Summa de Ecclesia

But because it oftentimes happens that prelates summoned to councils neglect or contemn to come, it follows that we subjoin something concerning the punishment of such. Indeed prelates admonished to come to the council, as the Gloss wills in ch. Si episcopus dist. 18, with no lawful impediment intervening, if they contemn to come, reasonably come to be punished in manifold ways, and rather than those who refuse to take part in provincial councils, concerning which the laws speak more expressly. Whence the Emperor Theodosius, writing to Dioscorus that he come to the universal synod, says thus: If anyone shall pass over so necessary and truly God-beloved a synod and shall not with all strength according to the aforesaid time arrive at the appointed place, he will find no excuse either with God or with our piety; for no one omits a priestly assembly unless wounded with an evil conscience. These things he. Such despisers of councils however come to be punished with several animadversions, and first indeed with the penalty of excommunication, according to ch. Si episcopus dist. 18, where from the institute of the council of Agde it is thus written: If a metropolitan bishop shall have directed letters to the provincial bishops in which he invites them to the ordination of the supreme pontiff or to a synod, laying aside all things except grave infirmity of body or a royal command, let them not delay to be present on the appointed day; but if they be wanting, as the ancient authority of the canons has commanded, let them be deprived until the next synod of the charity of the brethren and the communion of the Church. These things there. The same too is had in the following ch., Si quis episcoporum. But here it is not to be passed over that excommunication in this place, as is gathered both from the Gloss and from Hug. and the Archdeacon, is not taken according as excommunication is called separation from the sacraments and from the communion of the faithful, but for a certain suspension from common business to be treated in common with the other bishops, as for instance that such a bishop not be admitted to the common treatises of the province with the other bishops, nor to the scrutiny of bishops, nor to their consecration, nor in general to other things which are commonly to be treated by all bishops with the metropolitan; and this is to him for a penalty. Whence bishops who are thus said to be excommunicated can licitly celebrate the divine offices and receive the ecclesiastical sacraments and communicate with the other bishops and the rest except in the aforesaid, Hu. Nor however is it denied that such will be liable to be excommunicated with the first excommunication, which is separation from participation in the sacraments and the communion of the faithful, if they be found contumacious, as the Archdeacon says in the said ch. Si quis episcoporum, according to ch. Certum 11, q. 3. Second, the aforesaid bishops summoned and contemning to come to the council, if they be found transgressors of the oath according to the form of ch. Ego N. on oaths, can be punished with the penalty of deposition from dignity which the holy fathers have prescribed for perjurers, according to ch. Querelam and ch. Tua nos Extra on oaths. Third, they incur the penalty of eternal damnation, as despisers and mockers of their father, the father of all the faithful, the Holy Roman pontiff, and of their mother the universal Church represented by the universal council; whom that terrible sentence of Proverbs 30 seems to regard: The eye that mocketh the father and that despiseth the bringing forth of his mother, the ravens of the torrents digging him out, and the young eagles shall eat him. Notably, however, we said that prelates summoned to come to the council who scorn to come, since it is they who are held liable to be stricken with the aforesaid penalties; for it would be otherwise if it happened that they did not come not from contempt but from lawful impediment. Which can be weighed from two things. First, if before the council is ended they come, for although they did not come from the beginning, yet from the fact that they come it is presumed that they were delayed not from contempt but from some impediment. For often from what follows it is presumed what sort that was which went before, arg. 22, q. 2, Quod ait. This is the opinion of Hugh, as also of the Archdeacon in the above-alleged ch. Si episcopus. Second, if the bishop writes his excuses by letter to the synod or sends a proctor with lawful reasons why he could not come. Of the first, in ch. Placuit dist. 18, the Carthaginian council speaks, saying thus: It has pleased that wheresoever a council is to be gathered, the bishops who are impeded neither by age nor by sickness nor by graver necessity duly attend; and if they cannot attend, let them write their excuses by letter. Of the second, namely concerning the proctor, it is had in ch. Et si egrotans fuerit 5, q. 3, where Adrian decreed in synod: If a bishop shall have been sick or some grave necessity detains him, let him send a legate for himself to the synod who may assign or prove the cause to be lawful why the bishop does not come, for it does not suffice to say he cannot unless he assign the reason of the impediment, as the Gloss says on the word reason in the fore-alleged ch. Placuit. And if it be asked how the assigned lawful cause of the impediment will be proved, the Gloss answers there that it suffices to prove by one witness with his oath; which seems to be understood when the bishop excuses himself through a proctor. For if by himself in writing, with an oath added concerning the truth of the lawful impediment, the cause of absence seems sufficiently proved, and thus his oath will be stood by and he is to be held excused. But it is to be noted that the aforesaid prelates who, summoned to the council, have neglected to come, before they are judged contumacious and come to be punished as such, an admonition and requisition ought to precede, as is the case in ch. Propter ecclesiasticas dist. 18, on the words let them admonish etc., where the Gloss says, arg., that delay can be purged although a certain day be appointed; and the reason is that wherever it is treated that anyone be punished for negligence, or be punished in his right, an admonition is required, arg. 12, q. 2, Indignae.