Quaest. 4, Art. 3
Quaestiones disputatae de perfectione evangelica · Quaestio IV: De obedientia
Articulus III. De obedientia summo Pontifici debita.
Ultimo quaeritur, utrum christianae religionis sit, quod omnes obediant uni2. Et quod sic, videtur et per vetus testamentum et per novum et per ius canonicum et per evidentiam rationum.
Primo igitur per vetus testamentum ostenditur sic.
1. Deuteronomii decimo septimo3: Si difficile et ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris, et iudicum verba videris variari; surge et ascende ad locum, quem elegit Dominus Deus tuus. Qui autem superbierit nolens obedire sacerdotis imperio, morietur homo ille; ibi Glossa: «Hic appellandi tribuit facultatem». Ex hoc textu et Glossa colligitur, quod in veteri lege unus erat summus Pontifex, ad quem recurrendum erat in iudiciis, et cui obediendum erat ab universis. Si hoc ergo erat in lege figurae, multo fortius videtur quod esse debet in lege gratiae. Et hoc triplici ratione; primo, quia maior est unitas nunc quam tunc: ergo multo fortius debet esse Pontifex unus. — Item, pontificatus est dignior et altior: ergo multo fortius nunc debent uni Pontifici subiici quam tempore legis Moysi. — Postremo, quia hic debet esse obedientia maior et hierarchia ordinatior. Ex quibus omnibus colligitur, quod si uni summo Pontifici obtemperandum erat tempore legis Moysi, multo fortius tempore legis Christi.
2. Item, Psalmus4: Constituit principes super omnem terram; constans est, quod hoc dictum est de Apostolis: ergo omnis terra est sub principatu Apostolorum; sed principatus iste est principatus stabilis, secundum illud Psalmi: Nimis confortatus est principatus eorum; sed non est stabilis, nisi sit unitus, quia omne regnum in se ipso divisum desolabitur; nec est unitus, nisi habeat unum principem principalem: ergo secundum testimonium propheticum omnis terra subiacere debet uni, qui sit princeps universorum.
3. Item, ad hoc confirmandum facit quod dicit Bernardus in tertio libro ad Eugenium5: «Orbe ei exeundum, qui forte voluit explorare, quae non ad tuam pertineant curam. Parentes tui destinati sunt, non aliquas regiones, sed ipsum debellaturi orbem; et quidem in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum» etc. Et post: «Nimis confortatus est principatus eorum; constituti sunt principes super omnem terram. Eius tu successisti in hereditatem, ita tu heres, et orbis hereditas». Ex hoc ergo apparet, quod secundum testimonium propheticum uni debetur universalis obedientia omnium.
Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per novum testamentum.
4. Matthaei decimo sexto6: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam etc., usque ibi: erit solutum et in caelis; sed constans est, quod ei qui omnes potest solvere et ligare, debet ab omnibus obediri: ergo Deus sic Ecclesiam p. 190 instituit, quod ab omnibus obediretur uni. Sed Ecclesia sic est regenda et gubernanda, sicut fuit a Domino instituta: ergo etc.
5. Item, Ioannis ultimo1: Pasce oves meas, dictum est Petro; sed oves Christi sunt omnes, qui per viam salutis incedunt: ergo omnibus talibus praelatus est Petrus: unus ergo fuit omnium ovium Christi pastor secundum Ecclesiae fundationem: ergo et secundum progressum et consummationem ab omnibus obediendum est uni.
6. Item, Bernardus, tractans verba praemissa, in secundo ad Eugenium2 dicit sic: «Tu es, cui claves traditae, cui oves creditae sunt. Sunt quidem et alii caeli ianitores et gregum pastores; sed tu tanto gloriosius, quanto et differentius utrumque prae ceteris nomen hereditasti. Habent illi sibi assignatos greges, singuli singulos, tibi uni universi crediti sunt, uni unus. Nec modo ovium, sed et pastorum tu unus omnium pastor. Unde probem, quaeris? Ex verbo Domini: Si me amas, Petre, pasce oves meas. Quas? Illius vel illius populos civitatis, aut regionis, aut regni? Oves meas, inquit. Cui non planum, non designasse aliquas, sed assignasse omnes? Nihil excipitur, ubi nihil distinguitur». Et post3: «Stat inconcussum privilegium tuum tibi, tam in clavibus quam in ovibus commendatis, nempe signum singularis pontificii Petri, per quod non navem unam, ut ceteri quique suam, sed saeculum ipsum suscepit gubernandum; ita, cum quisque ceterorum habeat suam, tibi una commissa est grandissima navis, facta ex omnibus, ipsa universalis Ecclesia, toto orbe diffusa». — Ex hoc manifeste habetur, quod secundum divinam institutionem uni, scilicet summo Pontifici, debet ab omnibus obediri.
7. Item, Augustinus, ad Optatum4: «In Romana Ecclesia semper apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus»; sed hoc non dicitur sola ratione ipsius urbis tantum, quia sic posset dici de aliis locis et aliis episcopis; ergo dicitur respectu totius orbis: ergo secundum hoc omnis orbis debet obedire Pontifici Romano tanquam principi mundi et universali.
8. Item, Hieronymus, ad Damasum Papam5: «Emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri et Sedem tenes et fidem; si autem haec nostra confessio apostolatus tui iudicio comprobatur, quicumque me culpare voluerit, se imperitum, vel malevolum, aut etiam non catholicum, sed haereticum comprobabit»: ergo iudicio unius summi Pontificis et correctioni, secundum Hieronymum, ab omnibus debet stari, non ob aliud, nisi quia Sedem tenet Petri et auctoritatem, quam Dominus dedit ei.
9. Item, Gelasius, distinctione vigesima prima6: «Quamvis per orbem catholicae Ecclesiae institutae unus thalamus Christi sint, tamen sancta Romana Ecclesia nullis synodicis institutis praelata est, sed evangelica voce Domini et Salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit: Tu es, inquit Dominus, Petrus, et super hanc petram» etc.
10. Item, Nicolaus, distinctione vigesima secunda7: «Omnes cuiuslibet ordinis dignitates instituit Romana Ecclesia, illam vero solus ipse fundavit et supra petram fidei mox nascentis erexit, qui beato aeternae vitae clavigero terreni simul et caelestis imperii iura commisit. Non ergo quaelibet terrena sententia, sed illud Verbum, quo instructum est caelum et terra, per quod denique omnia condita sunt elementa, Romanam fundavit Ecclesiam; illius certe privilegio fungitur, illius auctoritate fulcitur; quod qui auferre conatur, hic procul dubio in haeresim labitur. Et infra: Unde et ipse S. Ambrosius se in omnibus sequi magistram sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam profitetur».
11. Item, Anacletus, ibidem8: «Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia non ab Apostolis, sed ab ipso Domino Salvatore nostro primatum obtinuit, sicut beato Petro Apostolo dixit: Tu es Petrus». Et post pauca: «Inter beatos Apostolos quaedam fuit discretio potestatis; et licet omnes essent Apostoli, Petro tamen concessum est a Domino — et ipsi inter se voluerunt idipsum — ut reliquis omnibus praeesset Apostolis; qui et eandem formam suis successoribus et reliquis episcopis tenendam tradiderunt; et non solum hoc in novo testamento, verum etiam in veteri fuit». — Ex his manifeste colligitur, quod secundum testimonium utriusque testamenti ab omnibus est obtemperandum uni.
Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per ius canonicum:
12. Quia cuius est ceteros iudicare et a nemine iudicari, ei debet ab omnibus obediri; sed talis est aliquis unus, utpote Pontifex summus: ergo ei est ab omnibus obtemperandum. Maior est per se manifesta; minor vero probatur per multiplicia iura. p. 191 Causa nona, quaestione tertia1 dicit Nicolaus Papa: «Patet profecto, Sedis apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maius non est, iudicium a nemine retractandum esse, nec cuiquam liceat de eius iudicio iudicare». — Item, Innocentius Papa, ibidem: «Nemo iudicabit primam apostolicam Sedem, iustitiam temperare desiderantem; neque enim ab Augusto neque ab omni clero neque a populo index iudicabitur». — Item, Anterus Papa, ibidem: «Facta subditorum iudicantur a nobis, nostra vero a Domino iudicantur» — Item, Gelasius Papa omnibus Episcopis, ibidem: «Cuncta per mundum novit Ecclesia, quod sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia fas de omnibus habeat iudicandi, neque cuiquam liceat de eius iudicare iudicio. Siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte appellandum est, ab illa autem nemo est appellare permissus». — Item, idem episcopis per Dardaniam constitutis, ibidem: «Cuncta Ecclesia per mundum novit, quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata pontificum Sedes beati Petri ius habeat rescindendi, utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat iudicandi». — Ex his igitur manifeste colligitur, quod summi Pontificis est ceteros iudicare et a nemine iudicari, ac per hoc ei debeat ab omnibus obediri.
13. Item, cuius est decreta statuere ab omnibus observanda, ei debet ab omnibus obediri; sed hic est summus Pontifex: ergo ei ab omnibus est obtemperandum. Maior per se patet; minor vero probatur multipliciter. Primo, decima nona distinctione2 Agatho Papa sic: «Omnes apostolicae Sedis sanctiones accipiendae sunt tanquam ipsius beati Petri Apostoli divina voce firmatae». — Item, eadem distinctione Stephanus quintus: «Enimvero, quia in speculum et exemplum sancta Romana Ecclesia, cui nos Christus praeesse voluit, posita est omnibus, quidquid statuerit, quidquid ordinaverit, perpetuo et irrefragabiliter observandum est». — Item, Gregorius Papa, in eadem: «Nulli fas est vel velle, vel posse transgredi apostolicae Sedis praecepta». Et post: «Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus, quisquis voluerit apostolicae Sedis contraire decretis; quoniam iam damnatus a sancta Synodo et apostolica Ecclesia sua de inobedientia atque praesumtione a quoquam esse non dubitatur». — Item, vigesima distinctione Nicolaus Papa: «Si decreta Romanorum Pontificum non habetis, de neglectu atque incuria estis arguendi; si habetis et non observatis, de temeritate estis corripiendi». — Item, Causa vigesima quinta, quaestione prima Hilarius Papa: «Nulli fas sit sine status sui periculo divinas constitutiones, vel apostolicae Sedis decreta temerare». — Item, eadem Adrianus Papa: «Generali decreto constituimus, ut exsecrandum anathema fiat et velut praevaricator fidei catholicae semper apud Deum reus existat, quicumque regum seu episcoporum vel potentium deinceps Romanorum Pontificum decretorum censuram in quoquam crediderit vel permiserit violandam». — Ex his omnibus manifeste ostenditur, quod summi Pontificis est decreta statuere ab omnibus observanda, et ex hoc ei ab omnibus obedientia exhibenda.
14. Item, illi, sine cuius obedientia non potest unitas Ecclesiae conservari, debet ab omnibus obediri; sed talis est unus, scilicet summus Pontifex: ergo etc. Maior est per se nota; minor vero probatur. Cyprianus, Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione prima3: «Ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis Ecclesiae originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit». — Item, idem, eadem quaestione: «Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est; habere non potest Deum patrem qui universalis Ecclesiae non tenet unitatem». — Item, Hieronymus, in eadem quaestione4: «Cum successore piscatoris et discipulo Christi loquor. Ego nullum praemium nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini vestrae, id est Cathedrae Petri, communione consocior; supra illam petram fundatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicumque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, profanus est; si quis in Noe arca non fuerit, peribit, regnante diluvio». Et post: «Quicumque tecum non colligit, spargit, hoc est, qui Christi non est antichristi est». — Item, Beda, supra Matthaeum, in eadem quaestione5: «Quicumque ab unitate fidei, vel societatis Petri Apostoli quolibet modo semetipsos segregant, tales nec vinculis peccatorum absolvi nec ianuam possunt ingredi regni caelestis». — Item, nonagesima tertia distinctione6 Cyprianus dicit: «Qui Cathedram Petri, supra quam fundata est Ecclesia, deserit in Ecclesia se esse non confidat». — Non potest ergo intra unitatem ecclesiasticam esse qui ab obedientia recedit illius qui sedet in Cathedra Petri.
Item, hoc idem ostenditur per evidentiam rationum. p. 192
15. Ecclesia Dei est unum corpus, in quo est diversitas membrorum1; sed sic est in corpore materiali, quod omnia membra subiiciuntur et obtemperant uni membro principali, scilicet capiti: ergo sic erit in corpore spirituali, quod omnia membra spiritualia uni debent subiici tanquam capiti principali. Hoc autem fit per obedientiam: ergo etc.
16. Item, Ecclesia habet ordinem secundum ministeria, sicut etiam secundum charismata et gratiarum dona2; sed influentia charismatum et gratiarum est ab uno capite, scilicet Christo: ergo et derivatio ministeriorum et iurisdictionum debet esse ab uno capite, scilicet Pontifice summo. Hoc autem non potest esse sine obedientia omnium respectu unius: ergo etc.
17. Item, Ecclesia est una hierarchia: ergo debet habere unum praecipuum et summum hierarcham3, cum ab unitate principis descendere debeat unitas principatus; sed uni et summo hierarchae ab omnibus obediendum est: ergo etc.
18. Item, Ecclesia conformatur supernae hierarchiae4; sed omnes spiritus ministrant et obtemperant uni summo Spiritui: ergo et omnes homines in Ecclesia obtemperare debent uni homini. Hic autem est summus Pontifex: ergo etc.
19. Item, maior est unio in esse gratiae quam in esse naturae5; sed omnes homines habent unum patrem corporalem: ergo debent habere unum patrem spiritualem. Sed patri ab omnibus filiis obediendum est: ergo etc.
20. Item, in minori mundo sic est, quod omnes vires inferiores obtemperare debent uni, scilicet rationi seu libero arbitrio6: ergo et in ordine ecclesiastico omnes obtemperare debent uni homini; hic autem est summus Pontifex: ergo etc.
21. Item, in maiori mundo videmus quod omnia mobilia et omnes motores regulantur secundum primum motorem et primum mobile7: ergo similiter in ordine ecclesiastico regulari debent omnes principatus et potestates secundum aliquem unum et solum principalem motorem; hoc autem fit obtemperando Pontifici summo: ergo etc.
22. Item, Ecclesia est una sponsa, ergo debet habere unum sponsum; sed omnes particulares Ecclesiae reducuntur ad Ecclesiam unam: ergo omnes sponsi loco Christi constituti, scilicet episcopi8, ad unum debent reduci, qui principaliter tenet locum Christi. Sed non haberet unum sponsum, nisi uni ab omnibus esset obtemperandum: ergo etc.
23. Item, omnis controversia temporalis habet terminari per unum iudicem temporalem; sed si essent duo vel plures, quibus aequaliter esset obediendum, non possent iudicia terminari: ergo necesse est, ad iudiciorum terminationem in Ecclesia unum esse, cui ab omnibus debeatur obedientia.
24. Item, «in quolibet genere est unum primum, per quod mensurantur et ad quod reducuntur omnia, quae sunt in illo genere9»: ergo in genere potestatum humanarum est ponere unam summam et principalem potestatem, secundum quam omnes aliae potestates mensurentur et regulentur; hoc autem fit illi obediendo et obtemperando: ergo etc.
Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Matthaei vigesimo10: Quicumque voluerit inter vos maior fieri, sit vester minister; et qui voluerit inter vos primus esse, erit vester servus: ergo primi et maioris est magis servire quam imperare: ergo magis debet obedire omnibus, quam omnes sibi, secundum dictamen et imperium evangelicae legis.
2. Item, Matthaei vigesimo tertio11: Patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram; constat, quod non intelligit de patre carnali, intelligit ergo de patre spirituali: ergo contra dictamen evangelicae legis est, quod unus vocetur pater ab omnibus, et quod ceteri tanquam patri obediant ei.
3. Item, ad Galatas secundo12: In faciem ei restiti; Glossa: «tanquam par». «Hoc enim non auderet facere, nisi se sciret non imparem esse»: ergo Paulus fuit par Petro; pari ratione et alii Apostoli: ergo et successores Apostolorum pares sunt successori Petri secundum institutionem dominicae legis: non ergo est christianae religionis, quod omnes obediant uni.
4. Item, Cyprianus dicit, et habetur Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione prima13: «Hoc erunt ceteri Apostoli, quod Petrus fuit, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis»: si ergo omnes Apostoli sunt pares, ergo et omnes successores Apostolorum: ergo p. 193 non magis tenetur unus obedire alteri, quam e converso: non est ergo de iure divino, quod omnes sint sub capite uno.
5. Item, illud idem, quod dicitur Petro Matthaei decimo sexto1: Tibi dabo claves; et quaecumque ligaveris super terram etc., dicitur et ceteris Apostolis Matthaei decimo octavo: Amen dico vobis, quaecumque ligaveritis super terram, erunt ligata et in caelo, et quaecumque solveritis super terram etc.: ergo videtur, quod par potestas fuerit Petri et ceterorum Apostolorum: non ergo secundum dictamen legis evangelicae necesse est, omnes reduci ad caput unum, cui obedire teneantur.
6. Item, super illud Matthaei decimo sexto2: Quodcumque ligaveris etc.; Glossa «Habent quidem eandem iudiciariam potestatem ceteri Apostoli, quibus post resurrectionem ait: Accipite Spiritum sanctum; quorum remiseritis» etc.: si ergo in ceteris Apostolis eadem est potestas iudiciaria, non ergo videtur, quod principaliter resideat penes unam personam.
7. Item, nonagesima tertia distinctione3, Hieronymus ad Evangelum presbyterum: «Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis maior est urbe. Ubicumque fuerit episcopus, sive Eugubii, sive Romae, eiusdem meriti est et sacerdotii»: ergo omnes episcopi secundum Hieronymum paris sunt dignitatis: ergo non est necesse secundum dictamen legis Dei, quod omnes obtemperent uni.
8. Item, regimen ecclesiasticae hierarchiae dividitur in potestatem regalem et sacerdotalem; sed non est necessarium ad salutem, quod omnes reges obtemperent uni regi: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod non sit necessarium, quod omnes uni obtemperent sacerdoti.
9. Item, qui habet potestatem ordinariam et iurisdictionem totaliter4 potest eam alteri committere; sed cum Pontifex summus statuit episcopos, posse ordinarium eis tribuit per orbem terrarum: ergo iam videtur, quod iurisdictionem in alios transtulerit: ergo non videtur, quod necesse sit ei amplius obediri.
10. Item, omnes sacerdotes pares sunt in potestate conficiendi, ergo pari ratione et in potestate ligandi atque solvendi: non ergo videtur, quod omnes subiaceant uni.
11. Item, post Petrum potestas universalis esse non potest in aliquo nisi per electionem concorditer factam a multis: ergo immediatius potestas Petri devoluta est ad collegium quam ad unam personam: non ergo videtur, quod secundum illius potestatis derivationem omnes oporteat subiici uni.
12. Item, aut primus pastor Ecclesiae Petrus habuit in se plenitudinem auctoritatis et potestatis, aut non. Si habuit plene, ergo superflue scribit summus Pontifex, se agere quod agit auctoritate Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, cum in solo Petro fuerit plenitudo auctoritatis; si vero in Petro non fuit, multo minus nec in successoribus suis.
13. Item, si omnes debent obedire uni, ergo unus debet providere omnibus; sed providere omnibus non est in potestate humana, sed in sola potestate divina: si ergo omnibus providere est solius Dei, omnes non debent obedire uni nisi Domino soli.
14. Item, si omnes debent obedire uni, aut sicut praelato immediato, aut sicut mediato. Si sicut immediato: ergo superfluunt alii; si sicut mediato; sed in omni genere immediatum est potentius et excellentius mediato5: ergo secundum hoc minima vel nulla erit auctoritas in illo uno, et minime astringuntur alii ad obtemperandum sibi.
15. Item, si omnes tenentur obedire uni tanquam praelato, ergo ille videtur esse tanquam praelatus communis, ergo et universalis; sed universalis causa non potest in effectum nisi mediante particulari, sicut sol non potest in productionem hominis nisi per hominem6: ergo secundum hoc, si unus est Pontifex summus, videtur, quod nihil possit nisi per alios: ergo videtur, quod minime astringantur alii ad hoc, quod subiaceant uni.
16. Item, hierarchia caelestis non habet aliquem unum, cui subiaceat per obedientiam, nisi solum Deum: ergo videtur, quod nec terrestris sive ecclesiastica habere debeat aliquem unum nisi solum mediatorem Dei et hominum Iesum Christum7.
CONCLUSIO.
Licet diversi homines pluribus ligaminibus ad subiectionem obedientiae diversis sint astricti, secundum diversitatem graduum, officiorum et potestatum; tamen haec varietas ad unum reduci debet summum et primum Antistitem, in quo principaliter residet universalis omnium principatus; et non solum ad ipsum Christum, sed etiam iure divino ad eius Vicarium; et hoc quidem congruentissime, cum istud requirat ordo universalis iustitiae, unitas Ecclesiae et stabilitas in utroque.
Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod licet diversi diversis, pluribus p. 194 ligaminibus ad subiectionem obedientiae sint astricti, secundum id quod dicit Apostolus: Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit, ad Romanos decimo tertio1, et hoc secundum diversitatem graduum, officiorum et potestatum; omnis tamen haec varietas ad unum habet reduci summum et primum, in quo principaliter residet universalis omnium principatus; non solum ad ipsum Deum et Christum, mediatorem Dei et hominum, verum etiam ad eius Vicarium; et hoc non per statutum humanum, sed per statutum divinum, quo Christus Petrum statuit principem Apostolorum, quos constituit principes super orbem terrarum2. Fecit autem hoc Christus congruentissime, quia hoc requirebat ordo universalis iustitiae, unitas Ecclesiae et stabilitas in utroque.
Requirebat enim hoc ordo universalis iustitiae et quantum ad iustitiam naturalem et quantum ad civilem et quantum ad caelestem sive spiritualem. — Naturalis namque iustitia, per quam ordinantur elementa mundi et tota machina universi, requirit, quod inter corpora locantia unum sit primum corpus locans, inter mobilia unum primum mobile, inter lucentia unum principaliter irradians, inter motores unus primus motor, et universaliter «in quolibet genere sit unum primum, per quod mensurentur omnia, quae in illo genere continentur3». — Naturalis etiam iustitia in minori mundo requirit, quod unum sit membrum principale, a quo cetera recipiant influentiam secundum veritatem, ut cor, secundum evidentiam, ut caput4; quod una etiam sit virtus principaliter omnium virium animae et totius hominis regitiva, scilicet liberum arbitrium.
Civilis etiam iustitia requirit, quod unus sit principalis iudex, a quo fiat causarum finalis decisio; unus etiam principalis dux et rector, a quo fiat iuris latio, ne pro divisione capitum schisma et divisio in corpore reipublicae oriatur, et paribus contradicentibus iudicibus, si nullus sit iudex supremus, nunquam litigium terminetur.
Caelestis etiam ordo hoc habet, quod omnes spiritus sub obedientia unius supremi Spiritus5, quem praesentialiter intuentur, ordinatissime disponuntur.
Quoniam igitur haec inferior hierarchia et ordini naturali consonat et morali et caelesti, quia naturam perficit et mores ornat et a superna Ierusalem emanat; hinc est, quod ipsa reduci habet secundum rationem obedientiae ad unum primum et summum. Sicut enim non est ordo prioritatis et posterioritatis nisi per reductionem ad primum6, sic non est ordo completus secundum sub et supra nisi per reductionem ad summum. Unde ibi solum est ordo perfectissimus, ubi est reductio perfecta ad summum, quod est summum simpliciter, cuiusmodi est Deus7; et hoc est in Ierusalem superna, ubi est plena iustitia. — Ubi vero est reductio ad summum in genere hominum, cuiusmodi est Christi Vicarius, Pontifex summus; ibi est ordo perfectus, quantum competit perfectioni praesentis Ecclesiae, qui formatus est ad instar supernae Ierusalem. — Unde Bernardus, tertio ad Eugenium8: «Nec vilem reputes formam hanc, quae in terris est; formam habet in caelo. Viderat hoc qui dicebat: Vidi civitatem sanctam descendentem de caelo, a Deo paratam. Ego enim propter similitudinem dictum reor, quod, sicut illic Cherubim et Seraphim ceterique usque ad Archangelos et Angelos ordinantur sub uno capite Deo; ita hic quoque sub uno summo Pontifice primates vel patriarchae, archiepiscopi, episcopi, presbyteri vel abbates et reliqui in hunc modum. Non est parvipendendum quod et Deum habet auctorem et de caelo ducit originem». — Sic ergo unus debet esse, ad quem reducatur universalis subiectio; et hoc, quia, sicut ostensum est, sic exigebat universalis iustitiae ordo.
Requirit etiam hoc unitas ipsius Ecclesiae. Cum enim ipsa Ecclesia una sit hierarchia, unum corpus et una sponsa; necesse est, quod unum habeat hierarcham praecipuum, unum caput et unum sponsum; et quoniam huiusmodi unitas non tantum est in Ecclesia secundum interiorem influentiam charismatum, verum etiam secundum exteriorem dispensationem ministeriorum: hinc est, quod ipsius Ecclesiae non tantum est hierarcha praecipuus, caput et sponsus ipse Iesus Christus, qui interius ipsam Ecclesiam regit, vivificat et fecundat9; verum etiam exterius unus debet esse minister praecipuus, tenens locum hierarchae primi, capitis et sponsi, ut Ecclesia non tantum interius, verum etiam exterius in unitate habeat conservari. — Et hoc est quod dicit Cyprianus, et habetur Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione prima10: «Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum: Ego tibi dico, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram etc. Super unum aedificat Ecclesiam, et ab unitate exordium proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia Christi una monstretur; episcopatus unus est, cuius singularis in solidum pars tenetur; et Ecclesia una est, quae p. 195 in multitudine latius incrementa fecunditatis extendit. Quomodo multi radii sunt, sed unum lumen, et rami arboris multi sunt, sed robur unum tenaci radice fundatum; et quomodo de fonte uno rivi plurimi defluunt, et numerositas licet diffusa videatur exundantis copiae largitate, unitas tamen servatur integra in origine: sic et Ecclesia Dei luce perfusa per totum orbem radios suos porrigit; unum tamen est, quod ubique diffunditur, nec unitas corporis separatur». Vult igitur Cyprianus, quod Ecclesia1 quia una est columba, unus episcopatus, unum corpus; super unum pastorem praecipuum fundari debuit, scilicet Petrum, tanquam super unum episcopum et caput et sponsum.
Requirit etiam hoc soliditas utriusque. Nam, sicut dicit Philosophus2, «virtus, quanto est magis unita, tanto plus est infinita»; quod quidem verum est et quantum ad permanentiam et quantum ad influentiam et quantum ad praeeminentiam. — Quantum ad permanentiam: quia, sicut divisio parit interitum3, sic maior unitio dat firmitatem et robur, unde et tota firmitas ipsius Ecclesiae principaliter manat a soliditate unius Petrae et unius Petri, qui est Vicarius Petrae; in cuius rei signum dictum est Petro4: Et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; dictum est etiam ei: Ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua; nec fuit haec oratio cassa. Unde Hieronymus, et habetur Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione prima5: «Sancta Romana Ecclesia, quae semper immaculata permansit, Domino providente, et beato Petro Apostolo opem ferente, in futuro manebit sine ulla haereticorum insultatione, et firma et immobilis omni tempore persistet». Facit ergo haec unitas Pontificis summi ad ipsius Ecclesiae soliditatem quantum ad permanentiam. — Quantum etiam ad influentiam: quia virtus magis unita magis est potens; et quanto potentior est in efficacia, tanto eius influentia potior in effectum: unde plenitudo potestatis in solo uno Pontifice debuit collocari. Unde Leo Papa, distinctione decima nona6: «Huius muneris sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium Apostolorum officium pertinere voluit, ut in beatissimo Petro, Apostolorum omnium summo principe, principaliter collocaret, ut ab ipso, quasi a quodam capite, dona sua velut in omne corpus diffunderet, ut exsortem se intelligeret divini mysterii qui ausus fuerit a Petri soliditate recedere». — Postremo, etiam quantum ad praeeminentiam facit: quia virtus magis unita minus est alii obnoxia, ac per hoc magis est libera; quia etiam magis unita magis tenet rationem primi et summi, sicut arca fuit in cubito consummata7: unde unitas summi Pontificis sola est, quae confert totali Ecclesiae praeeminentiam dignitatis. Ac per hoc, sicut in capite ad totius corporis ornamentum collectio fit sensuum universorum; sic in ipso summo Pontifice debet esse universarum collectio dignitatum. Et hoc est quod dicit Bernardus ad Eugenium8: «Indagemus, age, indagemus adhuc diligentius, quis sis, quam geras videlicet pro tempore personam in Ecclesia Dei. Quis es? Sacerdos magnus, summus Pontifex; tu princeps episcoporum, tu heres Apostolorum, tu primatu Abel, gubernatu Noe, patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchisedech, dignitate Aaron, auctoritate Moyses, iudicatu Samuel, potestate Petrus, unctione Christus».
Ex his igitur aperte colligitur, quod unitas summi Pontificis manat ex lege Dei, exigente hoc ordine universalis iustitiae, tam naturalis quam civilis quam etiam caelestis; exigente etiam hoc unitate Ecclesiae tanquam unius hierarchiae, unius corporis et unius sponsae; exigente etiam hoc stabilitate et sublimitate utriusque, tam in permanentia durationis quam influentia virtutis et praeeminentia dignitatis. Unde licet illud manaverit ex lege gratiae, quae est lex Iesu Christi, consonat tamen legi naturae et legi scriptae, iuri pontificio et iuri canonico; consonat visibilibus, consonat invisibilibus; consonat etiam pietati cunctorum fidelium et intelligentiae rectae omnium animorum; sicut et rationes supra positae ostendunt, unde et concedendae sunt.
1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod qui voluerit esse maior debet esse servus; dicendum, quod servus dicitur dupliciter: vel subiectione obligatoria, vel humilitate perfecta. Primum repugnat summae auctoritati, et non potest aliquis simul aliis teneri ad subiectionem et praeesse ad regimen. Secundum autem non repugnat, sed maxime consonat; et de hoc loquitur Dominus, quia docet aliis summe praepositum praecipue imitari Christum, qui aliis reliquit humilitatis p. 196 exemplum praecipue imitandum; in cuius etiam rei signum summus Pontifex scribit se servum servorum Dei. Unde Bernardus, in secundo libro ad Eugenium1, loquens de humilitate: «Nulla splendidior gemma in omni praecipue ornamento summi Pontificis; quo enim celsior ceteris, eo apparet illustrior et se ipso».
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non debemus patrem vocare super terram; dicendum, quod pater dicitur communicator naturae, magister dicitur communicator scientiae; et quoniam solus Deus est, qui principaliter naturam tribuit et scientiam infundit; ideo sibi tanquam principio principali et scientiae et naturae utrumque nomen, ut auctoritatem principalem insinuat, debet attribui, et non alii, patris scilicet et magistri2. Sed quia Deus in iis etiam forinsecus operatur per ministerium humanum, ideo nomen utrumque, ut dicit ministerium, potest communicari homini, non sicut principali actori, sed sicut dispensatori.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Paulo, quod par fuit Petro; dicendum, quod auctoritas apostolatus duplicem habet comparationem, scilicet ad eum, a quo traditur, et ad eos, super quos traditur; quia apostolus dicitur missus ab aliquo et ad aliquos. Secundum primam comparationem dicit Glossa3, Paulum parificari Petro, quia uterque immediate missus erat a Christo. Unde et Paulus dicit, se esse Apostolum, non ab homine nec per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum. Secundum autem comparationem secundam non parificatur ei; nam Petrus dicitur princeps Apostolorum quod nunquam dicitur de Paulo, quia secundum hanc comparationem erat inferior Petro. Unde et Glossa dicit ibi4: «Ipse Petrus exemplum posteris praebuit, quo non dedignarentur maiores, sicubi forte recti tramitem reliquissent, etiam a posterioribus corripi». — Et per hoc patet sequens, quod obiicit de auctoritate Cypriani.
5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illud verbum dictum fuit Apostolis, quod prius dictum fuerat Petro; dicendum, quod longe aliter dictum fuit eis et Petro. Nam Petro divisim et singulariter dictum fuit, quia in eo potestatis plenitudo erat principaliter et singulariter collocanda; aliis vero dictum fuit simul: Quaecumque ligaveritis etc., quia vocati erant «in partem sollicitudinis5». Unde licet consimilem haberent potestatem, non tamen habebant aequalem; et ideo illud verbum dici debuit Apostolis et Petro; non tamen simul nec sub eodem contextu, sed alio et alio modo. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens de Glossa; quia dicuntur Apostoli habere eandem iudiciariam potestatem, id est consimilem; sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod aequalem, sed est figura dictionis ex mutatione praedicati, quia similitudo in qualitate, aequalitas autem in quantitate consistit6.
7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Hieronymi, quod episcopus, ubicumque sit, eiusdem est sacerdotii; dicendum, quod Hieronymus loquitur, quod magnitudo divitiarum et multitudo hominum subiectorum non facit, quod propter hoc homo sit excellentior praelatus7; nec Papa propter hoc dicitur excellentior aliis, quia sit episcopus Urbis, quae est maximae populositatis; sed quia est successor Petri, cui collata est plenitudo potestatis, non ex statuto hominis, sed Dei et Christi.
8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est necesse, omnes reges obtemperare uni; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia non sic ex statuto legis Evangelii procedit sceptrum regis, sicut clavis Pontificis. Lex enim evangelica spiritualis est, unde et Christus lator illius legis, ad spirituale pontificium, non ad carnale imperium oculos mentis suae direxit8. — Posset tamen dici, quod secundum veritatem utraque potestas in summo Pontifice concurrit in unam personam. Cum enim ipse sit summus sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, qui fuit rex Salem et sacerdos Dei altissimi9, et Christus utrumque habuerit; Vicarius Christi in terris utramque a Christo potestatem accepit; unde et sibi uterque gladius competit. Unde Bernardus, quarto ad Eugenium10: «Uterque est Ecclesiae, et spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis, sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille vero ab Ecclesia exserendus; ille sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sane ad nutum sacerdotis et ad iussum imperatoris». Ex quo aperte colligitur, quod utraque potestas ad ipsum reducitur sicut ad unum hierarcham primum et summum. p. 197
9. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui habet potestatem ordinariam potest eam alteri committere; dicendum, quod iurisdictio est in triplici differentia: quaedam semiplena et totaliter aliunde descendens, et haec non potest committi pro sui imperfectione; quaedam autem e contrario plenissima, et haec, quia summa est, non potest esse nisi in uno simul et semel; et ideo non potest committi alteri, unde Papa non potest facere alios Papas; quaedam autem est media, quae ordinaria est, nec tamen est summa; et haec quidem, quia quodam modo perfecta est et multiplicabilis, committi potest alteri; nec tamen amittitur, cum etiam datur, in quantum est spiritualis potestas: quia in hoc differunt spiritualia a corporalibus, quod corporalia, cum dantur, minus integre possidentur; spiritualia vero, cum distribuuntur, tunc plenius possidentur, sicut etiam in dono scientiae manifeste videtur. Unde licet summus Pontifex communicet aliis iurisdictionem, non tamen ex hoc patitur aliquod detrimentum, quia nunquam sic committit nec committere potest, quod aliquem a sua eximat potestate.
10. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnes sacerdotes pares sunt in potestate conficiendi; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia potestas conficiendi est essentialis characteri, et ideo, sicut character non recipitur in diversis magis nec minus, sic nec illa potestas. Non sic est de potestate absolvendi, quia ista consequitur characterem sacerdotalem tanquam sibi annexa1. — Ratio autem huius est, quia prima potestas est potestas absoluta, haec autem est relata ad alterum, videlicet ad personas subiectorum; et ideo diversificari habet secundum diversitatem potestatum et graduum facientium ordinem in ecclesiastico principatu.
11. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plenitudo potestatis a Petro immediate manavit in collegium; dicendum, quod potestas dupliciter dicitur esse in aliquo: vel sicut in subiecto sustinente, vel sicut in deferente2. Primo modo plenitudo potestatis nunquam est nec fuit nisi in uno, primo quidem in Christo, secundo in Petro, deinceps in successore ipsius, scilicet Pontifice Romano. Sed quia subiectum illius potestatis est persona mortalis; ideo sic ordinavit Christus et Spiritus eius, quod ab uno deferretur potestas haec ad unum, non per viam carnis, sed spiritus, quae quidem est electio, in qua in conformitate animorum operari debet Spiritus sanctus ad constituendum unum. Et quia principaliter residet in uno, ideo principaliter obedientia universorum refertur ad unum, citra quem nec statum habet nec complementum.
12. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si summus Pontifex plenitudinem habet auctoritatis a Petro, non debet simul iungere auctoritatem Petri et Pauli; dicendum, quod plenitudo auctoritatis principaliter fuit in Petro et singulariter. Sed quoniam Paulus plenitudine suae sapientiae et litteraturae efficacissimus fuit in3 infidelium conversione et prudentissimus in ipsius Ecclesiae gubernatione, ita quod quasi in aliquibus videbatur Apostolis ceteris esse praecelsior; ne contentio surgeret inter successores, Spiritu sancto dictante, hoc factum est, ut uterque in unam deveniret civitatem, in qua et simul morientes unius pontificatum Ecclesiae in urbe Romana fundarent, ut ex hoc scrupulus omnis controversiae cessaret. Unde Paulus nihil addidit summo Pontifici quantum ad plenitudinem potestatis, quae fuit in Petro, sed quantum ad evidentiam, ut obstruatur os loquentium iniqua4, et maxime Graecorum, qui de pari contendere volebant cum Ecclesia Romana. Propter quod et iusto Dei iudicio, minus bene sentientes de unitate capitis et male servantes unitatem Ecclesiae, excaecati sunt, ut minus bene sentiant de unitate Spiritus sancti, qui tanquam amor Patris et Filii ab utroque procedit. Unde Paulus, veniens Romam, ut viveret sub alis Petri usque ad mortem, nihil aliud fecit quam commonefacere, Graecorum Ecclesiam subesse Romanae Ecclesiae usque in finem, ne sancti Spiritus perderet unitatem. Quia ergo summus Pontifex exprimere debet in suis litteris potestatis plenitudinem, non tantum universaliter5, verum etiam evidenter, non tantum sufficienter, verum etiam abundanter; ideo auctoritatem exprimit utriusque.
13. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si omnes debent obedire uni, quod unus debet providere omnibus; dicendum, quod etsi omnes debeant uni obedire, non tamen uni soli, quia nec unus ubique potest esse, nec unus ubique potest singulis providere. Ideo providit divina providentia, plures esse intermedios praepositos et distinctos, per quos virtus provisiva a summo descenderet usque ad ima. Unde Bernardus, ad Eugenium libro tertio6: «Non sola tua potestas a Domino; sunt et mediocres, sunt et inferiores; et quomodo quos Deus coniunxit non sunt separandi, sic nec quos subiunxit sunt comparandi». Propter quod, sicut particularium praelatorum est curae particulari intendere, sic et ipsius summi Pontificis super statum Ecclesiae generalem. Unde Bernardus subiungit ibidem: «Superest, ut p. 198 generaliter super omnem Ecclesiae statum intendat consideratio tua».
14. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si omnes debent obedire uni, aut hoc est sicut praelato mediato, aut immediato; dicendum, quod immediatus praelatus dicitur dupliciter: vel secundum gradum, vel secundum virtutem1. Dicendum est igitur, quod Pontifex unus et summus, licet ab infimis membris maxime distet secundum gradum, quia multi sunt gradus intermedii inter ipsum et infimam plebem; secundum influentiam tamen virtutis immediatissimus est. Non enim obeditur sibi propter auctoritates aliorum, sed aliis propter auctoritatem suam; sicut non obeditur regi propter ballivum, sed ballivo potius propter regem. Unde ipsius auctoritas est sicut causa proxima et immediata, quae movere debet omnes et singulos ad obedientiam suis praepositis exhibendam.
15. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si omnes obedire tenentur uni, quod tunc ille est praelatus communis; dicendum, quod causa universalis est duplex: quaedam, quae est omnino alterius generis et virtutis quam particularis, sicut sol alterius generis quam homo; et haec non potest in effectum proprium, nisi per propriam2 causam. Alia est causa universalis, quae habet in se omnem virtutem, quam habet particularis; et hoc modo Deus potest dici causa universalis rerum, et de tali causa universali non valet quod obiicit; summus autem Pontifex non assimilatur universali causae primo modo, sed secundo, quia locum Christi tenet in terris; unde etsi ipse solus esset, et omnia essent destructa in Ecclesia, reparare posset universa: et ideo non concludit ratio illa.
16. Ad illud quod obiicitur de hierarchia illius supernae Ierusalem; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia illi tanquam Beati habent semper Deum praesentem, unde semper vident faciem veri Salomonis. Nos autem in statu viae tanquam parvuli, quia nec Deum videmus nec ad ipsum immediate in causis humanis recurrere possumus, indigemus manuductione et regimine hominis viatoris, qui nos tanquam pastor deducat et reducat ad ovile summi Pastoris3.nota
Article III. On the obedience owed to the Supreme Pontiff.
Lastly it is asked whether it belongs to the Christian religion that all obey one2. And that it does so seems to be shown both through the old testament and through the new and through canon right and through the evidence of reasons.
First, then, it is shown through the old testament thus.
1. Deuteronomy, chapter 173: If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment, and thou see that the words of the judges vary; arise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. But he that will be proud, refusing to obey the commandment of the priest, that man shall die; there the Gloss: «Here he grants the faculty of appealing». From this text and from the Gloss it is gathered that in the old law there was one supreme Pontiff, to whom recourse was to be had in judgments, and whom all were to obey. If, therefore, this was so in the law of the figure, much more does it seem that it ought to be so in the law of grace. And this for a threefold reason: first, because unity is greater now than then: therefore much more ought there to be one Pontiff. — Likewise, the pontificate is worthier and higher: therefore much more ought men now to be subjected to one Pontiff than in the time of the law of Moses. — Lastly, because here there ought to be greater obedience and a better-ordered hierarchy. From all which it is gathered that, if one supreme Pontiff was to be complied with in the time of the law of Moses, much more in the time of the law of Christ.
2. Likewise, the Psalm4: He hath appointed princes over all the earth; it is settled that this was said of the Apostles: therefore all the earth is under the princedom of the Apostles; but that princedom is a stable princedom, according to that of the Psalm: Their princedom is exceedingly strengthened; but it is not stable unless it be united, because every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation; nor is it united unless it have one principal prince: therefore, according to the prophetic testimony, all the earth ought to lie under one, who is the prince of all.
3. Likewise, to the confirming of this makes what Bernard says in the third book to Eugenius5: «He must go out of the world who has perchance willed to explore what does not pertain to thy care. Thy forebears were destined, not to subdue some regions, but the world itself; and indeed their sound hath gone forth into all the earth» etc. And afterwards: «Their princedom is exceedingly strengthened; they are appointed princes over all the earth. Thou hast succeeded to his inheritance, so that thou art heir, and the world is thy inheritance». From this, therefore, it appears that according to the prophetic testimony the universal obedience of all is owed to one.
Likewise, this same thing is shown through the new testament.
4. Matthew, chapter 166: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church etc., as far as: it shall be loosed also in heaven; but it is settled that he who can loose and bind all ought to be obeyed by all: therefore God so instituted the Church p. 190 that all should obey one. But the Church is to be ruled and governed as it was instituted by the Lord: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, John, last chapter1: Feed my sheep, was said to Peter; but the sheep of Christ are all who walk by the way of salvation: therefore Peter is set over all such: one, therefore, was the pastor of all Christ's sheep according to the Church's foundation: therefore also according to its progress and consummation one is to be obeyed by all.
6. Likewise, Bernard, treating the foregoing words, in the second book to Eugenius2 speaks thus: «Thou art he to whom the keys were handed over, to whom the sheep were entrusted. There are indeed other doorkeepers of heaven and pastors of flocks; but thou hast inherited both names before the rest, the more gloriously as also the more distinctively. They have flocks assigned to them, each his own; to thee all are entrusted, to one man one flock. Not of the sheep only, but also of the pastors art thou alone the pastor of all. Whence do I prove it, thou askest? From the word of the Lord: If thou love me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which? The peoples of this or that city, or region, or kingdom? My sheep, he says. To whom is it not plain that he designated not some, but assigned all? Nothing is excepted where nothing is distinguished». And afterwards3: «Thy privilege stands unshaken for thee, both in the keys and in the sheep committed to thee, namely the sign of the singular pontificate of Peter, by which he took up for governing, not one ship, as each of the rest his own, but the world itself; so that, while each of the rest has his own, to thee alone has been committed the greatest ship of all, made out of all, the universal Church herself, spread through the whole world». — From this it is manifestly had that, according to the divine institution, one, namely the Supreme Pontiff, ought to be obeyed by all.
7. Likewise, Augustine, to Optatus4: «In the Roman Church the princedom of the apostolic Chair has always flourished»; but this is not said by reason of that city alone, since so it could be said of other places and other bishops; therefore it is said in respect of the whole world: therefore according to this the whole world ought to obey the Roman Pontiff as the prince of the world and the universal prince.
8. Likewise, Jerome, to Pope Damasus5: «We desire to be corrected by thee, who holdest both the See of Peter and his faith; but if this our confession is approved by the judgment of thy apostolate, whoever shall wish to blame me will prove himself unskilled, or ill-willed, or even not catholic but heretical»: therefore the judgment and the correction of one supreme Pontiff is, according to Jerome, to be stood by by all, for no other cause than that he holds the See of Peter and the authority which the Lord gave him.
9. Likewise, Gelasius, distinction 216: «Although the catholic Churches established throughout the world are one bridal chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the others by no synodical enactments, but obtained the primacy by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Saviour: Thou art, says the Lord, Peter, and upon this rock» etc.
10. Likewise, Nicholas, distinction 227: «The Roman Church has instituted the dignities of every order, but she herself was founded by him alone, and raised upon the rock of the faith then newly born, who committed to the blessed key-bearer of eternal life the rights of the earthly and at once of the heavenly empire. Not any earthly sentence, therefore, but that Word by which heaven and earth were framed, through which at length all the elements were created, founded the Roman Church; assuredly she enjoys his privilege, she is upheld by his authority; and whoever tries to take this away slips beyond doubt into heresy. And below: Hence also S. Ambrose himself professes that he follows in all things the holy Roman Church as his mistress».
11. Likewise, Anacletus, in the same place8: «The most holy Roman Church obtained the primacy not from the Apostles, but from our Lord and Saviour himself, as he said to the blessed Apostle Peter: Thou art Peter». And a little after: «Among the blessed Apostles there was a certain distinction of power; and although all were Apostles, yet it was granted to Peter by the Lord — and they themselves willed the same among themselves — that he should be set over all the rest of the Apostles; and they handed down the same form to be held by their successors and by the rest of the bishops; and this was not only in the new testament, but was also in the old». — From these things it is manifestly gathered that, according to the testimony of both testaments, one is to be complied with by all.
Likewise, this same thing is shown through canon right:
12. Because whose office it is to judge the rest and to be judged by none, he ought to be obeyed by all; but such is some one man, namely the supreme Pontiff: therefore he is to be complied with by all. The major is manifest of itself; the minor is proved through manifold rights. p. 191 Cause 9, question 31, Pope Nicholas says: «It is plain indeed that the judgment of the apostolic See, than whose authority there is none greater, is to be retracted by none, nor may it be lawful for anyone to judge concerning its judgment». — Likewise, Pope Innocent, in the same place: «No one shall judge the first apostolic See, which desires to temper justice; for neither by Augustus nor by all the clergy nor by the people shall the judge be judged». — Likewise, Pope Anterus, in the same place: «The deeds of subjects are judged by us, but ours are judged by the Lord» — Likewise, Pope Gelasius to all Bishops, in the same place: «The whole Church throughout the world knows that the most holy Roman Church has the right of judging concerning all, nor may it be lawful for anyone to judge concerning her judgment. For to her appeal is to be made from any part of the world, but from her no one is permitted to appeal». — Likewise, the same to the bishops appointed throughout Dardania, in the same place: «The whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of blessed Peter has the right of rescinding what has been bound by the sentences of whatsoever pontiffs, inasmuch as she has the right of judging concerning the whole Church». — From these things, therefore, it is manifestly gathered that it belongs to the supreme Pontiff to judge the rest and to be judged by none, and through this that he ought to be obeyed by all.
13. Likewise, whose office it is to establish decrees to be observed by all, he ought to be obeyed by all; but such is the supreme Pontiff: therefore he is to be complied with by all. The major is plain of itself; the minor is proved in many ways. First, in distinction 192 Pope Agatho thus: «All the sanctions of the apostolic See are to be received as though confirmed by the divine voice of the blessed Apostle Peter himself». — Likewise, in the same distinction Stephen the Fifth: «For indeed, since the holy Roman Church, over which Christ has willed us to preside, is set for a mirror and an example to all, whatever she shall have established, whatever she shall have ordained, is to be observed perpetually and irrefragably». — Likewise, Pope Gregory, in the same: «It is lawful for none either to will or to be able to transgress the precepts of the apostolic See». And afterwards: «Let him therefore be laid low with the grief of his own ruin, whoever shall have willed to go against the decrees of the apostolic See; since it is not doubted that he is already condemned by the holy Synod and by the apostolic Church for his own disobedience and presumption before anyone at all». — Likewise, in distinction 20 Pope Nicholas: «If you do not possess the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, you are to be charged with neglect and carelessness; if you possess them and do not observe them, you are to be rebuked for rashness». — Likewise, Cause 25, question 1, Pope Hilary: «Let it be lawful for none, without peril to his own state, to violate the divine constitutions or the decrees of the apostolic See». — Likewise, in the same, Pope Adrian: «By a general decree we establish that an execrable anathema be made, and that he stand guilty before God for ever as a prevaricator of the catholic faith, whoever of kings or of bishops or of the powerful shall henceforth have believed or permitted that the censure of the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs be violated in any man». — From all these things it is manifestly shown that it belongs to the supreme Pontiff to establish decrees to be observed by all, and that from this obedience is to be exhibited to him by all.
14. Likewise, he without whose obedience the unity of the Church cannot be preserved ought to be obeyed by all; but such is one man, namely the supreme Pontiff: therefore etc. The major is known of itself; the minor is proved. Cyprian, Cause 24, question 13: «That he might manifest unity, he disposed by his own authority the origin of the unity of the Church, beginning from one». — Likewise, the same, in the same question: «He is an alien, he is profane, he is an enemy; he cannot have God for his father who does not hold the unity of the universal Church». — Likewise, Jerome, in the same question4: «I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of Christ. I, following no reward save Christ, am joined in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter; upon that rock I know the Church to be founded. Whoever shall eat the lamb outside this house is profane; if any man shall not have been in the ark of Noe, he shall perish when the flood reigns». And afterwards: «Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth, that is, he who is not of Christ is of antichrist». — Likewise, Bede, on Matthew, in the same question5: «Whoever in any manner whatsoever separate themselves from the unity of the faith or of the fellowship of Peter the Apostle, such can neither be absolved from the bonds of their sins nor enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom». — Likewise, in distinction 936 Cyprian says: «Let him who deserts the Chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, not be confident that he is in the Church». — He cannot therefore be within ecclesiastical unity who withdraws from the obedience of him who sits in the Chair of Peter.
Likewise, this same thing is shown through the evidence of reasons. p. 192
15. The Church of God is one body, in which there is a diversity of members1; but so it is in the material body, that all the members are subjected and comply with one principal member, namely the head: therefore so will it be in the spiritual body, that all the spiritual members ought to be subjected to one as to the principal head. But this comes about through obedience: therefore etc.
16. Likewise, the Church has order according to ministries, as also according to charisms and gifts of graces2; but the inflowing of charisms and of graces is from one head, namely Christ: therefore also the derivation of ministries and jurisdictions ought to be from one head, namely the supreme Pontiff. But this cannot be without the obedience of all in respect of one: therefore etc.
17. Likewise, the Church is one hierarchy: therefore it ought to have one chief and supreme hierarch3, since from the unity of the prince the unity of the princedom ought to descend; but the one and supreme hierarch is to be obeyed by all: therefore etc.
18. Likewise, the Church is conformed to the supernal hierarchy4; but all the spirits minister to and comply with one supreme Spirit: therefore also all men in the Church ought to comply with one man. But this is the supreme Pontiff: therefore etc.
19. Likewise, the union in the being of grace is greater than in the being of nature5; but all men have one bodily father: therefore they ought to have one spiritual father. But a father is to be obeyed by all his sons: therefore etc.
20. Likewise, in the lesser world it is so, that all the lower powers ought to comply with one, namely with reason or with free choice6: therefore also in the ecclesiastical order all ought to comply with one man; but this is the supreme Pontiff: therefore etc.
21. Likewise, in the greater world we see that all movables and all movers are regulated according to the first mover and the first movable7: therefore likewise in the ecclesiastical order all princedoms and powers ought to be regulated according to some one and sole principal mover; but this comes about by complying with the supreme Pontiff: therefore etc.
22. Likewise, the Church is one bride, therefore she ought to have one bridegroom; but all particular Churches are reduced to one Church: therefore all the bridegrooms constituted in the place of Christ, namely the bishops8, ought to be reduced to one, who principally holds the place of Christ. But she would not have one bridegroom unless one were to be complied with by all: therefore etc.
23. Likewise, every temporal controversy has to be terminated through one temporal judge; but if there were two or several who were to be equally obeyed, judgments could not be terminated: therefore it is necessary, for the terminating of judgments in the Church, that there be one to whom obedience is owed by all.
24. Likewise, «in any genus there is one first, by which all things that are in that genus are measured and to which they are reduced9»: therefore in the genus of human powers one supreme and principal power is to be posited, according to which all other powers may be measured and regulated; but this comes about by obeying and complying with him: therefore etc.
Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Matthew, chapter 2010: Whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister; and he that will be first among you, shall be your servant: therefore it belongs to the first and the greater rather to serve than to command: therefore he ought rather to obey all than all him, according to the dictate and the command of the evangelical law.
2. Likewise, Matthew, chapter 2311: Call none your father upon earth; it is settled that he does not understand this of a carnal father, therefore he understands it of a spiritual father: therefore it is against the dictate of the evangelical law that one be called father by all, and that the rest obey him as a father.
3. Likewise, to the Galatians, chapter 212: I withstood him to the face; the Gloss: «as an equal». «For he would not have dared to do this unless he knew himself to be not unequal»: therefore Paul was Peter's equal; by parity of reason the other Apostles also: therefore the successors of the Apostles too are equals of the successor of Peter according to the institution of the Lord's law: it does not therefore belong to the Christian religion that all obey one.
4. Likewise, Cyprian says, and it is had in Cause 24, question 113: «The other Apostles will be what Peter was, endowed with an equal share both of honour and of power»: if therefore all the Apostles are equals, therefore also all the successors of the Apostles: therefore p. 193 one is not more bound to obey another than the other way about: it is not, therefore, of divine right that all be under one head.
5. Likewise, that same thing which is said to Peter in Matthew, chapter 161: I will give thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth etc., is said also to the other Apostles in Matthew, chapter 18: Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth etc.: therefore it seems that the power of Peter and of the other Apostles was equal: therefore, according to the dictate of the evangelical law, it is not necessary that all be reduced to one head whom they are bound to obey.
6. Likewise, on that text of Matthew, chapter 162: Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.; the Gloss «The other Apostles indeed have the same judiciary power, to whom after the resurrection he said: Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive» etc.: if therefore in the other Apostles the judiciary power is the same, it does not therefore seem that it resides principally with one person.
7. Likewise, in distinction 933, Jerome to Evangelus the presbyter: «If authority is sought, the world is greater than the city. Wherever a bishop shall be, whether at Eugubium or at Rome, he is of the same merit and of the same priesthood»: therefore all bishops, according to Jerome, are of equal dignity: therefore it is not necessary, according to the dictate of the law of God, that all comply with one.
8. Likewise, the government of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is divided into royal and priestly power; but it is not necessary for salvation that all kings comply with one king: therefore by parity of reason it seems that it is not necessary that all comply with one priest.
9. Likewise, he who has ordinary power and jurisdiction wholly4 can commit it to another; but when the supreme Pontiff appoints bishops, he bestows ordinary authority upon them throughout the world: therefore it now seems that he has transferred jurisdiction to others: therefore it does not seem that it is necessary to obey him any further.
10. Likewise, all priests are equals in the power of confecting, therefore by parity of reason also in the power of binding and loosing: it does not therefore seem that all lie under one.
11. Likewise, after Peter universal power cannot be in anyone save through an election made concordantly by many: therefore the power of Peter has devolved more immediately upon the college than upon one person: it does not therefore seem that, according to the derivation of that power, all must be subjected to one.
12. Likewise, either Peter, the first pastor of the Church, had in himself the fullness of authority and of power, or not. If he had it fully, then the supreme Pontiff writes superfluously that he does what he does by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, since in Peter alone was the fullness of authority; but if it was not in Peter, much less is it in his successors.
13. Likewise, if all ought to obey one, then one ought to provide for all; but to provide for all is not in human power, but in the divine power alone: if therefore to provide for all belongs to God alone, all ought not to obey one save the Lord alone.
14. Likewise, if all ought to obey one, it is either as an immediate prelate or as a mediate one. If as an immediate one, then the others are superfluous; if as a mediate one — but in every genus the immediate is more potent and more excellent than the mediate5: therefore according to this there will be least or no authority in that one, and the others are least of all bound to comply with him.
15. Likewise, if all are bound to obey one as to a prelate, then he seems to be as it were a common prelate, and therefore a universal one; but a universal cause cannot act upon an effect save by the mediation of a particular one, as the sun cannot act upon the production of a man save through a man6: therefore according to this, if there is one supreme Pontiff, it seems that he can do nothing save through others: therefore it seems that the others are least of all bound to this, that they lie under one.
16. Likewise, the heavenly hierarchy has no one under whom it lies through obedience save God alone: therefore it seems that neither ought the earthly or ecclesiastical hierarchy to have any one save only the mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ7.
CONCLUSIO.
Although diverse men are bound by several bonds to the subjection of obedience to diverse men, according to the diversity of grades, offices and powers; yet this variety must be reduced to one supreme and first Prelate, in whom the universal princedom of all principally resides; and not only to Christ himself, but also, by divine right, to his Vicar; and this indeed most fittingly, since the order of universal justice, the unity of the Church and stability in both require it.
Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: For the understanding of what has been said it is to be noted that, although diverse men are bound to diverse men by several p. 194 bonds unto the subjection of obedience, according to that which the Apostle says: Let every soul be subject to higher powers, to the Romans, chapter 131, and this according to the diversity of grades, offices and powers; yet all this variety has to be reduced to one supreme and first, in whom the universal princedom of all principally resides; not only to God himself and to Christ, the mediator of God and men, but also to his Vicar; and this not by a human statute, but by a divine statute, by which Christ appointed Peter prince of the Apostles, whom he appointed princes over the whole earth2. And Christ did this most fittingly, because the order of universal justice, the unity of the Church and stability in both required it.
For the order of universal justice required this both as to natural justice and as to civil and as to heavenly or spiritual justice. — For natural justice, by which the elements of the world and the whole machine of the universe are ordered, requires that among locating bodies there be one first locating body, among movables one first movable, among shining things one principally irradiating, among movers one first mover, and universally that «in any genus there be one first, by which all things contained in that genus are measured3». — Natural justice also requires in the lesser world that there be one principal member, from which the rest receive inflowing according to truth, as the heart, and according to evidence, as the head4; and that there be one power principally ruling all the powers of the soul and the whole man, namely free choice.
Civil justice also requires that there be one principal judge, from whom the final decision of causes proceeds; and one principal leader and ruler, from whom the bearing of right proceeds, lest through a division of heads a schism and division arise in the body of the commonwealth, and lest, when the judges contradict one another on even terms, if there be no supreme judge, the litigation be never terminated.
The heavenly order also has this, that all the spirits, under the obedience of one supreme Spirit5 whom they behold in his presence, are most orderly disposed.
Since, therefore, this lower hierarchy is consonant both with the natural order and with the moral and with the heavenly, because it perfects nature and adorns morals and emanates from the supernal Jerusalem; hence it is that it has to be reduced, according to the account of obedience, to one first and supreme. For just as there is no order of priority and posteriority save through a reduction to a first6, so there is no complete order according to under and above save through a reduction to a supreme. Whence there alone is the most perfect order, where there is a perfect reduction to a supreme which is supreme simply, of which kind God is7; and this is in the supernal Jerusalem, where there is full justice. — But where there is a reduction to a supreme in the genus of men, of which kind is the Vicar of Christ, the supreme Pontiff, there is a perfect order, so far as it befits the perfection of the present Church, which is formed after the likeness of the supernal Jerusalem. — Whence Bernard, in the third book to Eugenius8: «Do not reckon cheap this form which is on earth; it has its form in heaven. He had seen this who said: I saw the holy city coming down out of heaven, prepared by God. For I reckon that it was said by reason of the likeness, that, as there the Cherubim and Seraphim and the rest down to the Archangels and Angels are ordered under one head, God; so here too, under one supreme Pontiff, primates or patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, presbyters or abbots and the rest in this manner. That is not to be lightly esteemed which has both God for its author and draws its origin from heaven». — Thus, therefore, there ought to be one to whom the universal subjection is reduced; and this because, as has been shown, so the order of universal justice demanded.
The unity of the Church herself also requires this. For since the Church herself is one hierarchy, one body and one bride, it is necessary that she have one chief hierarch, one head and one bridegroom; and since a unity of this kind is not only in the Church according to the interior inflowing of charisms, but also according to the exterior dispensation of ministries: hence it is that not only is Jesus Christ himself the chief hierarch, head and bridegroom of the Church, who inwardly rules, vivifies and makes her fruitful9, but also outwardly there ought to be one chief minister, holding the place of the first hierarch, of the head and of the bridegroom, so that the Church may be preserved in unity not only inwardly but also outwardly. — And this is what Cyprian says, and it is had in Cause 24, question 110: «The Lord speaks to Peter: I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock etc. Upon one he builds the Church, and the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one; the episcopate is one, of which a share is held severally in solidarity; and the Church is one, which p. 195 spreads abroad more widely the increases of fruitfulness in a multitude. As there are many rays but one lumentr., and the branches of a tree are many but there is one trunk founded upon a tenacious root; and as from one fount many streams flow, and although the multiplicity may seem to be diffused by the largess of the overflowing plenty, yet unity is preserved entire in the source: so also the Church of God, suffused with light, stretches out her rays through the whole world; yet that which is everywhere diffused is one, nor is the unity of the body separated». Cyprian therefore means that the Church1 — since she is one dove, one episcopate, one body — had to be founded upon one chief pastor, namely upon Peter, as upon one bishop and head and bridegroom.
The solidity of both also requires this. For, as the Philosopher says2, «a power, the more it is united, the more it is infinite»; which indeed is true both as to permanence and as to inflowing and as to preeminence. — As to permanence: because, as division begets destruction3, so a greater uniting gives firmness and strength, whence also the whole firmness of the Church herself flows principally from the solidity of one Rock and of one Peter, who is the Vicar of the Rock; in sign of which thing it was said to Peter4: And upon this rock I will build my Church; and it was also said to him: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not; nor was this prayer empty. Whence Jerome, and it is had in Cause 24, question 15: «The holy Roman Church, which has always remained unstained, by the Lord's providing and by the help of the blessed Apostle Peter, shall in time to come remain without any insulting of heretics, and shall persist firm and immovable for all time». This unity of the supreme Pontiff, therefore, makes for the solidity of the Church herself as to permanence. — As also to inflowing: because a power more united is more potent; and the more potent it is in efficacy, the more powerful is its inflowing upon the effect: whence the fullness of power had to be placed in one Pontiff alone. Whence Pope Leo, distinction 196: «The Lord so willed the sacrament of this office to pertain to the office of all the Apostles, that he should place it principally in the most blessed Peter, the supreme prince of all the Apostles, so that from him, as from a certain head, he might pour out his gifts as it were into the whole body, so that he should understand himself to have no share in the divine mystery who shall have dared to withdraw from the solidity of Peter». — Lastly, it makes also as to preeminence: because a power more united is less liable to another, and through this is more free; and because also, being more united, it holds more the account of the first and the supreme, as the ark was finished in a cubit7: whence the unity of the supreme Pontiff alone is that which confers upon the whole Church the preeminence of dignity. And through this, just as in the head there comes about, for the adornment of the whole body, a gathering of all the senses; so in the supreme Pontiff himself there ought to be a gathering of all the dignities. And this is what Bernard says to Eugenius8: «Come, let us search out, let us search out yet more diligently who thou art, that is, what person thou bearest for the time in the Church of God. Who art thou? The great priest, the supreme Pontiff; thou art the prince of bishops, thou art the heir of the Apostles, thou art Abel in primacy, Noe in governing, Abraham in patriarchate, Melchisedech in order, Aaron in dignity, Moses in authority, Samuel in judging, Peter in power, Christ in anointing».
From these things, therefore, it is openly gathered that the unity of the supreme Pontiff flows from the law of God, since the order of universal justice demands it, both natural and civil and also heavenly; since the unity of the Church, as of one hierarchy, of one body and of one bride, also demands it; since the stability and sublimity of both, both in the permanence of duration and in the inflowing of power and in the preeminence of dignity, also demands it. Whence, although it has flowed from the law of grace, which is the law of Jesus Christ, yet it is consonant with the law of nature and the written law, with pontifical right and canon right; it is consonant with things visible, it is consonant with things invisible; it is consonant also with the piety of all the faithful and with the right intelligence of all minds; as also the reasons set down above show, whence they are to be conceded.
1. To that which is objected first to the contrary, that he who would be the greater ought to be the servant; it must be said that servant is said in two ways: either by an obligatory subjection, or by a perfect humility. The first is repugnant to supreme authority, and one cannot at the same time be bound to others in subjection and be set over them for governing. But the second is not repugnant, but most consonant; and of this the Lord speaks, because he teaches that he who is supremely set over others should chiefly imitate Christ, who left to others the example of humility p. 196 chiefly to be imitated; in sign of which thing also the supreme Pontiff writes himself the servant of the servants of God. Whence Bernard, in the second book to Eugenius1, speaking of humility: «No jewel is more splendid in the whole chief adornment of the supreme Pontiff; for the loftier he is than the rest, the more illustrious he appears, even than himself».
2. To that which is objected, that we ought not to call anyone father upon earth; it must be said that a father is so called as the communicator of nature, a master is so called as the communicator of knowledge; and since God alone it is who principally bestows nature and infuses knowledge, therefore to him, as to the principal principle both of knowledge and of nature, each name, inasmuch as it intimates principal authority, ought to be attributed, and to no other, namely the name of father and of master2. But since God works in these things also outwardly through human ministry, therefore each name, inasmuch as it says ministry, can be communicated to a man, not as to the principal agent, but as to a dispenser.
3. 4. To that which is objected concerning Paul, that he was Peter's equal; it must be said that the authority of apostolate has a twofold comparison, namely to him from whom it is handed over, and to those over whom it is handed over; because an apostle is called one sent by someone and to some. According to the first comparison the Gloss says3 that Paul is made equal to Peter, because each was sent immediately by Christ. Whence also Paul says that he is an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ. But according to the second comparison he is not made equal to him; for Peter is called prince of the Apostles, which is never said of Paul, because according to this comparison he was inferior to Peter. Whence also the Gloss says there4: «Peter himself gave an example to posterity, whereby their superiors should not disdain, if perchance they had anywhere left the path of rectitude, to be corrected even by their inferiors». — And through this the following objection is plain, which objects from the authority of Cyprian.
5. 6. To that which is objected, that that word was said to the Apostles which had first been said to Peter; it must be said that it was said to them and to Peter in very different ways. For to Peter it was said severally and singularly, because in him the fullness of power was to be placed principally and singularly; but to the others it was said together: Whatsoever you shall bind etc., because they had been called «into a share of the solicitude5». Whence, although they had a like power, yet they did not have an equal one; and therefore that word had to be said both to the Apostles and to Peter, yet not together nor under the same context, but in one manner and in another. — And through this the reply to the following objection from the Gloss is plain; because the Apostles are said to have the same judiciary power, that is a like one; but from this it does not follow that they have an equal one, but this is a figure of diction arising from a change of predicate, since likeness consists in quality, but equality in quantity6.
7. To that which is objected from the authority of Jerome, that a bishop, wherever he be, is of the same priesthood; it must be said that Jerome is speaking to the effect that the greatness of riches and the multitude of men subject do not make a man on that account a more excellent prelate7; nor is the Pope said to be more excellent than others on this account, that he is the bishop of the City, which is of the greatest populousness; but because he is the successor of Peter, upon whom the fullness of power was conferred, not by the statute of man, but of God and of Christ.
8. To that which is objected, that it is not necessary that all kings comply with one; it must be said that the case is not alike: because the sceptre of a king does not proceed from the statute of the law of the Gospel as the key of the Pontiff does. For the evangelical law is spiritual, whence Christ also, the bearer of that law, directed the eyes of his mind to a spiritual pontificate, not to a carnal empire8. — Yet it could be said that according to truth both powers meet in one person in the supreme Pontiff. For since he himself is the supreme priest according to the order of Melchisedech, who was king of Salem and priest of the most high God9, and Christ had both; the Vicar of Christ on earth received both powers from Christ; whence both swords also belong to him. Whence Bernard, in the fourth book to Eugenius10: «Both belong to the Church, both the spiritual sword, namely, and the material; but the one indeed is to be drawn for the Church, the other by the Church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of the soldier, but certainly at the nod of the priest and at the bidding of the emperor». From which it is openly gathered that both powers are reduced to him as to one first and supreme hierarch. p. 197
9. To that which is objected, that he who has ordinary power can commit it to another; it must be said that jurisdiction is in a threefold difference: one is half-full and wholly descending from elsewhere, and this cannot be committed on account of its own imperfection; another, on the contrary, is most full, and this, because it is supreme, cannot be save in one man at one and the same time; and therefore it cannot be committed to another, whence the Pope cannot make other Popes; and another is middle, which is ordinary, and yet is not supreme; and this indeed, because it is in a certain manner perfect and multipliable, can be committed to another; nor yet is it lost when it is given, inasmuch as it is a spiritual power: because in this spiritual things differ from bodily ones, that bodily things, when they are given, are possessed less entirely; but spiritual things, when they are distributed, are then possessed more fully, as is manifestly seen also in the gift of knowledge. Whence, although the supreme Pontiff communicate jurisdiction to others, yet he does not on this account suffer any loss, because he never so commits it, nor can so commit it, that he should exempt anyone from his own power.
10. To that which is objected, that all priests are equals in the power of confecting; it must be said that the case is not alike: because the power of confecting is essential to the character, and therefore, just as the character is not received in different men more or less, so neither is that power. It is not so with the power of absolving, because this follows upon the priestly character as annexed to it1. — But the reason of this is that the first power is an absolute power, whereas this is related to another, namely to the persons of the subjects; and therefore it has to be diversified according to the diversity of powers and grades which make the order in the ecclesiastical princedom.
11. To that which is objected, that the fullness of power flowed from Peter immediately into the college; it must be said that a power is said to be in something in two ways: either as in a sustaining subject, or as in a bearer2. In the first way the fullness of power never is nor was save in one, first indeed in Christ, secondly in Peter, thereafter in his successor, namely the Roman Pontiff. But since the subject of that power is a mortal person, therefore Christ and his Spirit so ordained that this power should be borne from one to one, not by the way of flesh but of spirit, which is election, in which the Holy Spirit ought to work in a conformity of minds unto the constituting of one. And because it resides principally in one, therefore the obedience of all is principally referred to one, short of whom it has neither standing nor completion.
12. To that which is objected, that if the supreme Pontiff has the fullness of authority from Peter, he ought not to join together the authority of Peter and of Paul; it must be said that the fullness of authority was principally and singularly in Peter. But since Paul, by the fullness of his wisdom and of his letters, was most efficacious in3 the conversion of unbelievers and most prudent in the governance of the Church herself, so that in some things he seemed to be as it were more excellent than the other Apostles; lest contention should arise among their successors, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit it came about that both should come to one city, in which, dying together, they should found the pontificate of the one Church in the city of Rome, so that from this every scruple of controversy should cease. Whence Paul added nothing to the supreme Pontiff as to the fullness of power, which was in Peter, but as to evidence, that the mouth of them that speak wicked things may be stopped4, and chiefly of the Greeks, who wished to contend on even terms with the Roman Church. On which account also, by the just judgment of God, thinking less rightly of the unity of the head and keeping ill the unity of the Church, they have been blinded, so that they think less rightly of the unity of the Holy Spirit, who as the love of the Father and of the Son proceeds from both. Whence Paul, coming to Rome that he might live under the wings of Peter unto death, did nothing else than admonish that the Church of the Greeks is subject to the Roman Church unto the end, lest it should lose the unity of the Holy Spirit. Since, therefore, the supreme Pontiff ought to express in his letters the fullness of power, not only universally5, but also evidently, not only sufficiently, but also abundantly; therefore he expresses the authority of both.
13. To that which is objected, that if all ought to obey one, then one ought to provide for all; it must be said that, although all ought to obey one, yet not one alone, because neither can one man be everywhere, nor can one man provide everywhere for individuals. Therefore divine providence has provided that there be several intermediate and distinct superiors, through whom the providing power should descend from the supreme even to the lowest. Whence Bernard, to Eugenius, in the third book6: «Not thy power alone is from the Lord; there are also middling ones, there are also lower ones; and as those whom God hath joined together are not to be separated, so neither are those whom he has subjoined to be compared». On which account, just as it belongs to particular prelates to attend to a particular care, so it belongs to the supreme Pontiff himself to attend to the general state of the Church. Whence Bernard subjoins in the same place: «It remains that p. 198 thy consideration attend generally to the whole state of the Church».
14. To that which is objected, that if all ought to obey one, this is either as to a mediate prelate or to an immediate one; it must be said that an immediate prelate is so called in two ways: either according to grade, or according to power1. It must be said, therefore, that the one and supreme Pontiff, although he is furthest distant from the lowest members according to grade, because there are many intermediate grades between him and the lowest common people, is nevertheless most immediate according to the inflowing of power. For he is not obeyed on account of the authorities of others, but the others are obeyed on account of his authority; just as a king is not obeyed on account of the bailiff, but the bailiff rather on account of the king. Whence his authority is as it were the proximate and immediate cause which ought to move all and each to exhibiting obedience to their own superiors.
15. To that which is objected, that if all are bound to obey one, then he is a common prelate; it must be said that a universal cause is twofold: one which is altogether of another genus and power than the particular, as the sun is of another genus than a man; and this cannot act upon its proper effect save through its proper2 cause. The other is a universal cause which has in itself all the power which the particular one has; and in this way God can be called the universal cause of things, and against such a universal cause what is objected does not hold; but the supreme Pontiff is not likened to a universal cause in the first way, but in the second, because he holds the place of Christ on earth; whence, even if he alone remained and all things were destroyed in the Church, he could repair the whole: and therefore that reason does not conclude.
16. To that which is objected concerning the hierarchy of that supernal Jerusalem; it must be said that the case is not alike: because they, as Blessed, have God always present, whence they always see the face of the true Solomon. But we in the state of the way, as little ones, since we neither see God nor can have recourse to him immediately in human affairs, need the leading by the hand and the government of a man who is a wayfarer, who as a pastor may lead us forth and lead us back to the sheepfold of the supreme Pastor3.nota
- 2Hic articulus exhibetur a codd. D E.This article is exhibited by codices D and E.
- 3Vers. 8. et 12. Vulgata plura interserit. — Glossa est interlinearis apud Lyranum in hunc loc.Verses 8 and 12. The Vulgate inserts more. — The Gloss is the interlinear one in Lyra on this passage.
- 4Psalm. 44, 17: Constitues eos etc.; secundus locus est Ps. 138, 17; tertius Luc. 11, 17. (Vulgata in se ipsum).Psalm 44:17: Thou shalt make them etc.; the second passage is Ps. 138:17; the third Luke 11:17 (the Vulgate against itself).
- 5Sive de Consideral. III. c. 1. n. 1. Pro forte voluit originale forte volet. Post orbem originale prosequitur: «Ite in orbem universum [Marc. 16, 15.], dictum est illis». Pluribus deinde additis, ponuntur verba: Et quidem in omnem terram etc. [Ps. 18, 5.], et, interiectis aliis, seq. locus, ubi citantur Ps. 138, 17. et 44, 17.Or de Consideratione III, c. 1, n. 1. For forte voluit the original has forte volet. After orbem the original continues: «Go ye into the whole world [Mark 16:15], was said to them». Then, several things being added, the words are set down: And indeed into all the earth etc. [Ps. 18:5], and, other things being interposed, the following passage, where Ps. 138:17 and 44:17 are cited.
- 6Vers. 18. 19.Verses 18, 19.
- 1Vers. 17.Verse 17.
- 2Cap. 8. n. 15. Edit. Maurina (cuius ope paucos errores manifestos codicum correximus) omittit uni ante universi crediti, subiungit plura post Ex verbo Domini [Ioan. 21, 17.], et addit certi (alias certe) ante regni.Chapter 8, n. 15. The Maurist edition (by whose help we have corrected a few manifest errors of the codices) omits uni before universi crediti, subjoins more after Ex verbo Domini [John 21:17], and adds certi (elsewhere certe) before regni.
- 3Ibid. n. 16. Originale addit datis ante clavibus, pluresque propositiones post commendatis, et post gubernandum. Codd. corrupte legunt: nempe si non singularis Pontificis Petri est, quod non navem unam etc.Ibid., n. 16. The original adds datis before clavibus, and several clauses after commendatis, and after gubernandum. The codices read corruptly: nempe si non singularis Pontificis Petri est, quod non navem unam etc.
- 4Epist. 43. (alias 162.) c. 3. n. 7. Epistola haec non est ad Optatum, sed ad Glorium, Eleusium etc. directa.Epistle 43 (elsewhere 162), c. 3, n. 7. This epistle is not addressed to Optatus, but to Glorius, Eleusius and others.
- 5Explanatio Symboli, in fine (inter opera Hieron.); ubi pro si autem in textu originali ponitur sin autem, et pro me culpare habetur me maculare, et non me haereticum pro sed haereticum.Explanatio Symboli, at the end (among the works of Jerome); where for si autem the original text has sin autem, and for me culpare it has me maculare, and non me haereticum for sed haereticum.
- 6Can. Quamvis universae per orbem (3.). Codd. perperam Pelagius pro Gelasius; textus originalis post Romana prosequitur catholica et apostolica Ecclesia nullis synodicis constitutis ceteris Ecclesiis praelata est etc. In fine citatur Matth. 16, 18.Canon Quamvis universae per orbem (3). The codices wrongly have Pelagius for Gelasius; the original text after Romana continues catholica et apostolica Ecclesia nullis synodicis constitutis ceteris Ecclesiis praelata est etc. At the end Matth. 16:18 is cited.
- 7Can. Omnes sive Patriarchae (1); aliqua tamen a codd. omissa vel mutata sunt.Canon Omnes sive Patriarchae (1); some things, however, have been omitted or changed by the codices.
- 8Can. Sacrosancta Romana (2. et § 5.). Tam in primo quam in secundo loco textus originalis quaedam interserit.Canon Sacrosancta Romana (2 and § 5). Both in the first and in the second place the original text inserts certain things.
- 1Can. 10. (Cfr. supra pag. 153, nota 3.). Seq. locus est C. Nemo iudicabit primam Sedem [ipsum Concilium prosequitur: quoniam omnes Sedes a prima Sede iustitiam desiderant temperari] (13.); tertius C. Facta subditorum (15.); quartus C. Cuncta per mundum (17.); quintus C. Cuncta per mundum novit Ecclesia (18.), ubi textus originalis resolvendi pro rescindendi.Canon 10 (compare above, p. 153, note 3). The following passage is canon Nemo iudicabit primam Sedem [the Council itself continues: since all Sees desire that justice be tempered by the first See] (13); the third, canon Facta subditorum (15); the fourth, canon Cuncta per mundum (17); the fifth, canon Cuncta per mundum novit Ecclesia (18), where the original text has resolvendi for rescindendi.
- 2Can. Sic omnes apostolicae (2.), ubi textus originalis divina pro divinae; cap. huius C. Enimvero quia (4.); tertius C. Nulli fas est (5.) et ibid. § 1. (ubi post decretis plura adduntur, et in fine legitur: damnatus a sancta et apostolica Ecclesia ac auctoritate sua de inobedientia etc.); quartus (Nicolai) C. Si decreta (2.); quintus (Hilarii) C. Nulli fas (4.); codd. falso omittunt temerare; sextus (Adriani) C. Generali decreto (11.). Pro anathema fiat can. anathema sit; in nota adiecta exhibetur etiam lectio nostra.Canon Sic omnes apostolicae (2), where the original text has divina for divinae; the chapter of this canon Enimvero quia (4); the third, canon Nulli fas est (5) and ibid. § 1 (where after decretis more is added, and at the end is read: damnatus a sancta et apostolica Ecclesia ac auctoritate sua de inobedientia etc.); the fourth (of Nicholas), canon Si decreta (2); the fifth (of Hilary), canon Nulli fas (4); the codices falsely omit temerare; the sixth (of Adrian), canon Generali decreto (11). For anathema fiat the canon has anathema sit; in the added note our reading is also exhibited.
- 3Can. Loquitur Dominus (18.). Eiusdem Cypriani est seq. locus C. Alienus est (19.), sed ibi in fine legitur: «qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem». In nota adiecta refertur ex Anselmo lectio nostra.Canon Loquitur Dominus (18). Of the same Cyprian is the following passage, canon Alienus est (19), but there at the end is read: «who does not have the Church for his mother». In the added note our reading is reported from Anselm.
- 4Can. Quoniam vetusto (25, post medium), ex Hieron. Epist. 15. [alias 57.] n. 2, ubi pro discipulo Christi, quod, ut in nota adiecta dicitur, etiam Anselmus habet, originale discipulo crucis, et tuae pro vestrae, ac aedificatam pro fundatam. Respicitur Exod. 12, 3. seqq. et Gen. 7, 17. seqq. — Seq. locus, in quo respicitur Luc. 11, 23, est ibid. paulo inferius.Canon Quoniam vetusto (25, after the middle), from Jerome, Epistle 15 [elsewhere 57], n. 2, where for discipulo Christi, which, as is said in the added note, Anselm also has, the original has discipulo crucis, and tuae for vestrae, and aedificatam for fundatam. Exod. 12:3 ff. and Gen. 7:17 ff. are alluded to. — The following passage, in which Luke 11:23 is alluded to, is in the same place a little below.
- 5Can. Quicumque ab unitate (27.).Canon Quicumque ab unitate (27).
- 6Can. Qui Cathedram (3.).Canon Qui Cathedram (3).
- 1Cfr. I. Cor. 12, 12. seqq.Compare I Cor. 12:12 ff.
- 2Cfr. I. Cor. 12, 4. seqq.Compare I Cor. 12:4 ff.
- 3Codd. male transponunt hierarcham post principatus. De hierarcha praecipuo cfr. supra Quaest. de Paupert. pag. 155, in fine replicationis, et Dionys., de Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 1. § 3.The codices wrongly transpose hierarcham after principatus. On the chief hierarch compare above, the Question on Poverty, p. 155, at the end of the replicatio, and Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, c. 1, § 3.
- 4Cfr. supra pag. 180, nota 3.Compare above, p. 180, note 3.
- 5Vide Rom. 8, 35. seq.; Gal. 3, 28.See Rom. 8:35 f.; Gal. 3:28.
- 6Cfr. Aristot., I. Ethic. c. 13. et I. Polit. c. 3. (c. 2.).Compare Aristotle, Ethics I, c. 13, and Politics I, c. 3 (c. 2).
- 7Vide II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1; d. 14. p. I. a. 3. q. 2. et p. II. a. 1. q. 3.See II Sent. d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1; d. 14, p. I, a. 3, q. 2, and p. II, a. 1, q. 3.
- 8In consecratione episcopi secundum Pontificale Romanum consecrator, immittens anulum in digitum anularem dextrae manus consecrati, dicit: Accipe anulum, fidei scilicet signaculum, quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctam videlicet Ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus, illibate custodias. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. in fine corp. quaest. — Inferius post Christi in D omittitur Sed non haberet unum sponsum, nisi uni ab omnibus esset obtemperandum.In the consecration of a bishop, according to the Roman Pontifical, the consecrator, placing the ring upon the ring-finger of the right hand of the man consecrated, says: Receive the ring, the seal of faith namely, that, adorned with unstained faith, thou mayest guard inviolate the bride of God, that is, the holy Church. Compare IV Sent. d. 25, a. 1, q. 1, at the end of the body of the question. — Below, after Christi, D omits Sed non haberet unum sponsum, nisi uni ab omnibus esset obtemperandum.
- 9De hoc axiomate, quod Averroes ex Aristot. dictis formavit, cfr. tom. II. pag. 94, nota 4. — Inferius verba et ac potestatem desiderantur in D.On this axiom, which Averroes formed from the sayings of Aristotle, compare tome II, p. 94, note 4. — Below, the words et ac potestatem are wanting in D.
- 10Vers. 26. 27.Verses 26, 27.
- 11Vers. 9.Verse 9.
- 12Vers. 11. Glossa ibi est interlinearis apud Lyranum. Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc.: «tanquam pari». Seq. est Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum, sumta ex Comment. olim Ambrosio tributo.Verse 11. The Gloss there is the interlinear one in Lyra. Peter Lombard on this passage: «tanquam pari». The following is the ordinary Gloss in Strabo, taken from the Commentary once attributed to Ambrose.
- 13Can. Loquitur Dominus (18.).Canon Loquitur Dominus (18).
- 1Vers. 19: Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, et quodcumque etc.; alter locus est ibid. 18, 18, ubi codd. bis pro quaecumque habent quodcumque; Vulgata porro alligaveritis pro ligaveritis.Verse 19: I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever etc.; the other passage is ibid. 18:18, where the codices twice have quodcumque for quaecumque; the Vulgate moreover has alligaveritis for ligaveritis.
- 2Vers. 19. Glossa, Hieronymo tributa [vide tom. IV. pag. 497, nota 4. et pag. 503, nota 4.], est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum; locus Scripturae ibi allegatus est Ioan. 20, 22.Verse 19. The Gloss, attributed to Jerome [see tome IV, p. 497, note 4, and p. 503, note 4], is the ordinary one in Strabo and Lyra; the passage of Scripture there adduced is John 20:22.
- 3Can. Legimus in Isaia (24. § 1.), ex Hieron. Epist. 146. (alias 85.). n. 1. Pro Evangelum Gratianus Evagrium.Canon Legimus in Isaia (24, § 1), from Jerome, Epistle 146 (elsewhere 85), n. 1. For Evangelum Gratian has Evagrium.
- 4E omittit totaliter.E omits totaliter.
- 5Cfr. I. Sent. d. 12. q. 3. ad 1. Vide etiam Lib. de Causis, propos. 1.Compare I Sent. d. 12, q. 3, ad 1. See also the Book of Causes, proposition 1.
- 6Cfr. I. Sent. d. 40. dub. 7. et d. 45. a. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Respicitur illud Aristot., II. Phys. text. 26. (c. 2.): Homo enim hominem generat et sol. Cfr. XII. Metaph. text. 26. (XI. c. 5.).Compare I Sent. d. 40, dubium 7, and d. 45, a. 2, q. 2, in the body. — That saying of Aristotle is alluded to, Physics II, text 26 (c. 2): For man begets man, and the sun. Compare Metaphysics XII, text 26 (XI, c. 5).
- 7Respicitur I. Tim. 2, 5: Unus enim Deus, unus et mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus.I Tim. 2:5 is alluded to: For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
- 1Vers. 1.Verse 1.
- 2Respicitur Ps. 44, 17: Constitues eos principes super omnem terram.Ps. 44:17 is alluded to: Thou shalt make them princes over all the earth.
- 3Vide pag. 192, nota 9.See p. 192, note 9.
- 4Cfr. III. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. 3. ad 1.Compare III Sent. d. 13, a. 2, q. 3, ad 1.
- 5In E deest Spiritus.In E Spiritus is wanting.
- 6Vide supra pag. 47, nota 6.See above, p. 47, note 6.
- 7Cfr. Aristot., XII. Metaph. text. 52. seqq. (XI. c. 10.). Cfr. supra pag. 61, nota 5.Compare Aristotle, Metaphysics XII, text 52 ff. (XI, c. 10). Compare above, p. 61, note 5.
- 8Cap. 4. n. 17. 18. Originale post formam hanc prosequitur: quia in terris est, exempla habet e caelo… Viderat etc. Locus Scripturae est Apoc. 21, 2: Vidi sanctam civitatem Ierusalem novam descendentem etc.Chapter 4, nn. 17, 18. The original after formam hanc continues: quia in terris est, exempla habet e caelo… Viderat etc. The passage of Scripture is Apoc. 21:2: I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down etc.
- 9Vide III. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. seqq.See III Sent. d. 13, a. 2, q. 1 ff.
- 10Can. Loquitur Dominus (18.), ubi allegatur Matth. 16, 18. — Textus originalis praecipue circa initium multa addit, inter quae est illud Cant. 6, 8: Una est columba mea etc.; pro cuius singularis habet cuius a singulis, et pro multitudine latius incrementa fecunditatis extendit substituit multitudinem latius incremento fecunditatis extenditur.Canon Loquitur Dominus (18), where Matth. 16:18 is adduced. — The original text adds much, especially about the beginning, among which is that of Cant. 6:8: One is my dove etc.; for cuius singularis it has cuius a singulis, and for multitudine latius incrementa fecunditatis extendit it substitutes multitudinem latius incremento fecunditatis extenditur.
- 1Supplevimus quod Ecclesia.We have supplied quod Ecclesia.
- 2Scil. auctor libri de Causis, propos. 17. — Infra pro praeeminentiam, quod praebere videtur E, D praesentiam, tamen infra semel habet recte praeeminentiam dignitatis.Namely the author of the Book of Causes, proposition 17. — Below, for praeeminentiam, which E seems to offer, D has praesentiam, yet below it once has rightly praeeminentiam dignitatis.
- 3Cfr. August., II. de Ordine, c. 18. n. 48; Boeth., III. de Consol. prosa 11, et Damasc., I. de Fide orthod. c. 4, ex quo attulimus verba tom. II. pag. 464, nota 4. — Subinde D emanat pro manat.Compare Augustine, On Order II, c. 18, n. 48; Boethius, On Consolation III, prose 11, and Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith I, c. 4, from which we have adduced the words in tome II, p. 464, note 4. — Thereafter D has emanat for manat.
- 4Matth. 16, 18; seq. locus est Luc. 22, 32. — August., Serm. 270. n. 2: Ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, quia ego Petra, tu Petrus; neque enim a Petro Petra, sed a Petra Petrus… Et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, non supra Petrum, quod tu es, sed supra Petram, quam confessus es etc.Matth. 16:18; the following passage is Luke 22:32. — Augustine, Sermon 270, n. 2: I say to thee: Thou art Peter, since I am the Rock, thou art Peter; for the Rock is not from Peter, but Peter from the Rock… And upon this rock I will build my Church, not upon Peter, which thou art, but upon the Rock which thou hast confessed etc.
- 5Can. Haec est fides (14.) § 1. Auctor sententiae non est Hieron. (prima pars huius canonis sumta est ex Expositione symboli ad Damasum, quae est inter opera Hieron.), sed Marcus Papa in epist. ad Athanasium.Canon Haec est fides (14), § 1. The author of the sentence is not Jerome (the first part of this canon is taken from the Exposition of the symbol to Damasus, which is among the works of Jerome), but Pope Mark in his epistle to Athanasius.
- 6Can. Ita Dominus (7.). In fine pro fuerit can. fuisset. — Infra E Postremo, in quantum.Canon Ita Dominus (7). At the end, for fuerit the canon has fuisset. — Below, E has Postremo, in quantum.
- 7Ita E, at D perperam conservata. Gen. 6, 16. dicitur de arca facienda: Et in cubito consummabis summitatem eius. Glossa ordinaria in hunc loc. apud Strabum: Sic Ecclesia in unitate collecta sublimatur atque perficitur etc. Cfr. Ambros., de Noe et arca, c. 7. n. 17. seqq., ubi haec verba adaptantur capiti humano, quod est decus hominis, et ex quo omnes sensus ad ceteras partes corporis transfunduntur.So E, but D wrongly conservata. Gen. 6:16 says of the ark to be made: And in a cubit thou shalt finish the top of it. The ordinary Gloss on this passage in Strabo: Thus the Church, gathered into unity, is exalted and perfected etc. Compare Ambrose, On Noe and the ark, c. 7, nn. 17 ff., where these words are applied to the human head, which is the ornament of man, and from which all the senses are poured out to the other parts of the body.
- 8Sive de Considerat. II. c. 8. n. 15: Age, indagemus adhuc etc.Or de Consideratione II, c. 8, n. 15: Age, indagemus adhuc etc.
- 1Cap. 6. n. 13: Nulla… ceteris, eo humilitate apparet etc.Chapter 6, n. 13: Nulla… ceteris, eo humilitate apparet etc.
- 2Matth. 23, 9. seq. In quem locum ait Hieron. distinguens: Aliud esse natura patrem vel magistrum, aliud indulgentia. Nos si hominem patrem vocamus, honorem aetati deferimus, non auctorem nostrae ostendimus vitae. Magister quoque dicitur ex consortio veri Magistri etc.Matth. 23:9 f. On which passage Jerome says, distinguishing: It is one thing to be a father or a master by nature, another by indulgence. If we call a man father, we defer honour to his age, we do not show him to be the author of our life. So too a man is called master from a fellowship with the true Master etc.
- 3Vide supra 3. ad oppos. Paulo inferius respicitur Gal. 1, 1.See above, the third argument to the opposite. A little below Gal. 1:1 is alluded to.
- 4Gal. 2, 14. — Glossa est ordinaria apud Petrum Lombard. et Lyranum, sumta ex August., Epist. 82. (alias 19.) c. 2. n. 22. Post praebuit textus originalis Glossae nonnulla addit, et in fine pro corripi substituit corrigi.Gal. 2:14. — The Gloss is the ordinary one in Peter Lombard and Lyra, taken from Augustine, Epistle 82 (elsewhere 19), c. 2, n. 22. After praebuit the original text of the Gloss adds several things, and at the end substitutes corrigi for corripi.
- 5Bernard., II. de Considerat. c. 8. n. 16: Ergo iuxta canones tuos, alii in partem sollicitudinis, tu in plenitudinem potestatis vocatus es. Cfr. Innocent. III, Serm. 21. de Sanctis et 2. de Diversis, ubi etiam verbum Domini eodem modo explicatur.Bernard, On Consideration II, c. 8, n. 16: Therefore according to thy own canons, the others have been called into a share of the solicitude, thou into the fullness of power. Compare Innocent III, Sermon 21 On the Saints and Sermon 2 On Various Matters, where the word of the Lord is also explained in the same way.
- 6Cfr. supra pag. 7, nota 11. De figura dictionis vide supra pag. 76, nota 3.Compare above, p. 7, note 11. On the figure of diction see above, p. 76, note 3.
- 7Respiciuntur verba eiusdem can.: Potentia divitiarum et paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem, vel inferiorem episcopum non facit. — Paulo superius codd., verbis male transpositis, propter hoc quod. Inferius pro excellentior aliis E excelsior aliis, et magnae pro maximae.The words of the same canon are alluded to: The power of riches and the lowliness of poverty make a bishop neither higher nor lower. — A little above, the codices, with the words wrongly transposed, have propter hoc quod. Below, for excellentior aliis E has excelsior aliis, and magnae for maximae.
- 8Matth. 16, 19: Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. Cfr. Ioan. 18, 36: Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. — Pro carnale E corporale.Matth. 16:19: I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Compare John 18:36: My kingdom is not of this world. — For carnale E has corporale.
- 9Psalm. 109, 4; Gen. 14, 18; Hebr. 7, 1. et 21. — De utroque gladio cfr. Luc. 22, 38.Psalm 109:4; Gen. 14:18; Hebr. 7:1 and 21. — On both swords compare Luke 22:38.
- 10Cap. 3. n. 7; cfr. eiusdem Epist. 256. ad Eugenium, n. 1. Vide IV. Sent. d. 37. dub. 4.Chapter 3, n. 7; compare the same author's Epistle 256 to Eugenius, n. 1. See IV Sent. d. 37, dubium 4.
- 1Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 2. — Codd. perperam annexam.Compare IV Sent. d. 19, a. 2, q. 2. — The codices wrongly have annexam.
- 2Cfr. II. Sent. d. 13. a. 3. q. 2. in fine corp. et quaest.Compare II Sent. d. 13, a. 3, q. 2, at the end of the body and of the question.
- 3Supplevimus in; E scribit fuit in fidelium, D fuit infidelium.We have supplied in; E writes fuit in fidelium, D fuit infidelium.
- 4Respicitur Ps. 62, 12. Cfr. C. Quamvis universae (3.), Dist. 21. et C. Sacrosancta romana (2.), Dist. 22. § 1. — De errore Graecorum cfr. I. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. — Inferius post Propter quod E omittit et.Ps. 62:12 is alluded to. Compare canon Quamvis universae (3), Distinction 21, and canon Sacrosancta romana (2), Distinction 22, § 1. — On the error of the Greeks compare I Sent. d. 11, q. 1. — Below, after Propter quod, E omits et.
- 5Ita legi potest in D, vel etiam naturaliter; E habet lacunam.So it can be read in D, or also naturaliter; E has a lacuna.
- 6Cap. 4. n. 17: Non ergo tua sola etc. Respicitur Matth. 19, 6. Seq. locus ibid. c. 5. n. 19, ubi in textu originali universum pro omnem.Chapter 4, n. 17: Non ergo tua sola etc. Matth. 19:6 is alluded to. The following passage is ibid., c. 5, n. 19, where the original text has universum for omnem.
- 1De hac distinctione cfr. I. Sent. d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 45. a. 2. q. 2. cum scholio.On this distinction compare I Sent. d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4, and d. 45, a. 2, q. 2, with the scholion.
- 2D primam; sed propriam hic idem esse videtur quod particularem. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 35. q. 2. ad 3. Inferius D omittit rerum.D has primam; but propriam seems here to be the same as particularem. Compare I Sent. d. 35, q. 2, ad 3. Below, D omits rerum.
- 3Respicitur Ioan. 10, 16, et superius Matth. 18, 10, una cum Cant. 3, 11.John 10:16 is alluded to, and above Matth. 18:10, together with Cant. 3:11.
- notaDe primatu Romani Pontificis et de infallibili eiusdem magisterio S. Doctor saepissime, oblata occasione, in aliis suis libris loquitur, breviter quidem, sed sanctae Sedis dignitatem, praerogativas et iura magnificis verbis extollens. Cfr. inter alia supra de Perfectione evangelica q. 2. a. 2. ad 19. (pag. 147) et ibid. in fine (pag. 155); infra Breviloquium p. VI. c. 10. et c. 12; I. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. in corp. circa finem; II. Sent. d. 44. dub. 2; IV. Sent. d. 18. p. II. q. 3. in corp.; d. 19. a. 3. q. 1. in corp. et dub. 6; d. 20. p. II. q. 3. in corp. et q. 6. fundam. 3; d. 25. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4; Apologia pauperum praecipue resp. I. c. 1. in principio, resp. III. c. 2. in fine; Opusculum, Quare fratres Minores praedicent (in principio); Expositio in Lucam, c. 9, 20; Sermones in Hexaëmeron, sermo 22. ante med.; Expositio in regulam, in Prologo et in c. 3. et 9. — Praeclara autem de primatu summi Pontificis doctrina, quae locis citt. sparsim in medium profertur, in hac quaestione disputata consulto et copiose probatur et defenditur. Est autem eadem eo maioris pretii, quia ab aliis et praecipuis Scholasticis saeculi XIII. de primatu summi Pontificis in scholis vix data opera, sed tantum obiter tractabatur, cum eiusdem plenitudo potestatis in occidente propalam, publice, et omnibus Christianis consentientibus, exerceretur. Sed a saeculo XIV, praesertim post funestum illud schisma occidentale, et saeculis subsequentibus etiam a doctoribus catholicis vera de praerogativis summi Pontificis doctrina falsis opinionibus passim impugnata est. Hinc necessarium fuit, ut nostra aetate Pius IX, Concilio Vaticano approbante, per constitutionem dogmaticam Pastor aeternus catholicum dogma antiquum definiret et plures contrarios errores reprobaret. Manifestum autem est, doctrinam nostri Doctoris ita perfecte convenire cum decretis Vaticanis, ut ipse quasi praeoccupasse videatur ea quae a Concilio illo docentur de apostolici primatus institutione (c. 1.), perpetuitate (c. 2.), vi et ratione (c. 3; de quo cfr. praesertim supra solutiones ad 9. 11. 13. 14. 15.) atque infallibili magisterio (c. 4.). Licet autem haec ultima quaestio hic non proponatur eisdem verborum formulis expressa, tamen ipsa doctrina clare proponitur. Nam obedientia illa, quae inculcatur, comprehendit etiam obedientiam fidei (cfr. Rom. 1, 5.), omniaque iudicia a Summo doctore et pastore omnibus proposita ut penitus irrefragabilia praedicantur (cfr. fundam. 12. 13. 14. 23. et imprimis in corp. ratio 3). Observatione etiam digna sunt verba (in solut. ad 1.), quod alienae potestati subiectum esse «repugnat summae auctoritati, et non potest aliquis simul aliis teneri ad subiectionem et praeesse ad regimen». — In fine saec. XIII. etiam famosus Petrus Ioannis Olivi Ord. Min. scripsit pro privilegiis s. Sedis quaestionem disputatam, sed minoris hac Bonaventuriana pretii. Hanc transcriptam apud nos habemus ita inscriptam: «An Romano Pontifici in fide et moribus sit ab omnibus tanquam regulae inerrabili obediendum».On the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and on his infallible magisterium the holy Doctor speaks very often, as occasion is offered, in his other books — briefly indeed, yet extolling in magnificent words the dignity, the prerogatives and the rights of the holy See. Compare, among others, above in the On Evangelical Perfection q. 2, a. 2, ad 19 (p. 147) and ibid. at the end (p. 155); below, the Breviloquium p. VI, c. 10 and c. 12; I Sent. d. 11, q. 1, in the body near the end; II Sent. d. 44, dubium 2; IV Sent. d. 18, p. II, q. 3, in the body; d. 19, a. 3, q. 1, in the body and dubium 6; d. 20, p. II, q. 3, in the body, and q. 6, fundamentum 3; d. 25, a. 1, q. 2, ad 4; the Apologia pauperum, chiefly response I, c. 1, at the beginning, response III, c. 2, at the end; the opuscule Why the Friars Minor preach (at the beginning); the Exposition on Luke, c. 9, 20; the Sermons on the Hexaëmeron, sermon 22, before the middle; the Exposition on the Rule, in the Prologue and in cc. 3 and 9. — But the excellent doctrine on the primacy of the supreme Pontiff, which in the passages cited is brought forward here and there, is in this disputed question deliberately and copiously proved and defended. And that same doctrine is of the greater value for this reason, that by the other and chief Scholastics of the thirteenth century the primacy of the supreme Pontiff was scarcely treated of set purpose in the schools, but only in passing, since his fullness of power was exercised in the west openly, publicly, and with all Christians consenting. But from the fourteenth century on, especially after that disastrous western schism, and in the centuries following, the true doctrine concerning the prerogatives of the supreme Pontiff was everywhere assailed with false opinions, even by catholic doctors. Hence it was necessary that in our own age Pius IX, with the Vatican Council approving, should by the dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus define the ancient catholic dogma and reprobate many contrary errors. And it is manifest that the doctrine of our Doctor so perfectly agrees with the Vatican decrees, that he himself seems as it were to have anticipated those things which are taught by that Council concerning the institution of the apostolic primacy (c. 1), its perpetuity (c. 2), its force and account (c. 3; on which compare especially above the replies to 9, 11, 13, 14, 15) and the infallible magisterium (c. 4). And although this last question is not here set forth expressed in the same formulas of words, yet the doctrine itself is clearly set forth. For that obedience which is inculcated comprehends also the obedience of faith (compare Rom. 1:5), and all judgments proposed to all by the Supreme teacher and pastor are declared to be utterly irrefragable (compare fundamenta 12, 13, 14, 23, and above all in the body, reason 3). Worthy of observation also are the words (in the reply to 1), that to be subject to another's power «is repugnant to supreme authority, and one cannot at the same time be bound to others in subjection and be set over them for governing». — At the end of the thirteenth century the famous Peter John Olivi, of the Order of Minors, also wrote a disputed question in favour of the privileges of the holy See, but of less value than this Bonaventuran one. We have a transcript of it in our possession, entitled thus: «Whether the Roman Pontiff is to be obeyed by all, in faith and morals, as an unerring rule».
- tr.Translator’s note: this one quotation holds both Latin words, and the pair is why the translation keeps them apart. Lumen is light as given off and received, which is precisely what Cyprian needs when he says the rays are many but the lumen is one — rays are lumen going out. Lux is light at its source, and a few lines later the Church of God is luce perfusa, suffused with a light poured into her from beyond herself. Render both "light" and the figure flattens to many rays, one light, suffused with light, and Cyprian’s argument — one thing diffused everywhere without the unity being divided — loses the distinction it is built on. So lumen is left as it stands and lux is "light", here and throughout. ---