Thomas. Plainly dignities of this kind in the Church, as much honour and reverence is attributed to them, so are they full of the greatest virtue and of singular grace. Hence Chrysostom upon that word of John 11 is read setting forth very beautifully: See, he says, how great is the virtue of pontifical power: for since he was in whatever way made worthy to be pontiff, even if existing unworthy, etc., knowing what he said; for only his mouth did spiritual grace use; but it did not touch his contaminated heart; and below: Thou seest how great spiritual virtue willed to bring forth from a pernicious mind words full of great and marvellous prophecy. Likewise blessed Augustine treating this place in the book of Questions of the Old and New Testament, and it is had in ch. It was said by the Lord, 1 q. 1, thus speaks to the point: But how great is the dignity of the sacerdotal order let us note hence; but it was said of the most wicked Caiaphas among other things: but this he said not of himself, but being high priest of that year he prophesied; through which it is shown that the Holy Spirit, giver of graces, follows not the person whether worthy or unworthy but the order of tradition. Where moreover in this place it is well to be noted that it is not said that the pope cannot err or think ill or judge in those things which are of faith—since error, as Augustine says, is nothing else than to approve the false for the true—but it is said that the sentence which the Roman pontiff brings forth in judgment in those things which are of faith cannot err, or that the judgment of the apostolic faith, which is the same thing, cannot err. For thus speaks Jerome in ch. This is the faith, 14 q. 1, when he says: If by the judgment of his apostolate the Church errs. In the same way speaks Saint Thomas in the aforesaid quodlibet when he says that one must stand more by the sentence which he brings forth in judgment concerning faith than by anyone's. Hence also Pope Agapetus in ch. Thus, dist. 19, says: Thus all sanctions of the apostolic see are to be received as though established by the very divine voice of Peter. Upon which the Archdeacon says: Cautiously he says of the apostolic see, and does not say of the apostolic man; but by sanctions of the apostolic see is understood the sentence or sentence pronounced in judgment by the Roman pontiff—not that which is secretly, maliciously or inconsultately brought forth by the Roman pontiff alone or even by him with a few favouring him, the others being in fraud despised or not called to take part. But that which is digested and matured by the Roman pontiff with mature and grave counsel first of wise men, and especially of the cardinal doctors, and is sanctioned and brought forth. For even Albert the Great in the question on justice and laws held that to determine and interpret or expound belongs to authority according to wise counsellors, and that what is done in arduous matters in this way is said to emanate from the apostolic see, according to what blessed Gregory says in ch. of the apostolic see, 35 q. 9: The sentence of the apostolic see is always conceived with so great moderation of counsel, digested with so great maturity of patience, brought forth with so great gravity of deliberation, that it deems it not necessary to be changed, unless perchance it has been so brought forth that it can be retracted. ⁷ To the seventh objection it is argued concerning the pope made a heretic and failing; for his heresy it is answered in two ways. Some wish to say that the case is not possible when heresy could be spread through the pope. For he says that in this case God would not permit him to define heresy or anything against faith, but would prevent him either by death or by the resistance of other faithful or by the instruction of others or by inward inspiration or by other modes according to which God can in manifold ways provide for his holy Church and the truth of faith; for this they adduce some examples. First concerning Balaam cursing as a prophet: since Christ has no less care of avoiding the curse of unbelief than of the verbal curse of such a prophet upon the Jewish people, but God so provided for that people, as is clear in Num. 22, that the evil prophet coming to curse the Jewish people was prohibited by God, so that he could not curse the people whom God had blessed. Therefore much more strongly, if the pope were a heretic, on account of the immutable truth of faith given by God to the whole Church, the Lord would not permit him to determine heresy or error against faith, but would prevent him by some of the said modes.

The second example concerning Caiaphas who prophesied unknowingly by reason of pontifical dignity: much more is the Roman pontiff to be believed to be prevented from determining error, both by reason of pontifical dignity and by reason of the honour of God and the salvation of the Christian people. They adduce also a third example concerning Anastasius who, although he wished to recall Achacius, nevertheless could not, because he was struck by the divine nod, as in ch. Anastasius and in the Gloss, dist. 19.

But to us it seems otherwise to be said: namely that that reason is not to our point, for if the Roman pontiff is made a heretic, by the very fact whereby he falls from the faith of Peter he falls from the chair and see of Peter, and consequently the judgment which such a heretic would make would not be the judgment of the apostolic see, indeed nor is it to be called the judgment of any authority or weight; for since through heresy he would have fallen from prelacy, he would consequently be deprived of the authority of judging, as in ch. Novatianus, 24 q. 1, etc., ch. Factus, 7 q. 1, and Extra, on the office of the vicar, ch. We, in the sixth, and in the Gloss. But prelacy, as the Archdeacon says in ch. Quamvis, dist. 21, consists in three things: in judgments, as in ch. Inferior; in precepts, as in ch. Now; in sentences, as in ch. Finally, in the same distinction. And thus it is clear that that objection of the adversaries is of no force.

⁸ To the eighth objection, when it is said and argued concerning the declaration made by Anastasius, it is answered that it is false that the aforesaid declaration was not canonical and true. For which it is to be noted that concerning this matter touched in the aforesaid declaration—namely whether heretics and those cut off confer true sacraments—there are four opinions, as the Master of the Sentences touches in 4, dist. 24, and Saint Thomas. The first, that heretics and those cut off do not confer the sacraments; but this opinion is not held. Another is the opinion of those saying that they confer but the promoted do not receive; this opinion also is not held. Another is the opinion of those saying that they can confer, provided they keep the form and intention of the Church, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the last, which is the conferring of grace; but this opinion also cannot stand, for from the fact that one communicates with a heretic cut off from the Church in the sacraments he sins, and thus he approaches feigned, and consequently he cannot obtain grace, unless perchance in baptism in the article of necessity. Another opinion is that heretics confer true sacraments but do not give grace with them, not on account of the inefficacy of the sacraments but on account of the sins of those receiving from them against the prohibition of the Church. But this Anastasius in this declaration of his, as far as can be gathered from the form and tenor of the letter, whatever Gratian says, seems to say nothing else than what this fourth opinion says, namely that those cut off from the Church also confer true sacraments, and this generally as to all; but as to the effect of grace the contrary holds concerning those who would present no impediment or obstacle to grace. But that such was the opinion of this Roman supreme pontiff in this chapter, and he speaks truly, is clear from what is adduced in the Gloss according to Hugh. But the Gloss thus says: In various ways is the case of this chapter stated. Gratian adduces it as though it were abrogated, and Maldensis agrees with him, and all who say that the truth of the sacraments is not among heretics, as 24 q. 1, ch. Scisma, and 1 q. 1, ch. Extra ecclesiam. Hugh says that neither is the chapter reprobated nor was the author condemned for what is contained here, because nothing is contained here which is not said canonically, etc. The same says the lord Archdeacon.

But what he moreover says, that Gratian himself was of that opinion that true sacraments were not among heretics—which is false—and thus seems truly to have erred, and not Anastasius in that. Hence Gratian, when he says in the preceding distinction that what is said—that decretal epistles are of equal authority with the canons, or that they are always to be received—is to be understood of those sanctions or decretal epistles in which nothing is found contrary either to the decrees of the preceding fathers or to the evangelical precepts, seems to speak ill in two things. First, as the Archdeacon says, in that he seems to imply that the pope cannot act against the decrees of his predecessors, which is not true of constitutions, ch. 1, book 6. Secondly, in that he presupposes that decretal epistles contrary to the evangelical precepts could emanate from the apostolic see, which is false according to the aforesaid, and expressly against ch. Thus, dist. 19.

⁹ To the ninth objection, which is taken from the deeds of Pope Formosus and Pope Stephen, it is answered that that objection does not militate against our point, for that altercation was not in matter of faith or concerning those things which are necessary to salvation, but in certain worldly processes and judgments. Hence Pope Formosus, when he was cardinal, had been degraded even to the lay habit, and had sworn neither to return to the episcopate nor to the Roman see; Pope Stephen the sixth, believing that such a one could not be resumed to the papacy nor consequently be true pope, since with such a one he could not, etc., decreed his sentences to be void by their own reasons. But his successor, namely John the ninth, believing the aforesaid Formosus, those things notwithstanding, to have been true pontiff, confirmed his ordinations and reprobated in the council of Ravenna the deeds against him. That erring was not matter of faith. For in those things which are deeds the Church can err, as Saint Thomas says in quodlibet 8, as in 4 of the Sentences, dist. 41, where he says that although the Church is upheld by divine gift and authority, yet insofar as it is a congregation of men, something from human defect results in its acts which is not divine.

¹⁰ To the tenth objection, which is taken from the declarations of John 22, which seem contrary to the declaration made by the lord Nicholas III, it is answered that in truth they are not opposed; indeed the declaration of John 22 stands excellently well together with the determination of Nicholas. For which it is to be noted that, having diligently searched the text of the Gospels with the expositions of the holy fathers and catholic doctors, we read that Christ ordained two poverties befitting diverse exercises of the perfect. One namely, and the first, for those who were to be sent to preach in Judea to announce the coming of the king, which is to have nothing of one's own under heaven, neither in particular nor in common. Concerning which the Lord, sending the disciples to preach, says in Matt. 10 etc.: Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses, not a wallet, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff. For the workman is worthy of his food. Thus far there. But Christ commanded this, as Jerome says in the Gloss, lest they seem to preach for gain and not for salvation. This Gloss upon that For the workman is worthy etc. thus says: Behold why he commanded to carry nothing, for all things are owed to them. And the Gloss on Luke 10 says: Behold he who forbade wallet and scrip granted expenses from preaching; concerning Christ also it is said in Matt. 8, The Son of man hath not where to lay his head; the Gloss of Jerome says: Why dost thou wish to follow me for worldly gains, when I am so poor that I have not even a little lodging nor use a roof by necessity. The second poverty is for those who had resolved to remain in congregation, and thus it is to have nothing in one's own but well in common, concerning which it is thus said in Acts 4: And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul; neither did anyone of them say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but all things were common unto them; where the Gloss of Bede beautifully thus says: Who so live that all things are common in the Lord are called cenobites, which life is by so much the happier as it imitates the state of the future world, where all things are common, for God is all in all. Thus far there. Therefore Christ, willing to approve both poverties, at one time held the first, having nothing at all, neither in particular nor in common, using only from what the devout women following him ministered to him and to the apostles, as is had in Luke 8; upon which word the Gloss, believed to be Bede's, thus says: It was an ancient custom of the Jews, nor was it reckoned a fault, that women should feed with their substance those who came as teachers and doctors; but because among the Gentiles this could cause scandal, Paul records that he abstained; they ministered therefore carnal things to the Lord from whom they reaped spiritual things, that he might give a pattern to preachers, for they ought to be content with food and clothing: this Gloss. But the second poverty he approved at one time both by word and by example; by word: hence in Luke 22 he says to the apostles: When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you lack anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip, etc.; where the interlinear Gloss says: In this also an example is given to us, that we may without fault intermit for an instant cause somewhat of the rigour of our resolve. From which Gloss a manifest argument is taken, that that precept of Matt. 10 concerning not carrying gold and silver etc., over which dispensation does not essentially pertain to the perfection of the spiritual life—for in such dispensation would have no place—which seems to militate in nothing against the little brothers. Moreover Christ also established the aforesaid poverty by example, having a purse in which were kept what was given to him for relieving his necessities and theirs, concerning which it is thus had in John 13: Christ says to Judas, That thou dost, do quickly. But no man at the table knew to what he had said this; and some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day, or that he should give something to the poor. Upon which blessed Augustine says on John, and it is had in ch. He had, 12 q. 1: The Lord therefore also had a purse, keeping things offered by the faithful, and bestowed them for the necessities of his own and of others in need. Then first was instituted the form of ecclesiastical money, that we might understand that what he commanded—not to think of the morrow—was not commanded to this end, that the saints should keep no money, but lest God be served for the sake of such things, and justice be forsaken for fear of want: thus Augustine.

Likewise the same Augustine, and it is had in ch. Exemplum, same cause and question: Take the example of the Lord conversing on earth; why had he a purse, he whom angels served, unless because his Church was to have purses. But it cannot be said that this mode of poverty does not befit the perfect, as though to have anything in common derogated from evangelical perfection. Let it be clear from this, that Christ most perfect and his most holy apostles observed it and left it to the Church to be observed, according to the now-said things of blessed Augustine. Again it is clear from the common observance of all holy rules—of Basil, Augustine, Benedict—which all have something in common. Again it is clear from the declaration which Gregory the ninth makes in a certain decretal of his, Extra, on the excesses of prelates, ch. Nimis iniqua, where he expressly asserts that the preaching brothers and the minors serve Christ poor in the highest poverty, and yet it is agreed that those preachers themselves have something in common even as to ownership of some things, which is not repugnant to their rule and state. This also Alexander the fourth seems to have felt in the condemnation of the libel against the state of the preachers and minors, in which, speaking of the said brothers, he thus subjoins: Since moreover those same brothers have left all things for God, begging the scanty supports of life, they imitate Christ himself poor, embracing evangelical perfection, on account of which it is evidently clear that they exist not only in the state of those to be saved but also of the perfect, and through the observance of their religion, which indeed holds the form of that same evangelical perfection, bring forth excelling glory in the reward of eternal retribution. Thus far there. Where indeed he expressly says that the preachers imitate Christ poor and embrace his evangelical perfection and exist in the state of the perfect, and that the observance of that same religion holds the form of evangelical perfection, and yet it is agreed that they can have, as to ownership, something in common according to their rule. And thus it is clear that to have something in common does not derogate from evangelical perfection, which also Saint Thomas determines in 2.2 q. 188 art. 7, adducing that of Prosper on the contemplative life, and it is had in ch. Expedit: to possess the faculties of the Church and to contemn one's own for love of perfection; and below: By which deed it is sufficiently shown both that one's own ought to be contemned for perfection and that without impediment of perfection one can possess the faculties of the Church, which are indeed common. Since therefore Christ taught these two poverties—both of evangelical perfection—at diverse times by word and established them by example, it is clear that the declaration of John 22 does not contradict the declaration of the lord Nicholas III, but they stand well together, referring their sayings to diverse times. At one time Christ and the apostles had nothing in particular nor in common, sustaining necessities from the women who followed Christ, as the lord Pope Nicholas says. But at another time they had something in common, as for instance purses, as the lord Pope John 22 says. And thus it is clear what is briefly to be said to the said objection insofar as it regards the present place. But as to what is adduced in the second place from the same word of John, that he revoked what Nicholas determined, we say that it is not true that the lord John revoked, but he well declared what the lord Nicholas had declared: namely that the Friars Minor in the things offered to them have no right and dominion except only simple usufruct stripped of all right and dominion and ownership, both in particular and in common—which in common ought to be understood in things in which use can be separated from dominion and ownership — such as are immovable things and many movables, but not in things which are consumed by use; and he declares that the lord Nicholas understands that the Friars Minor in the things which they use have the right of using. And certainly without prejudice to the lord Nicholas the lord John 22 could declare this. Both because the lord Nicholas in his constitution expressly says that in doubts arising concerning what was determined by him the said brothers should have recourse to the apostolic see, to be declared by it. And also because the pope declares the Gospel as is the case concerning swearing etc. As therefore the Roman pontiff without prejudice to the Saviour declared that the precept concerning not swearing does not extend so as to prohibit swearing in every case—indeed he condemns the heretics who say that it is never lawful to swear—so much more could the lord John declare the saying of the lord Nicholas: namely that Christ and the apostles and the Friars Minor, having just use, have the right of using. And as to the goods conferred on the Friars Minor, the lord Nicholas is understood to have received the dominion for himself and the Roman church as to all those things in which use can be separated from dominion, of which kind are not things necessary for life and which are consumed by use. And also because, as the lord John 22 says: It does not pertain to faith in particular what and how the Friars Minor have; indeed that does not pertain to faith, and in such things which are not of the necessity of faith and of good morals generally a successor can revoke and change what his predecessor established, as shall seem to him expedient, since in these an equal has command over an equal. That moreover poverty by which Christ willed as poor with the apostles to have neither immovables nor many movables in common the lord Nicholas grants—not that which excludes the right of using and usufruct, nor that which deprives, by right and dominion, of having things consumable by use, since it is impossible. And on this reason the doctors, both holy and scholastic, found themselves, wherefore for money lent or another thing whose use is its consumption usury cannot licitly be taken, just as hire can licitly be received for a house let or another thing not consumable, as Saint Thomas shows in 2.2 q. 78 art. 1. And such a sentence is also clear from the sentence of blessed Chrysostom on Matthew, and it is had in ch. Eiciens, dist. 88. And let this much only have been said on this matter for the present, for perhaps elsewhere in our other writings a fuller discourse will be had.