Summa de Ecclesia

Notwithstanding these objections, to which it is easy to answer, what has been said must be maintained: that as a rule, in universal councils, if the Pope is present, he himself presides over it. For the supreme pontiff is not of lesser dignity or authority in a universal council than a metropolitan in the provincial council over which he presides, or a bishop in his diocesan one, but indeed of much greater: both because the Roman pontiff is called to the fullness of power, while others are not, as was said above; and because the superiority of the Pope over all prelates of the Church is by divine institution, whereas that of metropolitans over their suffragan bishops is by human institution, so that they have no jurisdiction over others except in certain cases. To the arguments on the contrary, therefore, it must be said. To the first it is answered in two ways. First, that the inference so often used by the adversaries, namely this one, "this is not recorded to have been done, therefore it was not done," is invalid; for the argument from authority taken negatively is of no force. For blessed John says, in the last chapter of John: "Many other things Jesus did which are not written in this book." Moreover, in this the adversaries betray themselves: from the fact that Peter, out of humility, as blessed Chrysostom says on the Acts of the Apostles, did everything by the common will of all and did nothing principally, by right of dominion, they believe that he had no authority of his own for acting, which is false, as is clear from Chrysostom himself, as we showed above concerning ch. 18 of the second book. Second, it is answered that even if it is not expressly and formally recorded that blessed Peter presided in the councils celebrated by the apostles, it is nevertheless given to be understood both from the circumstances of the text and from the Gloss of the holy fathers. The first is clear concerning the first council, of which in Act. 1: first, from the place, because he is said to have been in the midst of the brethren, where the Gloss says that this follows the example of Christ, who is said to have been in the midst of the disciples, as is found in Ioan. 20. Second, from the fact that he spoke first; for Peter, full of the Holy Spirit, would not have presumed this unless he had presided over the whole congregation as prince or prelate, hence the Gloss says: thus speaks the shepherd for his sheep. Third, this is gathered from his manner of speaking; for he says: Men, brethren, the Scripture must needs be fulfilled, and again: therefore it is necessary that of these who are with us, etc. Certainly this manner of speaking marks presidency and authority in Peter with respect to the whole congregation rather than subjection. Fourth, this is argued irrefragably from the fact that, as blessed Cyril testifies in the book of the Treasures, the apostles in the Gospels and Epistles affirmed that in all doctrine Peter is in the place of the Lord, and of his Church, giving him place in every chapter and congregation, in every election and confirmation. But it is most clear that if in the congregation of the apostles Peter held the place of our Lord Jesus Christ, as blessed Cyril says, then he presided over the congregation just as Christ himself would have presided. Hence blessed Chrysostom calls blessed Peter the crown of the apostles. ¹ To the second it is answered likewise in two ways. First, that since the council of Basel, as is known to the whole world, was scandalous and in many things presumptuous, transgressing the bounds set by the holy fathers in universal councils, no argument is to be drawn from it. Second, it is answered that it is false that the council of Basel had no president; for it had the legate of the apostolic see, Lord Julian Cesarini of good memory, cardinal deacon of the title of Sant'Angelo, who was its president for long periods and who, although in the beginning he was not personally present, being occupied with the Bohemians, nevertheless had a lieutenant. ² To the third it is answered in two ways. First, by denying the inference. Indeed, if that inference were valid, no prince would preside over any kingdom nor any prelate over any holy congregation; hence it must be said that just as the causality of the first cause does not remove the causality of the second cause, so neither does the presidency or presence of God remove the presidency of his ministers. From the fact, therefore, that the Holy Spirit is said to preside over a holy synod, neither the presidency of the Roman pontiff is removed nor his authority diminished. Moreover, if that inference were sound, the holy supreme pontiffs who are recorded to have presided, as has been seen in many universal councils, would have sinned as presumptuous men, as would the councils themselves which permitted this, especially if, as the folly of the adversaries argues, they did this in contempt of the Holy Spirit; yet that either of these is erroneous no Catholic is unaware of. Second, it is answered that what is assumed is universally false, as is clear from the second synod of Ephesus which, since it was most damnable, must rather be believed to have been presided over by a malign spirit than by the Holy One, although the fathers gathered in it boasted that the Holy Spirit had sat with them. Hence, as they are recorded to have said in their synod: if therefore the Holy Spirit has granted to the fathers, just as he has manifestly taken his seat and ordained the things that have been ordained, who shall retract it, who shall annul the grace of the Holy Spirit. As to what is adduced for the fourth from Matt. 18, where Christ says, where two or three, etc., it is not to the point, since the authority speaks literally of a congregation of any faithful whatsoever, whether lay or clerical, who are gathered in the name of the Lord, nor does it speak of a local congregation in any place or city, but of the congregation which is unanimity in some one thing in which they agree; it does not speak literally of universal councils, as is manifest to anyone reading the Gospel. We do not deny, however, that that saying can be adapted to universal and provincial councils and even to chapters of religious gathered in the name of the Lord, as regards the promise of the assistance of divine grace, arguing from the lesser to the greater. Moreover, that assistance there promised to those gathered in the name of the Lord is not synodal presidency, as is plain of itself, whence it is not to the point. Moreover, since those who do not admit his universal Vicar to the presidency but despise him cannot be said to be gathered in the name of the Lord, it is manifest that that argument of the adversaries is of no force or moment. ³ To the fourth it is answered by denying the minor, namely that a universal council is superior in authority to the Roman pontiff, since this seems contrary to natural law, to divine law, and to positive law. To natural law indeed: since naturally, just as the human head is superior in place, so too is it more excellent than its body in virtue and in the authority of rule. But the supreme pontiff is the head and crown of the universal council. It is also repugnant to divine law, since the Roman pontiff by divine institution is prince over the whole universal Church of Christ, the Lord saying to Peter: I have constituted thee prince over my people, and when it is said to him, feed my sheep, last chapter of John. It also contradicts human law, as is clear in Extra, On Elections, ch. Significasti, and from many other places adduced above. But to what is adduced concerning the council of Constance, answer has been given above in ch. 99 of the second book.