Summa de Ecclesia

Just as we have said that it belongs to the Roman pontiff by reason of his principate to interpret the sacred canons, so by the same reason there belongs to him most of all the dispensation of the sacred canons, even of universal councils, and the moderation of the rules of the holy fathers; and although this is had quite plainly from what has been said, nevertheless for fuller knowledge we shall take care to prove it by certain reasons. We presuppose first, as the foundation of what is to be said, that in any commonwealth there must necessarily be some power of dispensing in its laws, which, since they were instituted to regulate human acts which admit much variety, cannot always remain immutable; hence Aristotle in the 7th book of the Ethics argues the necessity of positing in the prince the virtue of epikeia, which we call equity or moderation, whose office it is, in those matters in which the observances of the law ¹ are known not to be expedient to the utility of the commonwealth, to pass over the words of the law and follow what reason or common utility demands. Hence, unless such an authority of dispensing in the laws and statutes of the commonwealth were given, many things which were ordained for the utility and peace of the faithful would turn to the harm and disturbance of the whole commonwealth. Hence it is said in ch. Regula, dist. 9, that the rules of the holy fathers are tempered according to variety of times and places. With this established, we say that, since dispensation, as is commonly said, is a relaxation of the common law or a removal of obligation from a precept, the dispensation of a law does not seem to belong to anyone, just as we have said of interpretation, except to the legislator or an equal or superior, or to someone else by commission of the superior; this is manifest, but the Roman pontiff is prince and author of the canons, inasmuch as they were established by his authority and receive strength, as we have shown above, and he is superior to all. Therefore to him alone will it most of all belong to dispense in the canons by his own authority. Second, thus: to him principally and singularly belongs dispensation in the laws of the commonwealth according as the condition of times and persons requires, with whom public authority resides; but such authority in the Christian commonwealth is the Roman pontiff or the apostolic see, in which the Lord is said to have placed the principate of the whole Church. Therefore it follows that to the apostolic see will singularly and most of all belong the dispensation of the canons or rules of the holy fathers. This is also confirmed by blessed Bernard, who, writing to Eugenius, names the Roman pontiff father of kings, moderator of laws, salt of the earth, light of the world, priest of the Most High, concerning which authority of the Roman pontiff in dispensing or moderating the canons the lord Archbishop of Reims gives illustrious testimony in the book on synods, ch. 39, saying thus: We do not doubt to ascribe to the Roman pontiff most of all the faculty of tempering or changing the canons, as the holy fathers taught, for blessed Gelasius and Nicholas the first pope in their decrees, and Symmachus indeed in a general synod, at different times indeed but with the same voice, thus protested concerning the authority of the Roman pontiff. Constrained, say they, by necessary disposition of affairs, and bound by the governance of the apostolic see, we so weigh the decrees of the paternal canons and measure the precepts of the former prelates and of our predecessors that what the necessity of present times demands to be relaxed in restoring the churches, we temper with applied consideration and, as far as can be done, diligent care; it is found in 1 q. 7, ch. Necessaria. Let it not amaze you if the Roman pontiffs have peculiarly had this power of dispensing the canons according to the time, for they themselves are the authors of the canons, and that see has always had this privilege, that whatever it shall have bound and loosed is bound and loosed. Hence, according to the attestation of the holy fathers, it is preeminent over all churches and can judge of all. So much he. Of the necessity indeed of positing this power in the Roman pontiff the same doctor says thus in the same chapter: In no way could the right of ecclesiastical discipline stand if the apostolic prelate did not have that authority concerning the canons which we have related above, for the statutes of preceding fathers would sometimes not so much have instituted ecclesiastical discipline as confounded it, if they could in no way be changed by their successors, although necessity of time persuades that now more mildly, now more severely, one must proceed, which will not escape him who takes care diligently to investigate the statutes of preceding fathers and of those following. Indeed, if blessed Pelagius could not have diminished the number of years which his predecessors prescribed for single grades, the scarcity of clerics, which the time through priests matured from laymen within a year could in no way relieve. Likewise, if modern pontiffs could not have remitted the rigor of the ancient canons through lapsed priests, Christian religion itself, destitute of priestly office, could in no way stand, since now almost no priests are found except those criminally lapsed, whom the ancient canons are read to have deposed. So much he, and it is touched upon in ch. Requisitis, 1 q. 7. It is therefore the privilege of the apostolic see to be judge of canons and decrees, so that according to condition of time and necessity of affairs it now tightens, now relaxes, as it shall foresee to be expedient to the necessity and utility of the Church; of this opinion is blessed Thomas both in 2.2 and in the quodlibets, and also in the treatise against those impugning religion, saying that all statutes of the holy fathers which are of positive law are left to the disposition of the pope, so that he can change or dispense them according to opportuneness of times or affairs. Where for ampler declaration of this chapter it is to be noted that there are two genera of canons or rules or decrees of the holy fathers, as St Thomas intimates in quodlibet 4, art. 14. There is one genus of canons which were instituted by divine right, such as things pertaining to articles of faith, to the substance of the sacraments, or which have a manifest connection with the divine or natural law, pertaining to good morals, and in such the pope cannot dispense. And the reason of this is, according to St Thomas, because these have efficacy from divine institution, of which is to be understood what Pope Zosimus says in ch. Contra, 25 q. 1: To establish anything against the statutes of the holy fathers or to change them is a power not even of this see. The second genus of canons or decrees is of those which the fathers instituted of positive right. For although canons unanimously instituted by the holy fathers are said to be established by the Holy Spirit, yet not all are said to pertain either to the law of nature or to the divine law, but some are said to pertain to human or positive right, just as, although every truth by whomsoever spoken, as Ambrose says, is from the Holy Spirit, yet not every truth pertains to divine right, but will be of another inferior genus or order, namely either legal or canonical or of the medical faculty, and so of others; and speaking of this genus of canons we say, according to what has already been said, that the Roman pontiff can dispense in them, by whomsoever they were issued, even by the apostles, as St Thomas says in the treatise named above; this twofold genus of canons or statutes of the holy fathers is touched by Pope Leo in ch. Sicut sunt, dist. 14, speaking thus: Just as there are some things which can by no reason be shaken, so there are many which must be tempered either for necessity of times or for condition of ages. From these is refuted the error of certain adversaries saying that the Roman pontiff has no power in the canons of universal councils.