Summa de Ecclesia

It is very easy to answer the aforesaid objections if the sayings of the saints are rightly taken. For the sayings of the holy fathers which attribute to the Roman pontiff the authority of congregating a universal council must be taken as applying when one undoubted Roman pontiff resides in the apostolic see, and of a congregation not merely local to a certain place, but of an authoritative congregation for disposing and ordaining something in the universal Church to be observed by all the faithful, which, according to the sentences of the holy fathers, as we said in the preceding chapter, seems singularly to belong to him who presides over the Christian republic and to whom its rule and government have been entrusted, of which sort is the Roman pontiff. For Pope Pelagius says in the epistle which he wrote to all bishops: "The authority of congregating synods has been committed privately to the apostolic see by its power. Nor do we read that any general synod was valid which was not congregated or supported by its authority. The canons attest this, ecclesiastical history confirms it, the holy fathers confirm it"; so he. It must therefore be said in answer to the reasons to the contrary.

¹ To the first I answer by denying the consequence, since from the other apostles being said with Peter to have convoked the crowd of the disciples to the synod, as the Pope would now do with the cardinals, it does not follow that that convocation was not made principally by the authority of Peter, though it is not expressly stated. Plainly greater was the reverence of the apostles toward blessed Peter as toward their head and prince than that Scripture commemorates. Above all since blessed Cyril says in the book of Treasures that the apostles affirm in the Gospels and Epistles that in all doctrine Peter holds the place of the Lord in his Church, giving him place in every chapter and congregation, in every election and confirmation.

² To the second reason I answer that those emperors did not congregate universal councils except with the consent and authority of the Roman pontiffs first obtained. Hence the Archdeacon in the Rosary on ch. Mandatis, second, q. 5, where the text says "Valentinian Augustus commanded a synod to be congregated on our authority concerning the word," on "our authority" says thus: wherever you find that the emperor congregated a council, understand it according to this. Hence the emperors were rather executors of the will and authority of the Roman pontiffs in the congregation of councils than congregators by their own authority. Hence in ch. Sexta synodus, dist. 16, it is said thus: "The universal synod was celebrated at Constantinople and written in the Greek tongue in the times of Pope Agatho, with the most pious prince Constantine executing it." For in those times the Church was not so powerful that it could in deed compel the unwilling to come and give safe access to those called and to be congregated from distant parts, and therefore the apostolic see often did through princes what it could not conveniently do through itself. But afterwards, when with the Lord disposing it could act through itself, it did and does so not through princes but through itself. Nor does it stand in the way that in ch. Adrianus, dist. 63, it is said that Charles, king of the Franks, constituted a synod with Pope Adrian, for it is not to be understood that King Charles concurred authoritatively with the Pope for the constitution of the synod, since he had no authority for this, but he well concurred deliberatively, so that the sense is that the king and the Pope deliberated together that a synod be congregated, but yet it was to be constituted and celebrated by the authority of Pope Adrian alone; hence the Archdeacon in the Rosary on this place, on the word "constituted," says thus: "He constituted by the authority of the Pope," with reference to 2, q. 5, mandates, and dist. 17, ch. Hinc; hence he would have spoken better conversely if he had said Adrian constituted it with Charles; so he. For the rest it is also to be noted that even if bishops are sometimes read to have convened at the command of the emperors, yet such a meeting of bishops is not to be called a universal council unless it was supported by the authority of the Roman pontiff, as is openly gathered from ch. Bene quidem, dist. 96, and from ch. Multis, dist. 17. And therefore Pope Pelagius says most well in the authority set above that we read of no general synod as valid which was not congregated or supported by apostolic authority. Note the alternative: hence the bishops who had convened at Rome at the precept of King Theodoric in the time of Pope Symmachus, seeing that that congregation made at the precept of the king could not be called a synod unless it were supported by the authority of the Roman pontiff, said that Symmachus the Pope himself ought to convoke the synod, which convocation or congregation cannot be understood except as an interposition of his authority, since they were already locally where they ought to be congregated. For it is one thing to command prelates to congregate to some place, which the emperors are sometimes read to have done and kings frequently do in their kingdoms, and another to congregate a universal council: for this says not only a congregation of prelates to a certain place, but a certain authorization or influx of authority for defining, disposing, and ordaining those things which are to the advantage and necessity of the Church, to give which authority the emperors cannot give, since, being laymen, no faculty concerning ecclesiastical matters to be disposed has been given to them, as in the said ch. Bene quidem, dist. 96.

³ To the third reason many things must be said. First, that that case does not seem admissible. For it does not seem possible that such dangers could befall the Church as could not be provided for except through a general or universal council. This is plain from two points. First, because, as the adversaries argue, it would follow that it should lie in the power of one man, for instance of one powerful prince, to hinder a universal council from being celebrated would be to subvert the Christian faith and the state of the universal Church. Then second, because since the celebration of a universal council could be hindered by the discords of wars, as Isidore says happened before the times of Constantine in ch. Canones, dist. 15, it would then be possible for the faith and the state of the Church to be endangered, which is utterly false, since it is against that promise of Christ saying: "Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world," Matt., last chapter; hence it is said that no case could befall the Church for which provision could not be made through the diligence of the Roman Church, to whose most manifest testimony the holy fathers taught that recourse must be had to the apostolic see in greater causes, as in ch. Rogamus, 24, q. 1, and also when the reason of faith comes to be ventilated, as in ch. Quotiens, in the same cause and question; hence blessed Thomas in the second book on power, tenth question, fourth article, says that for making an explanation of the faith it is not necessary that the Pope congregate a universal council, since the discords of wars sometimes forbid it. Second, I answer that it would be very difficult for pious minds to believe that any true Roman pontiff, certified that the faith and the state of the universal Church were in peril unless a general council were celebrated, would refuse to congregate a universal council, since of the Roman pontiff good must always be presumed, as in ch. Non nos, dist. 40, and the Pope says in ch. Officii nostri, 24th question, that greater zeal for the Christian religion lies upon him than upon all. Third, it is said that, supposing such a case threatened the universal Church, then if the Pope, requested by the lord cardinals and by other Catholics, above all the prelates and princes of the Church, refused to congregate a universal council or to give authority to congregate it, since he would have to be held suspect of heresy and consequently doubtful in the papacy, it would already belong to others to congregate the universal council. What is said in answer to the fourth reason we likewise say, but that the Pope in the aforesaid case would be rendered suspect in faith is proved openly from ch. Error, 83rd distinction, where Innocent says: "Error which is not resisted is approved, and truth, when it is least defended, is oppressed. For to neglect, when you can, to confound the perverse is nothing else than to foster them; nor does he lack the stain of hidden fellowship who ceases to oppose a manifest crime." In this case, therefore, when the Pope refuses to congregate the council, the convocation of the universal council would belong to the cardinals, to do those things which in such a case are necessary to be done. ⁴ To the fourth I answer that the reason does not seem to make for the point, since, as we said, we do not speak of the congregation of a universal council concerning the deed of the Pope, but concerning the definition and constitution of canons and laws for the rule of the universal Church and the direction and reformation of all the faithful, whose prince, shepherd, director, and teacher is the Roman pontiff; hence to his authority alone, as to the prince of the Church, does it belong to congregate a universal council. Nevertheless, to such an objection we answer that in the case in which the Pope were vehemently defamed, above all among grave and learned men, of heresy, which infamy could not without scandal to the Church or peril to the faith be dissembled or tolerated, such a course seems in our judgment to be prescribed to be observed: that first he be requested through the cardinals, or through some other faithful ones if they are negligent, to wipe away the aforesaid infamy from himself by publicly confessing the Catholic faith, above all concerning the article or articles of which he was defamed, and to denounce such a public confession by bulls to those among whom his infamy runs. We read this practice to have been observed for the more principal part concerning the apostle Paul, Acts 20, who, when he had been defamed among the believers from the Jews for preaching that the law of Moses was not to be kept, by the counsel of blessed James and of the elders who were congregated at Jerusalem with him, entered the temple and, purified after the manner of the Jews, wiped away his infamy, as was commemorated above in ch. 2. But if it happened that the Pope, being requested, refused to do this, then he would have to be requested to congregate a universal council or to give authority to congregate it. If he did this, then the congregated council would inquire into the truth. But if he refused either to congregate or to give authority to congregate, then in our judgment the lord cardinals, who are the more excellent members of the Roman Church, upon whom it most incumbent lies to provide for the necessities of the universal Church and to meet imminent dangers, ought to convoke and congregate the prelates of the Church to inquire into the truth of the infamy, namely whether the Pope is truly a heretic or not. But where the cardinals refuse to do this, the emperor or Christian princes could do it, or even the prelates of the Church themselves, understanding such vehement suspicion concerning the Pope, could congregate themselves, as was done in the time of Pope Marcellinus, as is held in ch. Nunc autem, dist. 21. But once the prelates and others who had been called were congregated in some place, the Pope would have to be requested to authorize that congregation by his authority, as is read to have been done in the preceding case of Pope Symmachus, of which in ch. Hinc etiam, dist. 17. But if the Pope were willing to authorize the congregation, as Pope Symmachus did, well and good. But if he refused, then that congregation of prelates ought to proceed to the inquisition of the truth even with the Pope unwilling. And if you ask by what authority: I answer that both by the authority of divine law and of human law; of divine indeed, which is held in John 12, where it is said: "He that despises me and receives not my words has one to judge him. The word which I have spoken, that shall judge him on the last day." Hence holy Thomas on the Epistle to the Galatians, on that word of the apostle in the first chapter, "If anyone preach to you besides what you have received, let him be anathema," inquires, since an equal has no command over an equal, and much less over a superior, how the apostle could excommunicate apostles who were his equals, and angels who are superiors, and in answering says thus it must be said that the apostle pronounces this sentence not by his own authority but by the authority of the evangelical doctrine, whose authority of doctrine holds that whosoever teach against it are to be excluded and repelled; for this he adduces that authority of John 12 set above. Second, by the authority of human or canonical law, fifth chapter on the Pope, which is of holy Pope Boniface the martyr, dist. 40; since of this crime, namely heresy, in the Pope the competent judge seems to be the universal council alone, as is gathered in dist. 17, ch. Hinc, by the very fact that the Pope refuses to give authority to the congregation, the law itself is understood to give it authority; otherwise the provision of the law would be frustratory, which in the case of heresy disposed that the universal council can judge a heretical Pope if through the denial of the Pope it were taken away that he persist pertinaciously in his heresy. For laws would be in vain unless a minister were assigned to them, as the text says on elections, where danger, book 6. But the disposition of the law would without doubt be taken away if in that case the council could not proceed. But once the inquisition has been duly made, and it is found that the Pope has truly lapsed into heresy, then the council ought to inform him of the truth, showing through sacred Scripture or through the determination of the universal Church that what he holds is erroneous, and to require him with charitable admonition to abjure the said error or to revoke it by publicly confessing the truth of the faith. And perhaps it would be expedient for greater caution to assign him a term within which he would revoke the aforesaid error; but if within the term assigned to him he does so, the council can do nothing further against him, as Hugo expressly sets forth in ch. Nunc autem, dist. 21, and in ch. Si papa, dist. 40, on the word "deviant from the faith." But the Pope himself, in the forum of conscience, as far as he knows himself to have been culpable, should through his confessor provide for his soul with salutary penance, dist. 21, Nunc autem. But if the Pope refuses to do this, then proceeding must be had against him, as will be said in the following answer. ⁵ To the fifth reason I answer under such a distinction: either it is notorious that the Pope is a heretic, as for instance that he has fallen into a condemned heresy by publicly asserting and preaching it, or it is not notorious. If notorious, as we said, in our judgment such a course is to be observed: for the lord cardinals, or even other Catholics, ought to admonish him to deny the aforesaid error into which he has lapsed, professing the Catholic faith inviolate and whole, as every good believer is bound to do, showing him through sacred Scripture or the determination of the universal Church that what he holds is erroneous and alien to the Catholic faith; and if he is ready to be corrected and, with his errors denied, to hold and confess the faith of Christ, then, as we said in answer to the preceding reason, the universal council has no authority over him. But if he refuses to revoke the error and persists pertinacious and incorrigible in it, then first the cardinals ought to withdraw from him, according to John in the second canonical chapter 1, speaking of the faith of Christ: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine of Christ, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you," where the ordinary Gloss says "receive not," etc., that is, not only do not assent, but do not receive him even for an hour. This is also gathered from ch. Anastasius, dist. 19. Second, the cardinals themselves ought to denounce the present case to the prelates of the Church and convoke them to come, as they are bound, to succour the Church in this horrible case and to provide for the Church, since it has now fallen by falling pertinaciously and incorrigibly from the rock of faith upon which the Church is founded, Matt. 16. Then indeed, as we said in the preceding case, the congregated council of prelates ought by authority of law to proceed to his deposition, as pleases some, or, as is more pleasing to us according to what was already said, to a declaration that he is no longer Pope and that the apostolic see is vacant; for of such a crime the proper judge is the universal council, as was said. But if it is not notorious that the Pope is a heretic, but only among some grave men of good faith a report or presumption has gone forth, then proceeding seems to be had as was said in answer to the fourth reason.

To the sixth reason I answer in two ways. First, that if it is certain that one of the contenders is the true and apostolic one, as for instance because he was elected by two-thirds of the cardinals, while the other consequently cannot be but an intruder and consequently not apostolic but apostate or profane, as in ch. Factus est, 7, q. 1, then, since no rational doubt occurs as to who is the true Pope, no convocation of the universal council is necessary to judge the election of him which is already presumed canonical, but only for the condemnation of the intruder and for commanding that all the faithful obey and be subject to the true apostolic one, according to ch. Si quis pecuniam, dist. 79, as is read to have been done both in the time of Pope Damasus against Ursinus and in the time of Cornelius against Novatian; and ch. Si forte is not understood of such a contention, as Gratian says, and well, in the sixth canon following in the same place. Second, I answer that if a contention arose between some parties over the right of election, as to which of those elections was canonical, then in our judgment, if the contenders were willing to submit themselves to the judgment of some wise man or men, so as to stand by their judgment, no convocation of the universal council would seem necessary, as was done in the time when Symmachus and Lawrence contended for the papacy, where, since neither party would yield to the other, they established that the suit be ended by the judgment of King Theodoric, who, positioned at Ravenna, when he had heard the legates of each party, decreed that he who had been ordained first, or whom the greater part of the clergy and people together had elected, should sit in the apostolic see. But where the contenders refuse to submit themselves to the judgment of any wise men, then a general council must be congregated to discern and judge the right of election, since, as the Gloss says in the aforesaid ch. Si forte, the council is judge in this case. Here, however, a question arises. If both contenders were in possession of the papacy, so that each was held as supreme pontiff by Catholic men, it seems to us, saving better judgment, that both ought to congregate the prelates of their obediences to some place, and the council constituted from both congregations would judge. But if the aforesaid contenders refused to do this, then the lord cardinals ought, even with the contenders contradicting, to congregate the council. But where they themselves refuse or are negligent, the prelates of the Church themselves, having zeal for God, could congregate themselves to extinguish the fire of the Church, or the emperor himself, whose interest it is that there be peace in the city, and more strongly in the whole world, which cannot exist while contention over the supreme pontiff stands, as Christ says, Matt. 11: "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be laid waste." But of these things we shall perhaps say something more, with the Lord's help, in the following book, where the subject will be schism. ⁶ To the seventh reason I answer that in that case, where the cardinals refuse to proceed to election, provision has already been sufficiently made by law in ch. Fundamenta, on elections, in the sixth book, and ch. Ne Romani, ch. 10, in the Clementines. Nevertheless, where the cardinals flee or fail, then for greater security the universal council would seem to be convoked, and this through the emperor or the Roman clergy, and there provision would have to be made for the necessity of the Church, since in such necessities, which regard the whole republic, when the ordinaries fail, provision seems to belong to the republic itself. ⁷ To the eighth reason I answer that since in the case in which the Pope has been made mad with an incurable dementia by nature he must be judged as dead, since he cannot perform or exercise the acts incumbent on the office of the supreme pontificate, according to the argument from on sick clerks, first chapter, book 6, then the lord cardinals ought to enjoin this upon the prelates of the Church and invite them that, coming together in one place, they take counsel what is to be done, namely whether another is to be elected, since the Church seems as it were vacant in the aforesaid case, or whether a helper is to be given him. ⁸ To the ninth I answer as to the seventh. ⁹ To the tenth it seems to be answered that in that case the council would have to be convoked by the authority of the Pope if that cause could not be terminated without a council, according to what we read of Pope Sixtus in the mandates, 2, q. 6, and of Pope Symmachus, and hence also dist. 17.