Summa de Ecclesia

Indeed, if anyone attentively weighed what was already said above and recalled the practices observed in the universal councils in which the Roman pontiff is read above all to have been present, he would easily recognize that what is established by sentence or defined or interpreted in universal councils is regularly done principally by the authority of the Roman pontiff. Which although it is sufficiently clear from what is above, we shall nevertheless take care to show this same thing for abundance of doctrine by reasons and by the examples of many ancient universal councils. First thus, as Aristotle has in the teaching of the 1st Ethics, according to the order of ends is the order of arts. Therefore the first end or consideration which regards the whole people is only with him who presides over the whole commonwealth; but the Pope is such in the Christian commonwealth since he is head and prince; therefore it is his alone to decree and to establish what regards the whole Christian people, and if others at times do this it is done from the derivation or communication of the power of him who summons them to this; therefore it follows that in universal councils, where those things are disposed which regard the multitude of the Christian people, the Pope principally disposes all things. Secondly by the reason of holy Thomas by which in 2. 2. q. 1. last article he proves that the publication of the creed pertains to the supreme pontiff, thus: a new publication of the creed is necessary for avoiding rising errors; therefore the publication of the creed pertains to the authority of him to whose authority it pertains to determine definitively those things which are of faith, so that they be held by all with unshaken faith. This however pertains to the authority of the supreme pontiff to whom the greater and more difficult questions of the Church are referred, thus far holy Thomas. Thirdly thus: the Pope is prince of the Church with a principate not dependent on the Church but immediately from God, as has been copiously demonstrated in book 2 and is had in ch. In novo dist. 21 and in ch. Sacrosancta dist. 22. Laws have no vigor and force without the authority of the prince or of him in whom the principate of the whole city is placed, as is most clear in all laws. Hence holy Pope Anacletus and martyr in ch. Leges 2 q. 6 says that the laws of the Church stand firm by the authority of apostolic firmness, and the reason is since in the apostolic see the principate of the whole Church is placed, as in ch. Nolite errare dist. 22 and in ch. Basilicas, on consecration, dist. 1; therefore it follows that the firmness and strength of the authority of whatsoever acts in universal councils depends on the Roman pontiff. Moreover this same is shown by the examples and practice of the ancient councils, in which whether the matter be of faith or of removing schism or of making a reformation of the universal Church, the Pope does all things principally in an authoritative way, although the other fathers concur by counseling and consenting. And first indeed this is clear from the councils of the primitive Church, for in all those in which blessed Peter was present, as the crown of the college and prince of the whole assembly he spoke first, defining and sentencing all things, as is clear in Acts 1 in the election of Matthias and in Acts 15 concerning the cessation of the legal observances, where when a grave question was raised in the council of the apostles blessed Peter as prince, as the Gloss says, spoke first and the whole multitude of the apostles passed over into his sentence. Hence Jerome to Aug. epistle 23 thus says: after Peter in a brief speech had embraced the whole history, he says, the whole multitude fell silent, and the apostle James and all the priests together passed over into his sentence; for these things ought not be troublesome to the reader, but both to me and to him useful, that we may prove that the apostle Paul before did not ignore Peter, but that he himself is prince of this decree, that the law is not to be kept after the gospel. Thus far Jerome. Secondly this same is gathered from what the Emperor Marcian, writing to Pope Leo that he come to the synod of Chalcedon, says among other things: it remains that if it please your blessedness to come in these parts and to celebrate the synod, this be done with religious affection deferred to our desires, that your holiness satisfy and decree what things are useful to holy religion. But if this be burdensome that you come to these parts, make this same manifest to us by your own letter of holiness, and below, all the most holy bishops ought to assemble, and what things profit the Christian religion and the Catholic faith, as your holiness has defined according to the ecclesiastical letters, they should declare by their disposition. Thus far there. Behold that the most Christian Emperor knew that if the Pope were present at the council in person, he himself ought to decree; but if absent, the bishops assembling ought to conclude in the matter according to the definition previously made by him.

Thirdly this is openly shown from the council of Chalcedon in the sentence given against Dioscorus. Hence in the third action it is thus had: Julian, bishop of Hippo, to Paschasius and the other legates of the Pope. Now your holiness, holding the primacy of the most holy Leo, knows that Dioscorus, summoned once and a second and a third time, in no way wished to obey to be presented to the synod; we ask your holiness, in that you are held to hold the place of the most holy Pope Leo, more eminent among the rest, to promulgate justice against the contumacious, to bring forth vindication and a just rule against him as sentence. For all of us and the universal synod is made concordant to the sentence of your holiness. And below: Paschasius however and the other legates holding the place of the most blessed Pope Leo, having first repeated in summary the many evils which Dioscorus had committed, pronounced sentence on Dioscorus thus saying: The most holy and most blessed archbishop of great elder Rome Leo, through us and the present holy synod together with the most blessed and wholly praiseworthy blessed Peter the apostle, who was named Peter by the Lord and has been made the firmament of the spiritual Catholic Church, has stripped him both of episcopal dignity and of every priestly office, and has likewise sundered him from the most holy ministry. And below: Anatolius archbishop of Constantinople and all the other bishops, expressing their vote, agreed in the same sentence, all subscribing themselves. And as is clear, Pope Leo gave sentence through his legates in universal councils.

Fourthly this same is gathered from the acts of the eighth synod, in which the epistle of Pope Nicholas, which he writes to the whole clergy of the Constantinopolitan Church, was read and received with all praise, in which after some decrees this is had here: These are the things which the apostolic see has established; these are the things which we ought to embrace with such zeal, to observe so much more solicitously, as you know that what has been established by it the universal Church has always held. Thus against each error arisen in the Church, this first one has first given sentence according to the authority of its primacy, and so at length the universal Church — although at times for some space of time it struggled in some things — yet what that see approved, it approved, and what that see refuted, the universal Church itself also refuted. Likewise in the same council it is written that no one justified by the apostolic see is condemned by the Church, or condemned by that see is justified by the Church. From which the authority of the apostolic see with respect to councils, and the reverence of the holy fathers to it, is manifestly clear.

Fifthly it is clear from what is read around the sixth action in the Chalcedonian council, as Isidore reports in the book of councils, that in all synods the Apocrisiarii, that is, the vicars or legates of the apostolic see, confirmed and subscribed the decreed sentences on account of the supreme authority of that see, since before they had no strength: thus far there. And below it is thus had, when concerning Ibas the bishop the bishops had asked what seemed to the holy synod to be done, those holding the place of the apostolic see, since the apostolic envoys were always accustomed in synods to speak first and to confirm sentences, said through Paschasius: The epistle of Ibas having been reread we have known him to be Catholic, and on that account we have decreed him to be presently recalled to the honor of the episcopate and the church from which he was unjustly expelled. Likewise all the bishops following the authority of the apostolic see decreed. Thus far there.

Sixthly the same is gathered from the universal council celebrated at Rome, in which Pope Nicholas presiding thus says, as in ch. In nomine domini dist. 23: Wherefore instructed by the authority of our predecessors and of other holy fathers we decree and establish.

Seventhly this same is gathered from the universal council celebrated at Rome by Alexander III, in which as is had in ch. Licet on election he says: We, for avoiding this evil, with the counsel of our brothers and the approval of the holy council decree something to be added, etc.

Eighthly this is taken from the Lateran council, in which Innocent III, as is had in ch. Damnamus, says: We damn and reprobate the booklet or treatise which Abbot Joachim published against Master Peter Lombard. Likewise in the same we also reprobate and condemn the most perverse dogma of the impious Amalric.

Ninthly the same is gathered from the general council in which Innocent III, as is had in ch. Cum laicis, Extra on church property not to be alienated, says: Wishing therefore to consult over these things for the indemnity of the churches and to provide for such great burdens, such constitutions and sales, etc., with the approval of the holy council we decree to be without force.

Tenthly the same is gathered from ch. Licet on baptism and its effect, in which the same Innocent presiding in council thus speaks: Wishing therefore to remove so great a scandal from the Church, with the holy council persuading we strictly command that such things henceforth not be presumed.

Eleventhly from ch. In quibusdam, Extra on punishments, where the same Innocent presiding in a universal council thus says: With the approval of the holy council nonetheless we establish, etc.

Twelfthly the same is manifestly gathered from ch. Sacro approbante concilio, Extra on sentence of excommunication, where Innocent presiding over the council thus says: With the holy council approving we prohibit anyone to, etc.

Thirteenthly the same is gathered from ch. Ubi periculum on election book 6, where Gregory IX presiding in council thus says: With the holy council approving we establish, etc., and below: by our authority and the approval of the same council.

Fourteenthly the same is gathered from the universal council celebrated at Lyons, in which Gregory X presiding thus says, as in ch. on the sum of the Trinity and the Catholic faith: With the holy council approving we damn and reprobate all who have presumed to deny, etc.

Fifteenthly the same is gathered from the council of Vienne, in which Clement V presiding over the council, as is had in ch. 1 Extra on the sum of the Trinity and the Catholic faith in the Clementines, thus says: With the holy council approving we declare.

Sixteenthly the same is gathered from the epistle which Pope Adrian sent to the Emperor Basil for the eighth synod, where among other things he says thus: We wish therefore through the industry of your piety to celebrate a numerous council there, over which our men also presiding and, clearly knowing the differences of guilty persons, freely exercising the discretions of each according as we have received in mandates, in which sacred assembly we decree all things with reverence, utterly the reverence of the council of execrable vanity which was enacted against this see; the copies utterly taken from their possessions and brought into the midst to be burned in fire before beholders, nor to remain with anyone a single iota or apex of all these, unless perchance one wishes, driven by anathema in the name of the whole clergy, indeed of the whole Christian name, to lack it: for we decree so detestable a college to be compared to nothing but that of Ariminum under Constantine or the Ephesian one assembled by Dioscorus as a robbery, thus far he. Note the words from which the great authority of the Roman pontiff in a universal council appears clearer than light. Seventeenthly the same is gathered from the council of Constance, in which after Martin was created, the synod did not use the name of one constituting or defining, but all things were defined and constituted in the name of Martin after the manner of other councils with the synod approving. It is a marvel however that so glorious princes of the Church, the supreme pontiffs, presumed to use such a manner of speaking, that they ascribed to their own authority all things defined, constituted, declared and prohibited in universal councils, if it did not pertain to their authority, but councils had authority immediately from Christ for doing such things. It is moreover amazing how so many and so glorious councils, in which many holy fathers most celebrated in religion and wisdom took part, permitted the supreme pontiffs to use this authority in councils if, as the adversaries babble, universal councils have authority for defining, establishing and judging etc. immediately from Christ and not from the Pope. Nor can it be said that the Roman pontiffs in this usurped another's authority, or that in those times the universal councils had not yet had revealed that truth of the power of councils such as the aforesaid new masters fashion, or that the Roman pontiffs received that accommodated authority from the universal councils: since each of these is most unfittingly and foolishly said. For the first puts a stain on many holy pontiffs and on the apostolic see, in which yet, as Jerome and other holy fathers say, as we adduced above in the second book, the Christian religion always remains immaculate. The second puts the universal Church down to the times of those new masters as having been darkened with such blindness of ignorance that they did not know this prerogative of their power. The third is false: since as is most fully demonstrated in the second book, the Roman pontiff has this excellence of power not from councils but from Christ our Savior himself, whose vicar he is and whose place he holds, as is also had in ch. Quamvis dist. 21. From all which is confuted among other things the foolishness of the error of those saying that councils themselves need the authority of the Pope only as to convocation and not as to prosecution, namely for defining or constituting or giving sentence, which error, since it makes the Pope not judge but only herald with respect to councils, is in our judgment the greatest and most dangerous to the universal Church: against which error is the teaching of the holy fathers and the holy canons, of which a most rich witness is the most illustrious father and of great authority in the Church of God, the archbishop of Rheims, Lord Haymo, in the book on synods in ch. 18, thus saying: do not marvel that we ascribe the authority of the councils themselves to the Roman pontiff; for no councils are read as ratified which were not supported by apostolic authority, as blessed Pope Damasus asserts in his decrees ch. 9, to whom holy Athanasius and Pope Julius and the Nicene council also and the rest of the holy fathers agree, for the bishop of that see is judge of the whole Church nor does any judgment stand without a legitimate judge, thus far he. Note that he says judge, not herald. These things however which we have said concerning the authority of the Roman pontiff over the council we shall render still clearer from what is to be said below.