Summa de Ecclesia

If anyone perceives as clearly as daylight the things said above which we have established concerning the primacy of the Roman pontiff and the prerogatives of his see from the judgments of the holy fathers, that universally the authority of councils depends upon and emanates from the Roman pontiff. Hence holy Thomas, the excellent doctor, in his treatise against those who impugn religion, confirms this judgment, saying: the holy fathers gathered in council could have established nothing except by the authority of the supreme pontiff intervening, without which a council cannot even be gathered; thus far he. But that this judgment is true, both from what was said above and from other things, is shown first from the fact that in the second book we have most manifestly shown that the Roman pontiff is the head of the universal Church, and consequently of the universal council representing it. From this it manifestly follows that the relation of the Roman pontiff to the universal Church, and consequently to the universal council representing it, is the relation of head to body. But since this is such that the body receives the influx of power, sense, and motion only through the head, as the Philosopher says, and also Isidore, book 10 of the Etymologies, for he says: the first part of the body is the head, and this name was given to it because the senses and nerves take their beginning thence, so that from it arises every cause of living, it seems necessary that all authority and power of a universal council depend immediately upon the Pope as upon the head; hence Pope Leo, as found in the chapter Ita Dominus, dist. 19, confirms this conclusion, thus saying: the sacrament of this office the Lord willed to pertain to the office of all the apostles so that he placed it principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles, that from him, as from a certain head, he might diffuse his gifts as it were into the whole body, that he might understand himself to be estranged from the divine ministry who should have dared to recede from the solidity of Peter. Second, thus: in the things above, in the second book, it has been shown that to the Roman pontiff the care of the whole Church has been committed, and to no other person or congregation, since it was said to blessed Peter alone, for himself and his successors: Peter, feed my sheep, John 21, upon which Theophilus says, and as is found in the common Gloss, he commends to Peter the commission of the sheep of the world; and the same say Chrysostom and Gregory and Augustine and Bernard, as we adduced above; therefore to the authority of the Roman pontiff alone does it belong to provide and give pasture to the whole Church, which is done in universal councils by disposing, ordaining, constituting, correcting, defining, interpreting, and to no other person or congregation except insofar as he, the principal shepherd, concedes and bestows power; therefore the whole power of a universal council depends upon the Roman pontiff as upon the head and shepherd of the whole Church. Third, thus: above, in the second book, among other things we adduced that our hierarchy, both according to John in ch. 21 and according to blessed Dionysius in the book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, is modeled upon the heavenly; hence blessed Ambrose says that the Church is the image of heavenly things; but so it is that in the angelic or heavenly hierarchy no power for performing hierarchical acts is bestowed from above by God upon a person or order or upon the whole hierarchy which is not bestowed or does not descend through the hierarch of that hierarchy, as is clear from the very doctrine of blessed Dionysius, for he says, in ch. 5 of the ecclesiastical hierarchy: the most sacred law of the Godhead is to lead back to the most divine light through first and middle things; therefore in like manner no power is conferred by Christ upon the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself, or upon the universal council representing it, which is not conferred through the Roman pontiff, who is the hierarch and the first in the whole hierarchy; and therefore whatever authority a universal council has, it has immediately from the Roman pontiff; hence to say the opposite is to deny that the Church militant is disposed after the form of the heavenly hierarchy, and to deny that that most sacred law of the Godhead is observed in it. Fourth, thus: in the second book we showed, both by authorities and by reasons, that all authority of jurisdiction of prelates in the Church of God depends upon the Pope and is derived from the Roman pontiff; therefore a universal council, which is gathered from the prelates of the Church, has not immediately except from the Roman pontiff all the power of its jurisdiction, of constituting or of defining anything authoritatively; the inference is sound. Fifth, thus: above, in the second book, it has been shown by most efficacious reasons that the universal Church, as a universality in all its members, does not receive immediately from Christ either the power of the keys of orders or that of jurisdiction; therefore neither does the universal council representing it; the inference is clear; the antecedent, as we have said, has been shown in the second book by many reasons. Sixth, thus: universal councils seem to have their origin from human institution and not immediately from Christ; therefore it is false that councils have immediately from Christ the power of jurisdiction over all the faithful; the inference seems sound, and the antecedent is clear both from the chapter Canones, 15, dist., and from the chapter Generalia quoque concilia, dist. 17, and because nowhere in sacred Scripture is there read an institution made by Christ of universal councils, although it is well read that some were celebrated by the apostles, as we noted above in this third book; but this does not argue that their institution was immediately from God. Seventh, thus: neither from the holy Scripture of the new or old testament, nor from the doctrine of saints approved by the Church, is it found that a universal council has power immediately from Christ without order to the Roman pontiff; therefore this is not to be said, especially since it seems contrary to sacred Scripture and to the doctrine of the holy doctors; the inference is clear, for as Jerome says: what has not the truth from the Scriptures is despised with the same facility with which it is proved; but the antecedent is known to one who runs through the passages of sacred Scripture, and it has been made more manifest when answer was given above, in the second book, in ch. 98, to the authorities adduced by the adversaries that the keys were given to the universal Church, with which they armed themselves to prove that the universal council has them immediately from Christ, concerning which something will also be said below. Eighth, thus: if a universal council receives power immediately from Christ, either before it is yet gathered or when gathered; the first cannot be said, because what does not exist is not capable of power. If when it exists, the hour is asked; and if they say that immediately upon the arrival of the appointed term of convention at which some convene, then it would follow that upon the power of two or three or a few concurring at the council would stand the disposition of the whole earth, and upon a few men, and perhaps men of no authority, would depend the faith and state of the universal Church, which seems unfitting; if another hour be given, whatever is said will seem fictitious. But if it be said that this power was given to the council when it was given to the universal Church, in that the power which was in habit in the dispersed Church is brought into act when it is gathered synodally, this cannot stand, because, as we have already said before and have most amply shown in the second book, it is false that any power of jurisdiction was given to the universal Church as a universe in all its members, or even to the whole universe of clerics according to the understanding of the adversaries. Moreover, if it be said that this power was given to the council when to the bishops in the apostles, to whom indistinctly and universally power seems to have been given by Christ to rule the Christian people, this cannot stand, because, as we have fully shown above in the second book, no such fullness of power was given collectively to all the apostles together, but to Peter, who was constituted prince of the apostles and shepherd of the whole flock of the Lord, such full power was given, as blessed Cyril says, and blessed Chrysostom, and as we adduced above; this is required both by the unity of the Church and by the reason of royal or monarchical principate, such as is the principate of the Church, as also by the form of hierarchical disposition under which the Church militant is constituted. Ninth, it is argued thus: if a universal council receives any authority immediately from Christ, either the same or another; and if another, either equal to the Pope's, or greater, or less. Neither thus nor thus; therefore none. The inference is clear from a sufficient division. Nor can the antecedent be maintained: that it receives the same cannot be said, because, as is argued elsewhere in the second book, no superiority could be noted in the council with respect to the Pope, which the adversaries pretend. Nor can it be said that it receives another which is equal, both because even then there would be no superiority of authority in the council over the Pope, since an equal has no command over an equal; and because the Pope, as found in a certain article of the council of Constance, and as reason itself manifests, since he is head and prince of the Church, has the supreme power in the Church of God: if the council had equal power, there would be two supreme powers and two heads in the Church; but this cannot be, both because what is said by superabundance in each genus is only one; and second, because a plurality of principates is not good, 12. Metaph., but what is not good is not to be believed to have been constituted by Christ in his Church; and third, because the unity of the Church cannot suffer two supreme powers, which is noted not only in unity of faith, of charity, or of the last end, but from order to one supreme regitive power of the whole Christian universe, as we showed in the second book; hence, as blessed Cyprian says in his letter to five priests: God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the chair one, founded upon Peter by the voice of the Lord: another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made besides the one altar and the one priesthood; whoever gathers elsewhere scatters; it is adultery, it is impious, it is sacrilege, whatsoever is constituted by human favor so that the divine disposition be violated; thus far Cyprian. Likewise it cannot be said that the council receives greater power than the Pope: besides that, as we have already said, the Pope has the supreme power in the Church of God; and because then, the council being constituted, the Pope would cease to be head of the Church, since he would cease to have supreme power and dignity over the body of the Church, which would be absurd and foreign to our faith. Moreover it cannot be said even that it received less, because such would seem to be in vain, since the power of the Pope would be greater and would suffice for performing all the things for which the council would be gathered; and because the council would not be superior to the Pope, nor the Pope subject to it, which nevertheless the adversaries pretend. Therefore it seems that the council receives no power immediately from Christ, but all that it has it receives from his vicar, namely the Roman pontiff.

Tenth, thus: while one ruler of one church lives, another is not substituted, just as while her husband lives another husband is not given to a wife, 7, q. 1, Factus est Cornelius episcopus, and the chapter Sicut. Therefore while the Pope, ruler of the universal Church, lives, another ruler of the same Church is not substituted by God. But this would happen if, while a true and undoubted Roman pontiff lives, any universal regitive power over the whole Christian people were given to a universal council. Therefore it follows that it is not true that a universal council receives power immediately from Christ.

Eleventh, thus: if a universal council is said to have power immediately from Christ because it was given to the universal Church which it represents, then, as we argued elsewhere in the second book, it would be necessary that all the faithful contained within the universality of the Church be convoked to the council, if the council is to go forth into the act of its power; but this is unfitting, nor was it ever practiced in the Church. The inference is nevertheless clear, because if any power was given to the universality of the Church, all the faithful would equally bear themselves toward the right of that power, and consequently all are to be called; since, when jurisdiction belongs to the universality as universality, individuals are not judges, but all are fellow judges, arg. 12, q. 2, Qui manumittitur.

Twelfth, thus: above, in this third book, in the sixth chapter, it has been shown that the authority of universal councils depends immediately upon the authority of the apostolic see, as is clear from dist. 17 throughout; nor is this dependence to be taken only with respect to the convocation or congregation of councils, as certain of the adversaries perversely interpret, but also as regards the strength and firmness of all things transacted in them. This is manifest from many things: both from the aforesaid dist. 17 throughout; and second, from what Pope Pelagius says in the chapter Confidimus, 25, q. 1, that the apostolic see confirms each synod by its authority. Likewise third, the venerable synod celebrated at Rome in the time of Pope Symmachus, as found in the chapter Bene quidem, dist. 96, says that the apostolic see is accustomed to bestow firmness upon synodal statutes. Behold: not only as regards the vocation or congregation of a council does it depend upon the Pope, but also as regards the authority of constituting and judging and defining. Fourth, Extra, on elections, ch. Significasti, Pope Paschal says that all councils both were made and received strength through the authority of the Roman Church. Therefore universal councils take the power of jurisdiction immediately from the Pope, since their strength and firmness depend upon the Roman pontiff. The inference is manifest, because the firmness which the apostolic see bestows upon synodal acts is not the firmness which chancellors are said to effect by signing their lords' letters, as certain adversaries erroneously interpret, but is the firmness of strength and authority which princes are said to bestow upon laws, without which laws lack vigor and firmness of themselves, as we shall explain more fully below.