Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 15: That the Supreme Power Is Not in a Council
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).
Let this now be the second proposition: “The supreme ecclesiastical power is not in the Church, or in a Council, with the Pope removed, either formally or by way of supplying.” This is against the second foundation of the adversaries. And that the supreme power, such as is in the Pope, is not formally in the Church or in a Council, is plainly gathered from the Scriptures. For according to the Scriptures the Church is not a democracy or an aristocracy, but a monarchy, or the kingdom of Christ, according to that word (Psalm 2): “But I am appointed King by Him over Sion His holy mountain.” And Luke 1: “Of His kingdom there shall be no end.” And in John 18, when He was asked, “Art thou a king then?” Christ did not say, “I am not a king,” or, “My kingdom is not in this world,” but said, “My kingdom is not of this world” — that is, it is indeed in this world, but it is not such a kingdom as you think, such as is that of Herod and like kings. Finally, Scripture everywhere calls Christ King and the Church His kingdom; from which it follows that the Church ought to be ruled by one, not by many, as all kingdoms are governed.
And that this authority is not in the Church by way of supplying is shown by this reason. The Church does not have this authority from itself, nor from another; therefore it in no way has it. That it does not have it from itself, the difference between the kingdom of Christ and other kingdoms manifestly proves; for the Church is not such a kingdom as are the kingdoms of this world, in which the supreme power is in the king, but proceeds and is derived from the people, and therefore radically and by way of supplying the same power is in the kingdom. For in the kingdom of Christ the supreme power is in Christ, and in no way derived from the people. For in the kingdoms of men the king’s power is from the people, because the people makes the king, who otherwise would be a private man like the rest; for all men are naturally free and equal, nor could one command the rest unless they subjected themselves to him and granted him power over themselves.
But Christ is God and man, and inasmuch as He is God, He is naturally Lord and King of all creatures; inasmuch as He is man, He has all power from God, nor was He Himself made King by the Church, but rather He Himself made the Church to be His kingdom. Revelation 5: “Thou hast made us a kingdom to our God.” Hence it is that in Scripture the kingdom of Christ, which is the Church, lest it be thought such as are the rest, is compared also to a household (Matthew 24): “Who is the faithful and prudent servant, whom his lord hath set over his household?” And Hebrews 3: Moses was faithful in the whole house of God as a servant, but Christ was faithful in His whole house as Lord. For it is established that a father of a household has no authority from the household, but from himself; because he is not made father by the household, but himself makes his household by begetting sons and buying servants. Whence a father of a household, even if he be most wicked, can never be judged or expelled by the household, as a king can be when he degenerates into a tyrant. It is compared also to a sheepfold (John 10); likewise to a body and a spouse (Ephesians 4 and 5), that we may understand that, as a shepherd does not receive authority from the sheep, nor a head from the body, nor a husband from a wife, so neither does Christ from the Church.
From these we hold that the Church has of itself no authority, but that all is in Christ and in those to whom Christ has communicated it. And that it does not have it from another, namely from Christ, is proved. For Christ is read indeed to have given Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16), and to have set the same over His sheepfold (John, last chapter). He also gave to the other Apostles the power of preaching, baptizing, forgiving sins, and doing certain other things which pertain to the episcopal office; but this power Christ gave to them individually, so that each of them could exercise all those things without the congregation of the others, as is well known. But that He gave any power to the Church itself, that is, to the whole body of the faithful in itself, that is, by reason of its totality, is nowhere read; nay, on the contrary, we read that peoples are commanded to obey and submit to their pastors (Hebrews 13 and elsewhere). But if no authority is given to the whole body of the Church, then neither to a general Council, inasmuch as it represents the universal Church. Therefore in a Council there is not the supreme, or papal, authority, but only the episcopal or archiepiscopal, according as are the persons who assemble there. For the supreme or papal authority is placed in a Council by the adversaries only inasmuch as the Council bears the office of the universal Church. If therefore the whole Church, the Pope set aside, does not have papal authority, then much less does a Council have it.
It is proved, secondly: for if a general Council without the person of the Pope had papal authority formally or by way of supplying, it would not need the confirmation of the Pope. But this is false. For it is established that all the Catholic general Councils sought confirmation.
Thirdly: a Council without the Pope can err even in decrees of faith, as is plain in the Council of Sirmium, to which Hosius subscribed; likewise in that of Milan, Ariminum, the Second of Ephesus, that of Constantinople under Justinian II, that of Constantinople under Leo the Isaurian, and another under Constantine Copronymus. But a Council with the Pope cannot err; therefore it cannot do without the Pope all those things which it can do with the Pope. Nor can it be answered that those Councils erred because they were not lawful; for to most of them nothing was lacking except the Pontiff’s assent. Nay, the Second of Ephesus was altogether similar to that of Basel; for each was summoned by the Pontiff, in each a legate of the Pontiff was present about the beginning, from each the legate of the Pontiff withdrew a little after, in each the Pontiff was excommunicated — all of which about Basel is plain from its acts described by Aeneas Sylvius, and about Ephesus is plain from Leo’s letters 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, and from the Council of Chalcedon (session 3); and yet that the Council of Ephesus erred the adversaries cannot deny.
Fourthly, if the supreme power were in the Church principally, in the Pope instrumentally, as in a minister of the Church (as they say), it would follow that the Pope is not the immediate vicar of Christ, but a mediate one; for the Church would be the immediate vicar of Christ, and the Pope would be the immediate vicar of the Church — which is expressly against the Council of Constance (session 8), where the heresy of Wycliffe is condemned, who said that the Pontiff is not the immediate vicar of Christ.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. Non esse in Concilio summam potestatem. Sit jam altera propositio : « Summa Po¬ testas Ecclesiastica non est in Ecclesia, vel Concilio, remoto Papa, aut formaliter, aut suppleti ve. » Haec est contra alterum funda¬ mentum adversariorum ; et quidem non esse formaliter in Ecclesia , vel in Concilio sum¬ mam potestatem, qualis est in Papa, ex Scripturis aperte colligitur. Nam secundum Scripturas Ecclesia non est Democratia , vel Aristopratia , sed Monarchia, sive regnum Christi , juxta illud Psalm. II : Ego autem constitutus sum Rex ab eo super Sion montem sanctum ejus. Et Lucae I : Regni ejus non erit finis. Et Joan. XVIII non dixit Christus cum interrogaretur : Ergo Rex es tu? non sum Rex, aut, regnum meum non est in hoc mun¬ do, sed ait : Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo (1) ; id est, est quidem in hoc mundo, sed non^st tale regnum, quale tu putas, quale esrHerodis, et similium Regum. Deni¬ que, Scriptura passim vocat Christum Re¬ gem, et Ecclesiam regnum ejus, ex quo se¬ quitur, ut ab uno regi debeat , non a multis ipsa Ecclesia, quemadmodum gubernantur omnia regna. Quod autem non sit suppletive haec aucto¬ ritas in Ecclesia, ostenditur hac ratione. Non habet Ecclesia hanc auctoritatem a seipsa, nec ab alio ; igitur nullo modo habet. Quod a seipsa non habeat, manifeste probat dis¬ crimen, quod est inter regnum Christi, et regna caetera ; non enim est Ecclesia tale regnum, qualia sunt regna hujus mundi, in quibus summa potestas est in rege , sed a populo profecta, et derivata, et proinde ra¬ dicaliter, et suppletive eadem potestas est in regno. Nam in regno Christi summa potes¬ tas est in Christo, et non derivata ullo modo a populo. In regnis enim hominum, potestas regis est a populo, quia populus facit regem, qui alioqui esset homo privatus, sicut caeteri ; omnes enim homines naturaliter sunt liberi, et aequales, nec posset unus cseteris imperare, nisi illi se ei subjicerent, et super se potesta¬ tem ei concederent. At Christus est Deus et homo, et quatenus Deus, est naturaliter Dominus, et Rex om¬ nium creaturarum ; quatenus homo, habet a Deo omnem potestatem, nec ipse ab Eccle¬ sia factus est Rex, sed ipse potius fecit Ec¬ clesiam esse suum regnum. Apoc. V : Fecis¬ ti nos Deo nostro regnum. Hinc est, quod in Scriptura, regnum Christi, quod est Eccle¬ sia, ne putaretur tale, qualia sunt caetera, comparatur etiam familiae, Matth. XXIV : Quis est fidelis servus , et prudens, quem cons¬ tituit Dominus super familiam suam (2). Et Hebr. III, Moses erat fidelis in tota domo Dei tamquam servus, Christus autem erat fidelis in tota domo sua tamquam Dominus. Cons¬ tat enim patrem familias non habere a fami¬ lia ullam auctoritatem, sed ex se ; quia non ipse a familia constituitur pater, sed ipse fa¬ cit sibi familiam gignendo filios, emendo servos. Unde paterfamilias, etiamsi pessimus sit, nunquam potest a familia judicari, vel expelli, sicut potest Rex quando degenerat in tyrannum. Comparatur etiam ovili, Joan. X. Item corpori, et sponsae, Ephes. IV et V ut intelligamus, quod sicut non accipit auc¬ toritatem pastor ab ovibus, nec caput a cor¬ pore, vir ab uxore, ita neque Christus ab Ecclesia. / Ex his habemus Ecclesiam ex se nullam habere auctoritatem, sed omnem esse in Christo, et iis, quibus Christus eam commu¬ nicavit. Quod autem non habeat ab alio, ni¬ mirum a Christo, probatur. Nam Christus legitur quidem dedisse Petro claves regni coelorum, Matthaei XVI, et eumdem praefe¬ cisse ovili suo, Joan. ult. Dedit etiam Apos¬ tolis caeteris potestatem praedicandi, bapti¬ zandi, peccata dimittendi, et alia quaedam faciendi, quae ad munus Episcopale spectant, sed hanc potestatem Christus singulis dedit, ita ut potuerit quisque eorum illa omnia exercere sine congregatione aliorum, ut no¬ tum est : At quod ipsi Ecclesiae, id est, fide¬ lium universitati in se, id est, ratione suae totalitatis aliquid potestatis tribuerit, nus- (1) Psal. II, 6: Luc. I, 33; Joan. XVIII, 36. (2) Apoc. V, 10; Matth. XXIV, 45. quam legitur ; imo e contrario legimus, prae¬ cipi populis, ut obediant, et subjaceant pas¬ toribus suis, Hebr. XIII et alibi. Quod si Ec¬ clesiae universitati non est data ulla auctori¬ tas, ergo neque Concilio generali, quatenus Ecclesiam universalem repraesentat. Ergo in Concilio non est auctoritas summa, sive Pa- palis, sed tantum Episcopalis, seu Archiepis- copalis, prout sunt personae, quae ibi conve¬ niunt. Siquidem summa, seu Papalis aucto¬ ritas non ponitur in Concilio ab adversariis, nisi quatenus Concilium gerit vicem Eccle¬ siae universae. Si ergo Ecclesia universa, se¬ cluso Papa, non habet Papalem auctorita¬ tem, ergo multo minus Concilium habet. Probatur secundo : nam si Concilium ge¬ nerale sine persona Papae haberet Papalem auctoritatem formaliter, vel suppletive, non indigejet confirmatione Papae. Id autem est falsum. Constat enim omnia generalia Con¬ cilia Catholica confirmationem petiisse. Tertio : Concilium sine Papa potest-errare etiam in fidei Mecretis, ut patet in Concilio Sirmiensi, cui subscripsit Hosius ; item Me¬ diolanensi, Ariminensi, Ephesino II, Cons- tantinopolitano sub Justiniano II, Constan- tinopolitano sub Leone Isauro, et alio sub Constantino Copronymo. At Concilium cum Papa non potest errare : ergo non potest sine Papa omnia illa, quae potest cum Papa. Neque potest responderi, errasse illa Conci¬ lia, quod non fuerint legitima, nam pleris- que nihil defuit, nisi Pontificis assensus. Imo Ephesinum II fuit omnino simile Basileensi, utrumque enim fuit indictum a Pontifice, in utroque adfuit legatus Pontificis circa ini¬ tium, ab utroque recessit paulo post Legatus Pontificis, in utroque fuit Pontifex excom- municatus, quae omnia de Basileensi patent ex gestis ejus ab Hxnea Sylvio descriptis. De Ephesino autem patet ex epist. Leonis 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, et ex Concilio Cbalcedonensi, act. 3. et nihilominus errasse Concilium Ephesinum adversarii negare non possunt. Quarto, si in Ecclesia esset summa potes¬ tas principaliter, in Papa instrumentaliter, ut in ministro Ecclesiae, ut ipsi dicunt, se¬ queretur Papam non esse immediatum Christi vicarium, sed mediatum ; immediate enim vicaria Christi esset Ecclesia, Papa autem esset immediatus vicarius Ecclesiae, quod est expresse contra Concilium Cons- tantiense, sess. VIII, ubi damnatur hairesis Wiclefi, dicentis, non esse Pontificem imme¬ diatum Christi vicarium.