Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 12: Whether a Council Is Above the Pontiff
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Conciliis (De Conciliorum Auctoritate), On Councils, Book II (of the controversy On Councils and the Church). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
This question arose in the time of the Council of Pisa. For since the two Pontiffs who sat together in the schism, Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, did not seem seriously to think of removing the schism by a spontaneous abdication — as each had before his pontificate vowed and sworn — the cardinals of both parties withdrew to Pisa and began to treat whether it was lawful for them, against the will of those Pontiffs, to convoke a general Council and to depose those Pontiffs. Antoninus mentions this disputation, which was held at Florence (part 3 of the Summary of history, title 22, chapter 5, section 2).
Then, when a little after the Council of Constance was held, and John XXIII, who alone had come to the Council, had secretly departed from the Council, and so the Council remained without a head, the Fathers began to treat whether the Council could judge and depose the Pontiff against his will. But the greatest controversy grew in the time of the Council of Basel. For since Pope Eugene IV wished to dissolve the Council of Basel, once begun, and to prevent it from proceeding further, the Fathers began to ask whether they were bound to obey the Pontiff, or rather whether the Pontiff was bound to obey them, that is, the general Council; and because a little before they had seen two Pontiffs, John XXIII and Benedict XIII, deposed by the Council of Constance, and so an end put to a very great schism, they began to fear that if the Pontiff were bound to obey the Council, a schism might again be renewed, and the Church remain without any remedy. And so on this occasion very many then went into that opinion, that a Council is above the Pontiff. But while they wished to bar the way to schisms, they themselves made a new schism, creating the pseudo-pope Felix V, who afterward, recognizing his error, abdicated the pontificate. And although afterward, in the Council of Florence and the last Lateran, the question seems to have been defined, yet because the Council of Florence did not define this so expressly, and because concerning the Lateran Council, which most expressly defined the matter, some doubt whether it was truly general, therefore up to this day the question remains, even among Catholics.
It must be observed that the Pope can be compared with a Council in two ways. In one way, taking on the one side the Pope alone, true and undoubted, and on the other a general Council over which the Pope presides in person or by legates, so that nothing is defined without his consent. In another way, taking on the one side the Pope alone, and on the other a general Council over which the Pope presides neither in person nor by his legates. And I understand him not to preside by his legates even when a legate indeed sent by him presides at the Council but acts against the will of the Pontiff himself; for then he is not truly his legate, though he bear himself as such.
The present question, though to some it seems to turn chiefly on the former comparison — namely to those who hold that a Council without the Pope is not a true Council, and therefore that beyond doubt the Pope is greater than such a Council — yet in reality the chief question is of the latter comparison. This is plain, first, because this question was introduced on account of the deposition of Pontiffs, that is, to inquire whether the Pope even against his will could be judged, condemned, and deposed by a Council. But to this end that question — whether a Council with the Pope is greater than the Pope alone — is superfluous; for whether it be greater or less, it will never judge, nor condemn, nor depose the Pope against his will. For how would that Council do this, which does nothing without the Pope’s consent? Will the Pope himself wish to be judged and condemned against his will?
Secondly, the same is plain from the Council of Basel; for the Fathers of Basel, who defined that a Council is above the Pope, asserted that their Council of Basel was above Pope Eugene at the time when neither the Pope nor his legate was present at the Council. Nay, they even undertook to depose the Pope, who resisted in every way.
This, then, is the chief question, and the only one to be treated; for from the explanation of this it will also be plain what is to be said of the former. For those who teach that the Pope is above a Council celebrated without him, the same teach that the authority is equal in the Pope alone and in a Council with the Pope intensively, though extensively it is greater in the Council; and therefore that the Pope cannot be judged or condemned by such a Council, nor be bound by the decrees of such a Council coercively, but only directively, and that he can dispense in them, except the decrees of faith, which are immutable. The reason of these things is that an equal has no power over an equal. But those who teach that a Council without the Pope is above the Pope, teach also consequently that a Council with the Pope is above the Pope and binds the Pope — though the same men admit that the Pope, as minister of the Church, can dispense in the precepts of a general Council, but that if he dispense badly, he can afterward be corrected and punished by a general Council. This first comparison, then, being set aside, the second alone is to be treated.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. An Concilium sit supra Pontificem. Quaestio haec exorta est tempore Concilii Pisani, quia cum duo Pontifices, qui simul sedebant in schismate, Gregorius XII et Be¬ nedictus XIII, non viderentur serio cogitare de tollendo schismate per spontaneam abdi¬ cationem, quemadmodum ante Pontificatum uterque voverat, et juraverat, Cardinales utriusque partis secesserunt Pisam , et trac¬ tare coeperunt, an sibi liceret invitis Ponti¬ ficibus illis Concilium generale convocare, et eos Pontifices deponere. Meminit Anto¬ nius hujus disputationis, quae Florentiae ha¬ bita est, III. par. sum. hist. tit. XXII, c. 5, §.2. Deinde, cum paulo post fieret Concilium Constantiense, et Joannes XXIII , qui solus ad Concilium accesserat, a Concilio clam discessisset, atque ita Concilium sine capite remansisset, tractare Patres coeperunt, an Concilium posset, invitum Pontificem judi¬ care, et deponere. Sed maxima controversia crevit tempore Concilii Basileensis. Quia enim Eugenius PapalY, Concilium Basileen- se inchoatum dissolvere volebat , et impe¬ dire, ne ulterius progrederetur, coeperunt Patres quaerere, an tenerentur obedire Pon¬ tifici, an Pontifex potius teneretur obedire ipsis, id est, generali Concilio ; et quoniam paulo ante viderant duos Pontifices Joan- nem XXIII et Benedictum XIII depositos fuisse per Concilium Constantiense, et sic impositum finem maximo schismati ; coepe- . runt metuere, ne si Pontifex teneatur obe¬ dire Concilio , iterum schisma renovaretur, et sine ullo remedio Ecclesia remaneret. Ita¬ que hac occasione tunc plurimi in eam sen¬ tentiam iverunt , ut Concilium esset supra Pontificem. Sed dum voluerunt schismati¬ bus viam praecludere , ipsi novum schisma fecerunt, creato Pseudopapa Felice V, qui postea cognito errore, abdicavit se Pontifi¬ catu ; et quamvis postea in Concilio Floren¬ tino, et Lateranensi ultimo videatur quaes¬ tio definita, tamen quia Florentinum Conci¬ lium, non ita expresse hoc definivit, et de Con¬ cilio Lateranensi, quod expressissime rem definivit, nonnulli dubitant, an fuerit vere generale ; ideo usque ad hanc diem quaestio superest, etiam inter Catholicos. Observandum est autem , duobus modis posse comparari Papam cum Concilio : Uno modo, ut sumatur ab una parte solus Papa verus et indubitatus, ab altera Concilium ge¬ nerale, cui praesit Papa per se, vel per lega¬ tos, ita ut nihil definiatur sine consensu ip¬ sius : Altero modo, ut sumatur ab una parte solus Papa , ab altera Concilium generale, cui Papa nec per se, nec per suos legatos praesit. Intelligo autem non praesidere per suos legatos, etiam quando legatus quidem ab eo missus praeest Concilio , sed agit con¬ tra ipsius Pontificis voluntatem : tunc enim non est vere ej us legatus, licet pro tali se gerat. Quaestio praesens, licet nonnullis videatur praecipue versari circa priorem comparatio¬ nem, quippe qui existimant Concilium sine Papa non esse verum Concilium , et proinde sine dubio Papam esse majorem tali Conci¬ lio ; tamen revera quaestio praecipua est de Posteriore comparatione. Quod patet primo, quia ista quaestio introducta est propter Pon¬ tificum depositionem , id est, ad inquiren¬ dum, an Papa etiam invitus a Concilio judi¬ cari, damnari, et deponi posset. Ad hunc autem finem supervacanea est illa quaestio, an Concilium cum Papa, sit majus solo Pa¬ pa ; nam sive sit majus, sive minus, num- quam judicabit, neque damnabit, neque de¬ ponet invitum Papam. Quomodo enim hoc illud Concilium faceret, quod nihil agit sine consensu Papae ? Num Papa seipse invitum volet judicari, et damnari? Secundo, idem patet ex Concilio Basileen- si ; nam Basileenses Patres , qui definierunt Concilium esse supra Papam, suum Conci¬ lium Basileense asserebant esse supra Euge- nium Papam, eo tempore , quo in Concilio neque Papa, neque ejus Legatus aderat. Quin etiam Papam omnibus modis repug¬ nantem deponere aggressi sunt. Haec ergo est praecipua quaestio, et sola tractanda, nam ex hujus explicatione pate¬ bit etiam quid sit dicendum de priori. Qui enim docent, Papam esse supra Concilium sine ipso celebratum , iidem docent parem esse auctoritatem in solo Papa, et in Conci¬ lio cum Papa intensive, licet extensive sit major in Concilio : et proinde non posse a tali Concilio Papam judicari , vel damnari, nec ejusmodi Concilii decretis eum obligari coactive, sed tantum directive, et posse in eis dispensare, exceptis decretis de Fide, quae immutabilia sunt. Ratio horum est, quia par in parem non habet potestatem. Qui ve¬ ro docent, Concilium sine Papa esse supra Papam, docent etiam consequenter , Conci¬ lium cum Papa esse supra Papam, et obli¬ gare Papam, tametsi iidem fatentur, posse Papam tamquam ministrum Ecclesiae dis¬ pensare in praeceptis Concilii generalis , sed si male dispensaverit, posse corrigi et puniri postea a Concilio generali. Hac ergo prima comparatione omissa, sola secunda tractanda est.