Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 13: The Various Opinions Explained
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).
Now on the proposed question I find three opinions of the Doctors. The first is that a Council is above the Pontiff, which is asserted, first of all, by all the heretics of this time, and namely Hermann Hamelmann tries to prove it by many arguments (Book III, chapter 13, of the Prolegomena). The same is asserted by the Cardinal of Cambrai, John Gerson, Jacques Almain, and some others in their treatises on the power of the Church. Likewise Nicholas of Cusa (in his treatise On Canonical Concordance, Book II, last chapter), Panormitanus (on the chapter Significasti, in the title on election) and there too his master the Cardinal of Florence; likewise Abulensis (on Matthew 18, question 108, and in his Defense of Three Conclusions), and certain others.
That this opinion may be understood, it must be noted that there are two foundations of it. The first is that the Pope is not properly the head of the universal Church gathered together at once. This the heretics and the other authors do not understand in the same way. For the heretics will have it that the Pope is in no way the head of the whole Church, but only the bishop of his own particular Church, and at most the Patriarch of the West.
But the other authors cited teach that the Pope is head of all and each of the Churches, if they be taken separately, but not of the whole Church gathered together at once in a general Council. For then the Church takes as it were a certain form of a body, and all the power which was scattered in the various members is there united, so that to compare the Pope with the other Christians taken separately is to compare the noblest member with a less noble one; but to compare the Pope with a Council is to compare a part with its whole, and therefore a lesser with a greater.
And lest we say that a Council without the Pope is not a whole and perfect thing, but a body without a head, they add a second foundation, which is that the supreme ecclesiastical power is both in the Council and in the Pope, but in the Council more principally, more immediately, and more immovably. For they say that Christ immediately conferred all power of loosing and binding on the Church, and since the Church always endures, this power always remains immovably in it; but because the Church cannot always remain gathered together and exercise this power by itself, Christ instituted the supreme Pontiff as a general instrument for all the actions of the Church, and placed in him this supreme power, that he might exercise it in the name of the Church.
These authors differ among themselves in this: that some place this power formally and subjectively in the Pontiff alone, but place it in the Church as in an end, because it is for the sake of the Church, and as in a regulator, because it belongs to the Church to regulate and direct the Pope, since it cannot err, whereas the Pope can; and finally as in a supplier, because when the Pope fails through natural or civil death, the Church supplies his office. But others will have it to be formally and subjectively principally in the Church, instrumentally in the Pontiff. Yet they all agree in this: that they teach this power to be immediately in the Church, and therefore that, the Pope being dead, or deposed, or unwilling to be present at a Council, the Council is not on that account an imperfect body, but a perfect one, and has the papal power of defining about faith, sanctioning laws, granting indulgences, and so on. From which they deduce that a Council is above the Pope, and can judge and punish him, and that it is the same to ask whether the Pope is greater than a Council, as if it were asked whether a part is greater than its whole.
Finally, they will have the Pope to be in the Church what the Doge of Venice is in the Venetian Republic, or a master general in some religious order. For it is established that the Doge of Venice is above the individual magistrates and above the individual senators and Venetian cities, but not above the whole Senate collected together. And when the Doge dies, it is certain that all the authority, even the ducal, is in the Senate. In the same way too a master general is above the individual religious, even priors and provincials, yet is not above the general chapter, since he must obey it, not command it.
The second opinion is that of some canonists, who will have the Pope indeed to be above a Council, and to be unable to be judged by anyone against his will, but yet to be able to subject himself to a Council and to give it power over himself; and if he has done this, he must acquiesce in the Council’s sentence, even if his own deposition were treated of. So teaches the Gloss (on the canon Nos si incompetenter, cause 2, question 7, and on the canon In Synodo, distinction 63).
The last opinion is almost the common one: namely, that the Pope is so above a Council that he cannot even subject himself to its sentence, if a coercive sentence properly be treated of. This opinion seems to be that of the old Scholastics, as Albert, Blessed Thomas, Blessed Bonaventure, Richard, Paludanus, and others (on the fourth book, distinction 19, where the keys are treated of), though they did not professedly dispute this matter. But expressly this is taught by Saint Antoninus (part 3, title 22, chapter 10, section 4, of the Summary of history, and part 2, title 3, chapter 11, of the Theological Summary), John of Torquemada (Book II, chapters 93 and 104, of the Summary on the Church, and in his response to the Basel orators on the authority of the supreme Pontiff and a general Council), Alvarus Pelagius (On the Lament of the Church, Book I, article 6), Dominic Jacobatius (Book X On Councils, article 7, in which he disputes the question most fully and solves sixty-three arguments of the adversaries), Cardinal Cajetan (in his treatise On the Comparison of the Pope and Councils, and in the Apology for the aforesaid treatise), Albert Pighius (Book VI On the Hierarchy of the Church), Francis of Ferrara (on Book IV Against the Gentiles, chapter 76), Augustinus of Ancona (in his treatise On the Power of the Church), and Peter de Monte (in his book On the Power of the Pope and a Council), Francisco Torres (in the three books he wrote on this question), and almost all the canonists (on the chapter Significasti, on election, and the canon Si Papa, distinction 40), John Antony Delphinus (Book II On the Church, last chapter), Thomas Campegius (in his treatise On the Power of the Roman Pontiff, chapter 22 and following), Nicholas Sander (Book VII On the Visible Monarchy, where he treats of the Council of Constance, page 540).
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Explicantur opiniones diversce. Porro de proposita quaestione tres invenio Doctorum sententias. Prima est , Concilium • esse supra Pontificem, id quod asserunt in primis omnes haeretici hujus temporis, etno- minatim Hermannus Hamelmannus id pro¬ bare conatur multis argumentis lib. III, cap. 13. Prolegomenor. Idem asserit Cardi¬ nalis Cameracensis, Joannes Gerson , Jaco- bus Almainus, et alii nonnulli in suis tracta¬ tibus de potestate Ecclesiae. Item Nicolaus Gusanus in tractatu de concordantia cano¬ nica lib. II, cap. ult. Panormitanus in cap. Significasti, extra de elect. et ibidem Ma¬ gister ejus Cardinalis Florentinus ; itemAbu- lensis in cap. XVIII Matthaei, quaest. 108. et in defensorio trium conclusionum, et quidam alii. Ut autem haec sententia intelligatur, no¬ tandum est, dud esse fundamenta hujus opi¬ nionis. Primum est, Papam non esse pro¬ prie caput Ecclesiae universae simul congre¬ gatae. Id quod non eodem modo intelligunt haeretici, et alii auctores. Haeretici enim vo¬ lunt, Papam nullo modo esse caput Ecclesiae totius, sed tantum Episcopum suae Ecclesiae particularis, et ad summum, Patriarcham Occidentis. At alii auctores citati docent, Papam esse rum, et singularum Ecclesiarum , si seorsim sumantur, non autem totius Ecclesiae simul congregatae in Concilio generali. Tunc enim Ecclesia accipit quasi formam quamdam corporis; et tota potestas , quae erat sparsa in variis membris, ibi unitur, ita ut compa¬ rare Papam cum caeteris Christianis seorsum sumptis, sit comparare membrum nobilissi¬ mum cum minus nobili : At comparare Papam cum Concilio , sit comparare partem cum suo toto, et proinde minus cum ma¬ jore. Et ne dicamus, Concilium sine Papa non esse totum perfectum, sed corpus sine capi¬ te, addunt secundum fundamentum, quod est, supremam Ecclesiasticam potestatem esse tam in Concilio, quam in Papa , sed in Concilio principalius, immediatius, et immo¬ bilius. Dicunt enim , Christum immediate omnem potestatem solvendi et ligandi tri¬ buisse Ecclesiae, et cum Ecclesia semper du¬ ret, immobiliter in ea semper manere hanc potestatem : quia tamen non potest Ecclesia semper congregata manere, et exercere per se hanc potestatem, instituit Christus sum¬ mum Pontificem, tamquam instrumentum generale ad omnes actiones Ecclesiae, et in eo posuit hanc potestatem summam, ut eam exerceat nomine Ecclesiae. Differunt inter se hi auctores, quod aliqui ponunt hanc potestatem formaliter, et sub¬ jective in solo Pontifice , in Ecclesia autem ponunt eam ut in fine, quia est propter Ec¬ clesiam, et ut in regulante, quia Ecclesiae est regulare, et dirigere Papam , cum ipsa non possit errare, Papa autem possit; ac denique ut in supplente, quia deficiente Papa propter mortem naturalem aut civilem, Ecclesia sup¬ plet ejus officium. Alii vero volunt esse formaliter et subjec¬ tive principaliter in Ecclesia, instrumentali- ter in Pontifice. Conveniunt tamen in eo omnes, ut doceant esse hanc potestatem im¬ mediate in Ecclesia, et proinde mortuo Pa¬ pa, vel deposito, vel nolente adesse Conci¬ lio, Concilium non propterea esse corpus imperfectum, sed perfectum, et habere po¬ testatem Papalem definiendi de fide, san¬ ciendi leges, dandi indulgentias etc. Ex qui¬ bus deducunt, Concilium esse supra Papam, et posse ipsum judicare, et punire , et idem esse quaerere, an Papa sit major Concilio, ac si quaereretur, an pars sit major suo toto. Denique, volunt Papam esse in Ecclesia id, quod est Dux Venetiarum in Republica Veneta, vel Magister generalis in aliqua re¬ ligione. Constat enim Ducem Venetum esse supra singulos magistratus , et supra singu¬ los Senatores, et civitates Venetas, non ta¬ men supra totum Senatum simul collectum. Et quando moritur Dux , certum est totam auctoritatem etiam Ducalem esse in Senatu. Quomodo etiam Magister generalis, est supra singulos religiosos, etiam priores, et provin¬ ciales, tamen non est supra congregationem generalem, cum ei parere debeat, non impe¬ rare, Secunda opinio est aliquorum Canonista- rum, qui volunt Papam quidem esse supra Concilium, et a nemine judicari posse invi¬ tam, tamen posse ipsum sese subjicere Con¬ cilio, et dare illi supra se potestatem ; et si hoc fecerit, acquiescere debere sententiae Concilii , etiam si de ipsius depositione age¬ retur. Ita docet gloss. in can. Nos si incom¬ petenter, 2. quaest. 7. et in can. in Synodo, d. 63. Ultima sententia est fere communis, quod videlicet Papa adeo sit supra Concilium , ut non possit etiam se subjicere ejus sententiae, si proprie de sententia coactiva agatur. Hacc sententia videtur esse Scholasticorum vete¬ rum, ut Alberti, B. Thom. B. Bonavent. Ri- chardi, Paludani, et aliorum in IV. dist. 19. ubi de clavibus agitur, tametsi ex professo ipsi de hac re non disputarunt. Expresse au¬ tem hoc docent S. Antoninus 3. par. tit. XXII, cap. 10, §. 4. summae historialis, et 2. par. tit. III, cap. 11. summae Theologicae, Joan. de Turrecremata lib. II, cap. 93 et 104. summae de Ecclesia ; et in responsione ad oratores Basileenses de summi Pontificis et Concilii generalis auctorit. Alvarus Pela¬ gius de planctu Ecclesiae, lib. 'I, art. 6. Do¬ minicus Jacobatius lib. X de Concil. art. 7. in quo fusissime quaestionem disputat, et sol¬ vit sexaginta tria argumenta adversariorum. Cardinalis Cajetanus in tractatu de compa¬ ratione Papae , et Concilior, et in Apolog. pro tractatu praedicto. Albertus Pighius lib. VI de hierarchia Ecclesiae. Franciscus Fer- rariensis in lib. IV cont. Gentes , c. 76. Au¬ gustinus de Ancona in tractatu de potestate Ecclesiae, et Petrus de Monte in lib. de potes¬ tate Papae, et Concilii. Franciscus Turrianus in tribus libris, quos de hac quaestione scrip¬ sit; etCanonistae fere omnes in cap. Signifi¬ casti, de electione ; et can. Si Papa, dist. 40. Joannes Antonius Delphinus lib. II de Eccle¬ sia, cap. ult. Thomas Campegius in tractatu de potest. Romani Pontificis, cap. 22. et seq. Nicolaus Sanderus lib. VII de visibil. Monarchia, ubi agit de Concilio Constantiensi, pag. 540.