Summa de Ecclesia

Although from those things which have been demonstrated concerning the superiority of the Roman pontiff over the universal council it is easy to understand that it is not permitted to appeal from the Roman pontiff to the universal council, but rather the converse, for instance that from the sentence of a council which the apostolic see has not yet approved it is permitted to appeal to the pope, nevertheless for ampler illustration of the truth we shall take care to show this from many things. We presuppose in the first place that appeal is made from an inferior to a superior judge and not conversely, as is gathered from ch. All, 2, q. 6, and in ch. Since, appeals are not permitted, book 1, and in many other places; with this presupposed it seems to be said that in no way is it permitted to appeal from the Roman pontiff to the universal council as to a superior judge. ¶ The first conclusion is first laid down in ch. They themselves are, 9, q. 3, where Pope Gelasius says thus, “they themselves are the canons which wished the appeals of the whole Church to be deferred to the examination of this holy see, and sanctioned that from it appeal ought never at all to be made.” Mark the word “never,” mark the word “at all,” as though he said at no time in no case. Further we shall show this conclusion to be true first by reasons, second by the authority of the sacred councils, third from the deeds and practices in universal councils. First thus: from a judge in whom is the supreme power in the Church, and the principate of the whole Church, it is not permitted to appeal to any council of the Church, this is clear from the supposition, but in the Roman pontiff is the supreme power in the Church, as the article defined by Pope Martin in the council of Constance says, and as is had in ch. It is clear, 9, q. 3, where Pope Nicholas says, “indeed of the apostolic see by whose authority there is no greater judgment,” he says also in ch. Do not err, dist. 11, that in it the Lord placed the principate of the whole Church. Therefore it follows that from the Roman pontiff it is not permitted to appeal to a council, as to a superior judge. The consequence is manifest because otherwise one would have to say that the supreme power is not in the pope, which is against the article. Second thus: from the head it is not permitted to appeal to the members. It is clear: because the head is more excellent in authority than its members, but the pope is the head of all the faithful, the head of the universal council. Therefore from him to any gathering of the faithful or council appeal cannot be made. The consequence is clear, and the minor is also clear from many places, most of all in ch. If anyone, 2, q. 6, where it is had that anyone¹ assailed by any adversity may freely appeal to the apostolic see and have refuge to it as to the head, and the same in ch. Roman, in the same cause and question. Third thus: from the mother of all churches and of all the faithful it is in no way permitted to appeal to sons neither dispersed nor congregated, because the mother is always greater in authority than the sons, and even than the congregation of sons, but the Roman Church or apostolic see is the mother of all churches as is clear through many chapters, most of all through ch. All, 2, q. 6, where it is had that all bishops assailed by whatsoever adversities freely appeal to the apostolic see and flee to it as to a mother. Fourth from that judge whose it is to judge concerning the whole Church, and concerning whom it is given to none to judge, it is not permitted to appeal: it is clear from the terms, the pope is of this kind. Therefore from him it is not permitted to appeal to any other judge. The consequence is clear, and the minor is had in ch. All things, 9, q. 3, where Pope Gelasius, writing to all bishops, says: “All the Church through the world knows that the most holy Roman Church has the right to judge concerning all nor is it permitted to anyone to judge concerning its judgment. Indeed to it appeal must be made from any part of the world, but from it no one is permitted to appeal.” Fifth from that judge it is not permitted to appeal to a judge who has no power of judging except from him from whom appeal is made. This is clear from the first foundation, but the universal council has authority of constituting and of giving sentence or judging from the pope, as we showed above from many things, and dist. 17 throughout serves for this, and ch. You have signified, Extra, On election, and ch. Bene, dist. 96. Therefore from the pope to a council appeal is not permitted. Sixth thus the tribunal of Christ and of the pope on earth is judged to be the same, since he is His vicar, holding His place on earth, whence Chrysostom on that passage of the last chapter of John, “feed my sheep,” says: “be set over in my place, and head of thy brethren, that they, receiving thee in my stead, may everywhere proclaim thee sitting on thy throne, and confirm thee.” Thus far he. And this is likewise gathered from ch. We think, On custom, book 6. But to posit that from the tribunal of the pope appeal can be made to another on earth, or that from another appeal cannot be made to the tribunal of the pope, is to posit that from the tribunal of Christ appeal is permitted. Likewise that that tribunal is greater than the tribunal of Christ is clear, because every tribunal greater than the tribunal of a bishop's vicar is greater than the tribunal of the bishop whose vicar he is, since the tribunal of each is one and the same, both of which are manifestly erroneous. Moreover by a second way the same conclusion is shown to be true by authority, namely of universal councils. It is had first in the deeds of the first council of Ephesus, established that from the sentence of the apostolic see it is permitted to none to appeal. Likewise second from ch. Lest the Romans, Extra, On election, in the Clementines, which was in the council of Vienne, where it is said that the law of a superior cannot be taken away by an inferior, the Gloss of John of Andrea says that this holds most true when the inferior receives power from that superior, in our case the assembly of cardinals from the pope. And it follows, through which the same seems concerning the council, above, under the same title, ch. You have signified; 9, q. 1, All things; thus far he. Likewise third Alexander the Third in a universal council, ch. Although, On election, says: “In the Roman Church something special is constituted, because recourse cannot be had to a superior,” the Gloss of Hostiensis, because there is none superior, but she herself is over all. And John of Andrea says the same, therefore it seems that according to the faith expressed in universal councils concerning the superiority of the apostolic see, from it appeal to any other judgment whatsoever or even a council is not permitted. But the same conclusion is third shown from the deeds and practices in universal councils, and first from the deeds in the second council of Ephesus where, when the Catholic faith was being injured, the legates of the Roman pontiff are read to have appealed. Hence Pope Leo in the letter to the Emperor Theodosius, writing and asking that the synod of Chalcedon be instituted for the correction of Ephesus, says thus among other things: “With the whole keenness of mind reverently behold the glory of blessed Peter and with him the crowns of all the saints in common and the palms of all martyrs, to whom there was no other cause of suffering but the confession of the divinity and true humanity in Christ, to which sacrament, because it is now opposed by a few imprudent men, all the churches of our parts, all your meekness with groans and tears, the priests supplicate, that since our men also have faithfully clamored, and Bishop Flavian gave them a bill of appeal, you bid a general synod be celebrated within Italy which may repel all offenses,” etc. Likewise the same is second gathered from the deeds of the synod of Chalcedon concerning the eminence given to the Church of Constantinople over Alexandria, in which the legates of the pope are read to have gainsaid and to have appealed to blessed Leo the pope, whence in Act 10 of the same synod the vicars of the apostolic see are reported to have said thus: “The apostolic see ought not to be humiliated with us present, and therefore whatsoever was done yesterday to the prejudice of the canons or rules with us absent, we ask your sublimity to bid to be rescinded, but otherwise let our contradiction inhere in these deeds, that we may know what we ought to report to the apostolic man, the pope of the universal Church, that he himself may bear sentence either concerning the injury of his see or concerning the overturning of the canons.” Thus far there. Likewise concerning the same contradiction Pope Leo speaks both in the letter which he writes to the Emperor Marcian and in that which he writes to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, whence holy Thomas of Aquino in the question On penance, tenth question, fourth article, making mention of this, says thus: “Even the Roman pontiff can do these things by his own authority, by whose sole authority a synod can be congregated, and from whom the sentence of a synod is confirmed, and to him appeal is made from a synod, all which things are clear in the deeds of the council of Chalcedon.” Thus far holy Thomas.