Summa de Ecclesia

On this question we shall set out, in two conclusions, what seems to be the answer according to the truth, always saving a better judgment. ¹ The first is that in a case of schism in which there is one true and undoubted pope and another who is an intruder, or who has been ordained against many, if such an intruder has great and powerful followers or adherents, so that the pseudo-pope cannot be checked by armed force, and there is no hope that the schism can be quieted by any way other than the yielding of the true pontiff, and there is certainty that through the yielding of the true pontiff the Church would be restored, and the scattered sheep are brought back to one flock and under one shepherd, then in this case the Roman pontiff, however clear and undoubted his right to the papacy, seems bound to yield the papacy for the restoration of the union of the Church.

Many reasons, which were given in the preceding chapter, support this conclusion, especially that which is drawn from the Gospel of John, where Christ says that the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. There it seems consonant with divine law that a pastor of the Church, for the gathering of his erring sheep into one flock and fold, if no other way of gathering them is had or hoped for except by yielding his right, ought to renounce it, so that the Lord's flock may be restored under another shepherd, since this cannot be done under him.

Likewise the reason assigned in c. Nisi cum pridem, On renunciation, paragraph Pro gravi quoque, where the pope says thus, greatly confirms this conclusion: For on account of a grave scandal, when it cannot otherwise be quieted, it is lawful for a bishop to seek to yield, lest he seem to aim at temporal honour rather than eternal salvation, mindful of what the Apostle says: If I shall scandalize my brother, I will not eat flesh for ever. Blessed Augustine seems to confirm this conclusion in many places. For he says on the psalm, Give your judgment to the king, on the words, Let the mountains receive peace: Those who are eminent in the Church ought to take counsel with watchful intent, lest, by acting for their own honours through pride, they make schisms and break the bond of unity. For with what face shall we hope in the future age for the honour promised by Christ, if our honour in this age hinders the unity of Christians? Thus he. Secondly, he confirms this plainly in the second book against Cresconius the grammarian, saying: Bishops are not for our own sake, but for the sake of those to whom we minister the word and the sacrament of the Lord; and therefore, as their need stands without scandal, so ought we to be or not to be, because we are not for our own sake but for the sake of others. Finally, some men endowed with holy humility laid down the office of the episcopate, not only without fault but with praise, because of certain stumbling-blocks in themselves by which they were piously and religiously moved. Likewise in the Acts with Emeritus, chapter 10: For the peace of Christ, bishops ought to be, or ought not to be; and he adds: Why do we hesitate to offer to our Redeemer this sacrifice of humility? Or did he come down from heaven into human members unless we were his members? And do we fear, lest his members be torn by a cruel division, to come down from our chairs? For our own sake it is enough that we are Christian and obedient faithful; this we always are. Bishops, however, are ordained for the sake of Christian peoples; therefore what profits Christian peoples for Christian peace, let us do with our episcopate. And further on, in chapter 11: For your sake we ought to be what you are. What ought you to be, you whom I address: a Christian faithful and obedient? This you do for yourself; this too I do for myself. Therefore what you are for yourself and I for myself we must always be. But what I am for your sake, let me be for you if it profits you, and let me not be if it harms you. And further on he adds: If we are useful servants, why do we grudge the Lord eternal gains for our temporal loftiness? The episcopal dignity will be more fruitful for us if it has gathered the flock of Christ that was entrusted to it, rather than if, while retaining it, it has scattered it. And further on: My brothers, if we think of God, this place is a higher watch-tower of defence, not the height of one who is proud. If, when I wish to retain my episcopate, I scatter the flock of Christ, then, since the honour of the shepherd is no loss to the flock. And further on: For with what face shall we hope in the future age for the honour promised by Christ, if our honour in this age hinders the unity of Christians. Secondly, and chiefly, the aforesaid conclusion is plain from that rule of Jerome: All things which can be omitted, the threefold truth remaining safe, are to be dismissed on account of scandal. But the pope, in the aforesaid case, can yield the papacy with the threefold truth safe, as is plain; therefore it seems that on account of the scandal of schism, to be removed from the Church, he ought to yield the papacy.

Thirdly, thus: the pope ought to love more the spiritual salvation of his sheep, which is impeded by the scandal of schism, than any temporal good whatever, and consequently more than his dignity, which is temporal; but what is loved less must be let go for the sake of what is loved more, if the latter cannot otherwise be had. Therefore the pope, in the preceding case, ought to yield.

² The second conclusion is that a true and undoubted pope, who is not turned aside from the faith, cannot be compelled to yield, nor, if he is unwilling to yield, can he be deposed. This conclusion is plain from all the reasons and testimonies of the doctors by which, in the second book, chapter 93, it was proved that the Roman pontiff, true and undoubted, outside the case of heresy, cannot be deposed by anyone except God. The same is plain from all those reasons by which, in the third book, chapter 44, it was shown that the Roman pontiff is superior by authority of jurisdiction to a universal council; it is manifest, however, that an inferior has no power of jurisdiction over a superior, dist. 21, Inferior; and Extra, On the greater and the lesser, Cum inferior. Nevertheless the aforesaid conclusion is shown in another way: the common opinion of the holy canons, as we have shown in the second book, is that the pope cannot be deposed on account of any crime whatever unless he is turned aside from the faith, dist. 40, Si papa. For although God committed the election of the supreme pontiffs to religious clerics, he reserved their deposition to his own judgment alone, dist. 79, Electionem. And it is noted by the doctors: namely by Ioan., dist. 79, in the Summa; by Hosti., in the Summa, On the constitutions, Si quis possit, in principio; by Archi., On heretics in the faith, book 6, and there by Ioan. an., and On the authority and use of the pallium; and On renunciation, ch. 1, book 6; and On elections, Licet devitanda. If, therefore, the pope cannot be deposed for any great crime except heresy, even if he should be useless to the Church and negligent and remiss, as is noted in On renunciation, ch. 1, book 6, in the ordinary gloss, how will it be conceded that, being innocent, he should come to be deposed or cast down on account of the crimes of others, that is, the stubborn obstinacy of schismatics?

Secondly, this reasoning is confirmed thus: it is against justice that an innocent man should come to be deprived, on account of the malice of others, of the honour and dignity which he justly holds, as is manifest. Therefore a true and undoubted pope, innocent and blameless, does not seem able to be compelled to yield his dignity on account of the malice of any schismatics whatever, nor to be deposed; otherwise a way would be given by which no one in dignity, however holy he might be, would be secure, if for the sake of allaying a schism arisen from the malice of certain impious men he had to yield honour, dominion and dignity — which could beget the greatest scandal in the church of God, and all the greater the higher the dignity, such as the papacy, against which such violence or tyranny is attempted.

Thirdly, thus: no one can be compelled to yield temporal goods over which he has a clear and undoubted right, on account of the scandal or schism of anyone, for otherwise, as has been said, an occasion would be given to the wicked to seize and harm the good. Hence St. Thomas, in 2-2, q. 44, art. last, says that on account of those who stir up scandals temporal things are not to be let go, since this too would harm the common good, for an occasion of seizing would be given to the wicked. Therefore much less can someone be compelled to yield a dignity, since it is far more excellent than other temporal goods, when others stir up scandals and schisms.

Fourthly, the aforesaid conclusion seems to be confirmed by the authority of blessed Cyprian, who, speaking in his letter to Bishop Ivvanianus about the schism between Novatian and Cornelius, says: What then? Because Novatian usurps the honour of the priestly chair, shall we therefore be bound to renounce the chair? And because Novatian strives to set up an altar and to offer sacrifices contrary to right, must we cease from the altar and from sacrifices, lest we seem to celebrate things equal and similar to his? It is utterly vain and foolish that, because Novatian outside the Church claims for himself the image of truth, the Church should abandon the truth. Thus Cyprian.

Fifthly, the aforesaid conclusion is shown thus. Among the jurists it was not a little doubted in earlier times whether the pope, if he wished freely to renounce the papacy for a cause, for example because he was insufficient and useless for the rule of the Roman and universal Church, would be admitted to renunciation. As evidence of this matter, the disputation has been recited quite fully and elegantly, with the strongest reasons on either side, by Ioan. an., in ch. 1, On renunciation, book 6, in the gloss, and more fully in the Novels. For the decision of this question also that constitution proceeded, in ch. 1, On renunciation, book 6. Now, if it had already been defined, or founded either by divine or by human law, that the pope, for the just cause of removing schism or avoiding grave scandal, could be compelled to yield not only if he were willing but even if unwilling, there would certainly have been no doubt among so many and such great jurists whether he who wishes freely to yield for a just cause should be admitted. Since, therefore, no law provides that a true and undoubted pope can be compelled to yield in order to avoid a schism raised by others, such a course seems not to be undertaken without danger to conscience. Hence one of the reasons why the schism of Core, Dathan and Abiron was punished with a grave and unusual penalty, Num. 16, as St. Thomas says in the fourth book, distinction 13, is that it was expedient that the prelates of the Church not be despised; since they plainly hold the place of Christ in the Church, they are to be handled with great reverence.

Sixthly, thus: that someone be compelled to yield his right, and to renounce or lose his right against his will, belongs to the class of things forbidden, as is plain from the rule of law. Therefore it seems that the pope, having a true right, cannot be compelled to yield his right.

Seventhly, the same conclusion is plain. For if a true pope were compelled to yield for the sake of removing any schism, the thing would at once become most pernicious. It is plain, because a way will be prepared for the powers of laymen in future times by which they may subject the Roman pontiff, against his will and struggling, to renunciation at their pleasure, by their wicked demands. They will devise some heresy against him, or accuse him of a less canonical election, and set up an apostate, whom, supporting him wrongly by their great power, they will suffer to sit no otherwise than if the true apostolic one had yielded. Moreover, as to a possible conspiracy of certain cardinals, to whom by the same image of example a similar way will be opened, the faculty of deposing an apostolic one will be granted by like consequence, and the apostolic principate will depend on the judgment of evil men; how most inconvenient this is no one of sound mind is ignorant. On account of which Cyprian says in his letter to Ivvanianus, and it is found in C. 7, q. 1: How dangerous it is in divine matters that someone should yield his right and power, holy Scripture declares, and so on. Thus, as Hugo and Archidiaconus say, Cornelius, worn out with labour, wished to give way before the schism. But Hugo asks: is it not permitted to everyone to renounce his right? He answers: either the renunciation harms himself and others, or only others and not himself; and so it is not permitted for him to renounce, and in renouncing he sins mortally. If it harms himself alone, perhaps he does not sin, because it is permitted to each to renounce a right which touches himself and not another, as argued in 2, q. 5, Mandastis. These matters having been considered, it must be said in reply to the arguments on the other side. ³ To the first, when it is argued from the example of the woman, and so on, it is answered briefly that it does not bear on the point, since that woman was not compelled by the king or by any power, but freely yielded her right to her son, perceiving that the division was irrecoverable. Hence, although from that example an argument can be taken that the pope, since the union of the Church could not otherwise be repaired except by his yielding the papacy, ought to yield his right, nevertheless it does not follow that he could be compelled. ⁴ To the second, when it is argued from the example of Christ, it is answered that this also does not seem to bear on the point of those arguing. First, because although Christ humbled himself even unto death for the salvation of his sheep, he did not do so unto the surrender of his dignity. Hence from this it is well argued that the pope, as Christ's vicar, ought, if necessity requires, to expose his own life for the salvation of his sheep; but it is not properly argued that he ought to yield his dignity and, the office being laid down, leave the care of the flock committed to him; for Christ did not do this. Secondly, the example does not fit: for although Christ humbled himself unto death for the salvation of the human race, he did it not compelled nor forced, but freely and voluntarily; for he was offered because he himself willed it, as it is said in Isaiah 53. Therefore, although from that an example may be taken that the pope ought to yield life and honour for the good of the Church, it does not follow that he could be compelled or deposed by any temporal power if he were unwilling to yield.

⁵ To the third reason, which is taken from the practice of the Council of Pisa, it is answered in two ways. First, since that council was not undoubtedly a universal council throughout the whole Church, no argument of any firmness can be taken from its practice. It is answered secondly that it does not bear on the point, since none of those deposed in the aforesaid gathering was a true and undoubted pope, nor was he who was elected there.

⁶ To the fourth reason, which is taken from the practice of the Council of Constance, it is answered in the same way, namely that it does not bear on the point. First, because Gregory yielded voluntarily, not compelled. Secondly, because John and Benedict, who were deposed, were not true and undoubted pontiffs.

⁷ To the fifth, which is taken from that passage of John 10, The good shepherd, it has been answered above in the reply to the second: for although it rightly follows that he ought to yield for the good of restoring the Lord's flock, it does not follow that he can be compelled to this, or that, if unwilling to yield his indubitable right, he can be deposed.

⁸ To the sixth reason, taken from the chapter Nisi cum pridem, On renunciation, ch. 1, it is answered, first, that it does not bear on the point, since that text says thus: For the grave scandal to be avoided, when it cannot otherwise be quieted, it is lawful for a bishop to seek to yield; it does not say that he can be compelled or forced. Secondly, it is answered that, granting that this text were to be understood of an inferior prelate who could be compelled by the authority of his superior, that does not apply to the pope, who, by reason of the excellence of his principate, has no superior, as in Extra, On elections, c. Licet in fine. For this reason the case of an inferior prelate and that of the pope is not alike, although the scandal that arises in the universal Church is greater than that which arises in one diocese.

⁹ To the seventh, from the chapter Si forte, dist. 58, it is answered that that chapter does not seem to bear on the point, for two reasons. First, because that chapter speaks of one elected but not yet confirmed; but we speak of a true apostolic one, who by the very fact of being elected by two parts of the cardinals is understood to be confirmed. For it is easier to prevent a man from being promoted than to eject one already promoted, as in On the oath, c. Quemadmodum Christus. For a guest is more shamefully ejected than refused admission. Secondly, because there mention is made of an inferior prelate. Hence it says: such a one is to be preferred by the judgment of the metropolitan. This does not suit the pope, who, by the eminence of his pontificate, has no metropolitan, as Pope Nicholas says in the chapter In nomine Domini, dist. 21; and so the argument does not hold.

¹⁰ To the eighth reason, when it is said etc., the minor premise is denied, namely that the pope, if unwilling to yield, would sin against the article, and so on. For this is false. Nor does Hostiensis say that, nor is it true what Hostiensis seems to say in the Summa, namely that every schismatic sins against the article, One holy Church, and so on; for then every schismatic would be a heretic, since he would sin against an article of faith, which is manifestly false, as was said above in the chapter Inter haeresim, 24, q. 3, the difference between heresy and schism is set down. As to the chapter Advocavit, it is answered that it is not to the point, because when it says that Cyprian did not think faith to be lost in schism, faith is not taken there for the faith by which God is believed, but for fidelity, as is plainly gathered if one weighs well the words of Cyprian; otherwise every schismatic would be a heretic, which is false, as was shown above.

¹¹ To the ninth, it is argued that he is bound to yield to remove scandal, and so on. It is answered, first, that the major premise is false universally, especially as St. Thomas says in 2-2, q. 43, art. 7, when scandal proceeds from the malice of some, such as the scandal of the Pharisees. Nor do the chapters Error, which is adduced, and Negligere prove it; for it is one thing to resist error when one can, or to neglect troubling the perverse, and another to yield one's honour or goods on account of the scandal of certain malicious and perverse men, who, unwilling to obey the true pontiff, disturb the Church of God. Moreover, if that major premise were true, all those would be said to produce scandals who did not give up their temporal goods at the will of the many who are scandalized, although this is false, as is plain from blessed Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, who did not cease to demand the goods of the Church notwithstanding the scandal of the king of England; and blessed Thomas, in 2-2, in the passage above, art. 8, shows that when scandal is born from malice, which is the scandal of the Pharisees, temporal things are not to be let go on account of those who thus stir up scandals, since this too would harm the common good, for an occasion of seizing would be given to the wicked. Thus St. Thomas. For since, not through the fault of the pope but through his own malice, someone gratuitously stumbles at his deed or word and falls into sin, this is not to be imputed to the true and undoubted pope. This is gathered quite plainly from the Gospel, where, when the disciples had said to Christ, Master, do you know that the Pharisees were scandalized when they heard this word? he, holding such scandal as nothing, said: Leave them; they are blind and leaders of the blind. Wherefore Cyprian says: As far as it concerns us, and is fitting for our conscience, to take care always that no one perish from the Church through our fault. But if anyone of his own accord perishes through his own crime, and does not wish to do penance and return to the Church, we believe that we shall be blameless in the day of judgment, since we have cared for their health; and those alone shall remain in punishments who are unwilling to be healed by the salvation of our council. Nor should the obstinacy of the lost move us to depart from the path of rectitude and a sure rule. Thus he. And so it appears that that argument, though it seemed plausible, carries little weight.

Moreover, even if that major premise were true, all litigants and all who have right in causes would come to be judged makers of scandals and fosterers of schisms and of wars; for since they could remove the scandal by yielding their right, and do not do so, although this is not true, it is false that it is concluded that the pope, by refusing to yield his right, especially since other ways of quieting schism can be found, more pleasing to God and more honourable to the Church, nearer to justice and more conformed to earlier times, is said to produce or to foster scandal, or that for this reason he can be called a schismatic or is a nourisher of schism, and consequently that by reason of this a council has authority over him.

¹² To the tenth, when it is argued from the chapter Nisi cum pridem, On renunciation, it is answered that, granting that it is so, that in that case a prelate is bound to yield, and likewise the pope, it does not follow that if he is unwilling he can be compelled, or on that account deposed; which is plainly gathered from the chapter Si papa, if it is read in full, where it says thus: If the pope is found negligent of his own and his brothers' salvation, useless and remiss in his works, and moreover silent about the good, which harms himself and all the more, nevertheless he leads countless peoples in throngs with himself to the first bondage of hell, to be scourged with many blows for ever along with him; no mortal presumes to rebuke his faults, because he who is to judge all is to be judged by no one, unless he is found to have turned aside from the faith.