Summa de Ecclesia

Against what has now been said concerning the authority of the Roman pontiff and superiority over universal councils, the adversaries contrive and adduce many things, adding, as it appears to them, very many for their side taken from the authorities of sacred Scripture and from universal councils and from the sayings of the holy fathers; besides, some reasons, of which among many we shall gather the more principal and those which in their judgment are weightier, which follow.

First, for they argue ¹ from that Matt. 18. If thy brother shall offend thee, etc., there follows, tell the church, in which place Peter, who was to be ordained future supreme pontiff, seems to be remitted to the church in a case of judgment as to a greater tribunal, and consequently there is no doubt that the universal Church assembled synodally is superior to the Pope himself, since no one is remitted in such a case except to a superior. That the universal council is to be understood by the church to which Christ said tell the church, they strive to prove from three grounds.

First through Greg. ² who in his register, letter 265, rebuking John of Constantinople for calling himself universal, says thus: We indeed, in whom such and so great fault is committed through rash daring, keep what truth distinctly commanded: If thy brother shall offend etc.; there follows: therefore then through my responsal brothers once and with these humble words this which is sinned in the whole Church I strove to rebuke; through myself I write; whatever I ought humbly to do, I have not omitted. If I am despised in my correction, it remains that I have the church to apply. Thus Greg., where the adversary says that by the church to be applied Gregory understands the universal council. Likewise they strive to prove the same secondly ³ by the authority of Pope Nicholas, who in ch. Praecipue 11. question 3, says thus to King Lothair: Moreover beware, lest at any time for ourselves, according to the command of the Lord, we apply two or three witnesses; but rather let us say this to holy Church, and (which we do not desire) henceforth be thou to all a heathen and a publican. Thus far there; the adversary says that by the expression to say to holy Church he understands to say to the universal council as to a greater tribunal.

Third, they strive to prove ⁴ through Albert the Great, who is said to have expounded that authority tell the church thus, that is, to the prelate or to the synod. Second, they principally argue ⁵ from that Acts 8, where it is said that when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John. From which they argue that, since sending imports superiority in the sender with respect to the one sent, the college of the apostles, which represents the universal council, was greater and superior in authority to Peter himself, and consequently the universal council to the Roman pontiff himself. Third, from that Acts 15, ⁶ where, when a question arose among the apostles concerning the observance of the Law, Peter, wishing to say his vote, rose, as the text says: Peter rising said to them, which he seems to have done in sign of reverence, but reverence is owed to a superior; therefore it seems that the college of the apostles was superior in authority to Peter.

Fourth, from the 8th ⁷ Council of Constantinople, in which is had thus: If a universal synod shall have been assembled, and any doubt and controversy shall have arisen even concerning the holy Roman Church, it behoves in venerable manner and with fitting reverence to inquire into the proposed question and to receive a solution, or to profit, or to make progress, yet not to give sentence boldly.

Against the supreme elder pontiffs, from which it is argued on the contrary that the universal synod, provided not boldly but with fitting reverence, could bring forward a sentence against the Roman pontiff if he shall have been accused, and consequently that the universal synod is superior in authority to the Pope. ⁸ Fifth, from the Council of Constance, where it was declared that the universal council has power immediately from God, to which every faithful of whatever dignity, and so also the papal, is bound to obey. Sixth, ⁹ from the same universal council, Pope Martin, with the same council approving, condemning that article, that it is not of the necessity of salvation to believe the Roman Church to be supreme among the other churches. It declares it an error, if by the Roman church is understood the universal Church, or the general council, or insofar as it would deny the primacy of the supreme pontiff over the other particular churches. From which it is argued on the contrary that the lawfully assembled council is over all churches and their rectors, and thus above the Roman church and its pontiff.

Seventh, ¹⁰ from the words of Pope Hilary, who, when he had issued a certain constitution correcting the excesses of certain men, is reported to have said thus to the assembled synod, as is had in ch. Quod quis 35. question 9: That henceforth the holy synod may be able to keep that sentence more firmly and lend its own subscription, so that by synodal judgment unlawful approach may be shut out. From which it is argued on the contrary that the Pope in the reformation of the Church acknowledged the judgment of the assembled synod as the supreme tribunal, who judges that the approach to unlawful things can be closed more powerfully by its synodal judgment than by his own.

Eighth, ¹¹ from the words of Pope Symmachus, who, presiding in the synod, when he brought into the midst the question concerning the validity of a certain writing by which it was provided that, if it should happen that the Roman pontiff migrate from this world, the new election of anyone should not be celebrated without the consultation of the prefect of the city, wishing it to be read in the holy synod so that of what force it was could be known, saying: If to act, lest thereafter it happen to dispute it, since the holy synod could judge, etc., as in ch. Bene distinct. 96. From which it is argued on the contrary that the Roman pontiff professes that the holy synod can judge over that which contains abuse and diminution of ecclesiastical liberty.

Ninth, ¹² from § Likewise Symmachus, 2. question 7, where Gratian says thus: Likewise Pope Symmachus, despoiled of his dignity in the Roman synod, is discerned to be first restored to his former state, and then to come to the cause and, if it should rightly so seem, to answer the propositions of the accusers; it seemed a matter worthy of the greatest number of priests and deserves effect; but as for by whom it was afterwards to be ordained, by which the aforesaid Pope was to be accused, when he spoke he met them, but was impeded by rivals, etc. From this it is argued on the contrary that it is clearly had that the cause of the Roman pontiff, if he shall have been accused or as it were despoiled, ought to be deferred, for restitution or for the recovery sought, to the supreme tribunal of the universal council.

Tenth, ¹³ from ch. Of providence, distinct. 99, where blessed Anacletus and Pope Lucius, also in ch. Cities, distinct. 80, plainly say that not only Peter but also all the apostles, among whom he himself was included as first, divided the provinces, establishing patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, all which things are a sign of most eminent jurisdiction. From which it is argued that Peter was not greater than the college of the apostles, and consequently neither is the Pope greater than the universal council. Eleventh, ¹⁴ thus. Pope Eleutherius says in ch. Although, 3. question 6, that by the assembly of the apostles, which the general synod represents, it has been defined that none but the Roman pontiff ought to define the accusations of pontiffs. Likewise Pope Julius says in ch. Dudum, 3. question 6, that by the holy apostles, and so by their assembly, it was decreed that councils ought not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman pontiff, which things the adversaries say most evidently demonstrate the superiority of the assembled apostles and consequently of the universal council over the Roman pontiff, since from their decrees and not contrariwise the power of Peter was plainly sublimated, and even if the apostolic assembly transferred the definition of the cause of the accused bishop to the Roman pontiff, yet it did not abdicate it from itself, and consequently neither from the general synod, as is the clearest text 4. question 5. ch. Quisquis.

In the twelfth place, ¹⁵ he argues thus. The Roman pontiff is bound to obey the statutes of the universal council and to keep them nor to be able to loose them, as is clear in ch. Sicut, distinct. 15, as Greg. says, and the same is also had in ch. Contra 2. question 1 and through many chapters in the same place; therefore etc.

Thirteenth, ¹⁶ thus. The sentence of the Roman pontiff is examined in universal councils; therefore it seems that the universal council is superior in power and authority to the Roman pontiff. The consequence seems known. The antecedent they strive to show by three examples. First, concerning the deposition of Dioscorus made by Pope Leo, which was examined in the Council of Chalcedon. Second, concerning the deposition of Pyrrhus and Sergius made by Pope Martin in the Roman synod, which was examined in the Constantinopolitan synod. Third, concerning the deposition of Photius of Constantinople, which was by Nicholas and Adrian, Roman pontiffs, which afterwards was examined in the 8th synod.

Fourteenth, ¹⁷ thus. By the authority of blessed Ambrose in letter 72, where he himself, reporting the letter of blessed Pope Damasus directed to the judges deputed by the Capuan synod in the cause of Bonosus the bishop, says thus that he said: For the sake of truth or for modesty you refused to seek our sentence, but since the judgment of the Capuan council was of this kind, that judges to make an end for Bonosus and his accusers should be granted, and especially the Macedonians, who with the bishop of Thessalonica should take cognizance of his deeds, we perceive that no form of judging could belong to us. For if the synod were still whole today, we would rightly decide concerning those things which the series of your writings has comprised; it is therefore yours, who received this judgment, to bear sentence concerning all things, for you take the place of the synod, whom the synod chose for examining; finally, when Bonosus the bishop after your judgment had sent to our brother Ambrose, who should consult his sentence, to break into and enter the church forbidden to him, it was answered to him that nothing was to be rashly attempted, but all things modestly and patiently to be borne, nor anything to be attempted against your sentence, that you should establish what seemed to you to agree with justice, to whom this synod had given authority. And therefore it is first that they judge to whom the faculty of judging has been given. For you discern in place of the whole synod, as we wrote; it is not fitting for us to judge as it were concerning the authority of the synod, etc., and below he subjoins thus: whence we await the norm of your sentence. Thus far there. From this the adversaries argue that the Roman pontiff confesses that if the synod had been whole, that is, if it had not delegated the cause to another, he himself could have taken cognizance of the cause; but since the synod, by delegating to another, anticipated, he says he cannot assume the burden of judging, since they decide in place of the synod, but for him to judge concerning the authority of the synod is not fitting, whereas yet, if he himself were superior to the synod, he could avoke the cause delegated by the synod, from Appeals, ch. As ours.

Fifteenth, ¹⁸ thus. From the authority of the same Ambrose, who in a certain preface of the dedication of the greater altar of the church of Milan, among other things, says thus: Through Christ our Lord, who conferred the eminence of received power on the Church, which for the honour received he established as queen and spouse, beneath whose sublimity all things lie, etc.

From which it is argued thus on the contrary, if therefore he conferred the eminence of received power on the Church, subjecting all things to its power, he necessarily granted that he transferred to the same the power of the supreme pontiff of judging in a necessary case.

Sixteenth, ¹⁹ thus, by the authority of blessed Jerome, who in ch. Legimus, distinct. 93, says thus: If authority is sought, the world is greater than the city. From which it is argued on the contrary that if the authority of the world is greater than the city of the Roman church, therefore the judgment of the universal council is rather and greater, in which is the representation of the world.

Seventeenth, by the authority of the same Jerome, thus. Jerome speaking in a certain letter to Pope Damasus concerning the supreme order of the Church, namely the episcopal, says thus: Concerning this office I cannot dispute further, since whatever has been consecrated in clerics, I have foretold, it is manifest the bishop alone has; it is manifest in them the parts and members of virtues, in the bishop the fullness of divinity dwelling corporally, and thus it is that in bishops you recognize God, in priests the apostles, who themselves also are; and below: for God gave all power to the disciples, and willed Moses to be called lord of Pharaoh. From this it is argued on the contrary that if the Lord God gave all power to his disciples, it follows that he also gave power over the Roman pontiff to the apostles assembled, whose place the bishops assembled in the universal council represent. They strive to prove the consequence through this, that the apostle, speaking concerning Christ to the Hebrews 2, upon that psalm: Thou hast put all things under his feet, says: in that he says he subjected all things, he left nothing not subjected to him.

Eighteenth, thus, from the sayings of blessed Augustine in a certain letter which he writes to Glorius, Eleusius, and Felix the grammarian, who had confirmed against Donatus and certain other calumniators the sentence which Pope Melchiades with certain bishops had promulgated concerning Cecilian the bishop in his episcopate, writing, says thus: Behold, let us suppose those bishops who judged at Rome were not good judges, there still remains the plenary council of the universal Church, where the cause could also be agitated with those judges themselves, and if they should have been convicted of having judged badly, their sentences would be dissolved. From this it is argued on the contrary that a sentence given through the Roman pontiff, if it shall not have been right, could be retracted through the universal synod as through a higher tribunal.

Nineteenth, ²⁰ thus, from the saying of Augustine, who in ch. Puto 2. question 7, says thus: When Peter is corrected by the later Paul, and, with the bond of the peace of truth kept, is promoted to martyrdom, how much more easily and strongly what has been established through the state of the universal Church is to be preferred either to the authority of one bishop or to the council of one province. From which two things are concluded on the contrary. The first is that Peter, although he was supreme pontiff, if not acting rightly, can licitly be rebuked by Paul, who thinks rightly. The second is that the statute of the universal council is to be preferred to the statute of any bishop whatever, even the Roman.

Twentieth, ²¹ thus, from the Gloss in ch. Anastasius distinct. 19, where it is laid down that where the faith is concerned, then the synod is greater than the Pope.

Twenty-first, ²² thus: The universal council cannot err in the faith, as it seems; but the Pope can, as in ch. Si papa distinct. 40; therefore the universal council is superior to the Roman pontiff.

Twenty-second, ²³ thus. From the acts of the eighth synod, where Zacharias the bishop is found to have said against the sentences of Pope Nicholas and Adrian, supreme pontiffs, and of all the patriarchs: the canon is prince, and those acting according to it do nothing outside what is fitting. But when they act outside this, whether Pope Nicholas or any other, we do not acquiesce. Therefore it seems that if the canon is...

Prince than the Pope, and consequently than the council. Twenty-third, ²⁴ thus: the universal council judges and deposes the Pope; therefore the universal council is superior in authority to the Pope. The consequence is manifest, since such judgment is only of a superior, as is clear from ch. Inferior distinct. 21; the antecedent is also clear both from the chapter alleged above, If the Pope, distinct. 40, and from the practice often had in the Church. Twenty-fourth, ²⁵ thus: if the universal council is not of greater authority than the Pope, then the celebration of universal councils takes place in vain, but this is not to be said; therefore the same as before. Twenty-fifth, ²⁶ thus: in ch. de quibus dist. 20 is handed down such an order to be kept in the solution of any question, that recourse be had first to the writings of the old or new testament, second to the canons of the apostles or of councils, third to the decrees and decretals of the supreme pontiffs. From which the adversaries argue that the universal council, whose are the canons, is of superior authority to the Roman pontiff, whose are the decretals. Other arguments will be touched when the discussion concerning appeal shall be below, and others have been touched in book 2, around ch. 97.