Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book II
Chapter 16: That the Supreme Pontiff Is Absolutely Above 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).
The third proposition: “The supreme Pontiff is simply and absolutely above the universal Church and above a general Council, so that he acknowledges no judgment on earth above himself.” This too is almost of faith; and it is proved, first, from the two preceding propositions. For if the Pope is head of the universal Church, even gathered together, and the universal Church even gathered together has no power by reason of its totality, it follows that the Pope is above a Council and above the Church, not the contrary.
It is proved, secondly, by a reason founded on the Scriptures. For all the names which in the Scriptures are attributed to Christ, whence it is established that He is above the Church, are all attributed to the Pontiff. And first, Christ is the father of the household in His house, which is the Church; the Pontiff in the same is the supreme steward, that is, the father of the household in Christ’s place (Luke 12): “Who is the faithful and prudent dispenser, whom the Lord hath set over His household?” For here by “dispenser,” or “steward,” as it is in the Greek, they understand a bishop — Ambrose on this passage, and Hilary and Jerome on Matthew 24, where a similar sentence is had. And although the Fathers do not speak expressly of the Roman bishop, yet without doubt that is the sense of Scripture: as particular bishops are supreme stewards in their own Churches, so is the Roman bishop in the universal Church. Whence Ambrose on that word (1 Timothy 3), “That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,” says: “The house of God is called the Church, whose ruler today is Damasus.” And Chrysostom (Book II On the Priesthood, near the beginning) expounds this very passage, “Who is the faithful servant?” and so on, of Peter.
And that the supreme steward is above the household and cannot be judged and punished by it, is plain from this same passage; for the Lord says, “Whom the Lord hath set over His household.” And in the same place: “But if that servant shall say in his heart, My lord is long in coming, and shall begin to strike the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the lord of that servant will come in the day he hopeth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint his portion with the unbelievers.” Here you see the Lord reserving that servant to His own judgment, and not committing him to the judgment of the household. The same the usage of all households teaches; for there is no household in which it is lawful for the lower servants, even gathered together, to punish or expel the steward, even if he be most wicked; for that pertains to the Lord of the whole household alone.
Another name of Christ is Shepherd (John 10): “I am the good Shepherd,” and so on. The same He communicates to Peter (John, last chapter): “Feed my sheep.” And it is established that a shepherd so presides over the sheep that he can in no way be judged by them.
The third is Head of the body of the Church (Ephesians 4); the same He communicates to Peter, as we have in the Council of Chalcedon (session 3), where the legates pronounce sentence upon Dioscorus, and in the Council’s letter to Leo. Now for a head to be ruled by the members, and not rather to rule them, is against nature, as it is also against nature for the members to cut off their own head when perhaps it is gravely ill.
The fourth is Husband, or Spouse (Ephesians 5): “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself up for her,” and so on. The same befits Peter; for in the general Council of Lyons, as is had in the chapter Ubi periculum (on election, in the Sext), the Council, speaking of the election of the Roman Pontiff, says: “Let the provision, useful and necessary for the whole world, be hastened, a fitting spouse being quickly given to that same Church.” But it is against the Apostle (Ephesians 5) and against the order of nature that a spouse should preside over her husband, and not rather be subject.
It is proved, secondly, from the express words of Councils and Pontiffs. For since this controversy is about the power of Councils and Pontiffs, if Councils and Pontiffs agree among themselves, what need is there for us to dispute? First, then, there stands the Council of Sinuessa under Marcellinus, at the end of which we read: “The first see shall be judged by no one.” A little after stood the Roman Council under Sylvester, in whose last canon we likewise read: “No one shall judge the first see.”
Besides, from the Council of Chalcedon it is gathered that the Pontiff is greater than a Council; for in session 3 many letters written from various places to the Council are recited, all of which begin thus: “To the most holy and most blessed universal Patriarch of great Rome, Leo, and to the holy universal Council gathered in the city of Chalcedon,” and so on. But there was no one in the whole Council who protested and said that the Pontiff ought not to be set before the whole Council. Nay, at the end of that session there stands the Council’s letter to the same Leo, in which they acknowledge him both their head and their father. Besides, in the same session Dioscorus was condemned with the whole Second Synod of Ephesus, both for other causes and chiefly because he had dared to judge and condemn the Roman Pontiff Leo. For as Nicholas I says in his letter to Michael, Dioscorus was condemned not so much for heresy as for the horrible presumption by which he had dared to dictate a sentence against the supreme Pontiff. Where it is to be noted that if Dioscorus, who was Patriarch of Alexandria, that is, the first after the Roman, could not, together with a general Council, lawfully judge the Roman Pontiff, it certainly follows evidently that a Council is not above the Pontiff. For why could he not judge the Pontiff, if he was above him — nay, his judge, as the adversaries will have it?
Likewise the Fifth Roman Council under Symmachus received and approved, as its own decrees, the book of Ennodius the Deacon, in which we read thus: “God willed the causes of other men to be ended by men. The prelate of that see He reserved to His own judgment without question; He willed the successors of Peter the Apostle to owe their innocence to heaven alone.” In the Eighth general Synod (session 7) we read that the Roman Pontiff has judged concerning the prelates of all the Churches, but that concerning him no one ever judged — understand, lawfully, so that such a judgment was received by the Church. Platina (in the life of Leo III) and Paulus Aemilius (Book III of the history of the Franks) write that when Charlemagne had come to Rome to hear the cause of Pope Leo, against whom many crimes had been charged, and a great Council of bishops had assembled at the same time, all the bishops with one voice cried that it was not lawful for any of men to judge the supreme Pontiff; and then Charles desisted from that office of judging, and Leo purged himself by an oath.
Besides, the Lateran Council under Alexander III, as is had in the chapter Licet (on election), says: “In the Roman Church something is specially constituted, because recourse cannot be had to a superior.” Where the Council teaches that the Roman Pontiff must be elected with greater caution than other bishops, because if a bad bishop be elected, he can be corrected and deposed by the Roman Pontiff; but if a bad supreme Pontiff be elected, there is no remedy, for he has no superior by whom he can be deposed. Likewise in the Council of Constance a Bull of Martin V was issued, the Council itself approving, in which those suspected of heresy are ordered to be asked whether they do not believe that the Roman Pontiff has in the Church of God the supreme power. But that power is certainly supreme than which none is greater, and to which none is equal.
Finally, the last Lateran under Leo X (session 11) expressly and professedly taught that the Pontiff is above all Councils, and reproved the contrary decree issued in the Council of Basel: “That the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full right and power of indicting, transferring, and dissolving Councils, is manifestly established, not only from the testimony of sacred Scripture, the sayings of the holy Fathers and of other Roman Pontiffs, but also from the very confession of those same Councils.”
To this passage nothing can be answered, except either that it was not a general Council, or that it was not received by the Church, or that it did not define this as of faith. But that it was not general can scarcely be said; for although the bishops were very few, for they did not reach a hundred, yet the Council was open to all, and all had been summoned, and in it the true and undoubted supreme Pontiff presided. And that it was not received, at least by all, matters little; for the decrees of Councils do not need the approval of the people, since they do not receive their authority from it. It is true indeed that decrees about morals, if they are not received and the Pontiff connives, are at length abrogated by custom; but this happens not because they need the people’s approval, but because the decrees are changeable; and when the Pontiff sees them for a long time not observed, and is silent, he is deemed himself to abrogate them. But decrees of faith are immutable, and cannot in any way be abrogated once they have been established; and such is this one of which we treat. But that this Council did not define this matter properly, as a decree to be held with Catholic faith, is doubtful, and therefore those who hold the contrary are not properly heretics, but cannot be excused from great rashness.
Now let the Pontiffs come in, thirdly. Leo (letter 84 to Anastasius, at the end): “By God’s great disposition it was provided that not all should claim all things to themselves, but that there should be in the several provinces several persons whose sentence should be held first among the brethren, and again that certain persons set in the greater cities should undertake a fuller solicitude, through whom the care of the universal Church should flow together to the one see of Peter, so that nothing should ever dissent from its head.” Now if the care of the universal Church pertains to Peter, certainly also that of a Council, which bears the office of the universal Church.
Gelasius (in his letter to the bishops of Dardania): “The whole Church throughout the world knows that the most sacred Roman see has the right of judging concerning all, and that it is not lawful for anyone to judge concerning its judgment.”
Nicholas I (in his letter to Michael) repeats the same: “It is plainly evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is none greater, is to be retracted by no one.”
Gregory (Book IX, letter 39, to the patrician Theoctista): “If Blessed Peter, when he was blamed by the faithful, had regarded the authority which he had received over the holy Church, he could have answered that the sheep ought not to dare to reprehend their shepherd. But if in the complaint of the faithful he had said anything of his own power, he would not have been a teacher of meekness; therefore he appeased them by a humble reason.”
Pope Paschal, as is had in the chapter Significasti (on election): “They say it is not found established in the Councils — as though any Councils had prescribed a law to the Roman Church, when all Councils have both been made and received their force through the authority of the Roman Church, and in their statutes the authority of the Roman Pontiff is openly excepted.”
Innocent III (sermon 2 on the consecration of a Pontiff): “So far is faith necessary to me that, whereas for other sins I have God as my judge, for the sole sin which is committed in faith I could be judged by the Church.”
Boniface VIII (in the extravagant Unam sanctam, in the title on majority and obedience): “If the earthly power deviates, it will be judged by the spiritual power. If the spiritual power deviates, the lesser by the greater. But if the supreme power deviates, it can be judged by God alone, not by man.” Let there be added the testimony of Saint Boniface, bishop of Mainz, who, even if he was not supreme Pontiff, was yet of the highest authority. He, then, as is had (distinction 40, canon Si Papa): “He who is to judge all is to be judged by no one, unless he be found deviating from the faith.”
It is proved, fourthly, from appeals from a Council to the Pope; for without controversy appeal is always made from a lesser to a greater. But that appeal is made from a Council to the Pope, not the contrary, is plain from Gelasius (in his letter to the bishops of Dardania): “Appeal is to be made to the Apostolic See from any part of the world; but from it no one is permitted to appeal.”
And lest we think he speaks of an appeal from some bishop, not from a Council, he adds that the Roman Pontiffs have often loosed those whom Councils had unjustly bound; of which thing there stand most clear examples. For Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and Paul, bishop of Constantinople, deposed by a Council, appealed to Pope Julius, and were restored by him to their sees, as Sozomen relates (Book III of the history, chapter 7). Similarly Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, appealed from the general Second Council of Ephesus to Pope Leo, as Leo testifies (letter 25 to Theodosius Augustus). Likewise Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, appealed from the same Second Council of Ephesus to the same Leo, as is plain from Liberatus (in his Breviary, chapter 12) and from Theodoret’s own letter, which stands at the end of Leo’s works. Finally John Chrysostom, deposed by a Council, appealed to Pope Innocent, as Gelasius testifies (as above), and the same is gathered from Chrysostom’s letters to Innocent.
It is proved, fifthly, from the approval and reproval of Councils; for all are at length brought back to the examination of the Roman Pontiff, and what he approves is received, what he disapproves is rejected, as Gelasius testifies in the same letter to the bishops of Dardania. And that the Pontiff approved many Councils at the petition of the Councils, is plain from the very acts of the Councils, chiefly the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth.
And that the Pontiffs sometimes reproved the decrees of Councils — which is an open sign of superiority — is plain from Basil, who in his letter to Athanasius (which is the 52nd) writes that it seems good to him that the Roman bishop be asked to send some men into Greece who in his name might annul the Council of Ariminum. Damasus himself too, in his letter to the bishops of Illyria, reproves that Council. Similarly Leo (letter 55 to Pulcheria): “The confessions of bishops repugnant to the rules of the canons established at Nicaea we send to nought, and by the authority of Blessed Peter the Apostle we utterly annul by a general definition.” Blessed Gregory (Book IV, letter 34): “All the acts of that Synod, the Apostolic See contradicting, are dissolved.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. Summum Pontificem absolute esse supra Concilium. Tertia propositio. « Summus Pontifex simpliciter et absolute est supra Ecclesiam universam, et supra Concilium generale, ita ut nullum in terris supra se judicium agnos¬ cat. » Haec etiam est fere de fide ; et pro¬ batur primo ex duabus praecedentibus : nam si Papa est caput Ecclesiae universae, etiam simul congregatae, et Ecclesia universa etiam simul congregata non habet ullam potesta¬ tem ratione suae totalitatis ; sequitur Papam supra Concilium esse, et supra Ecclesiam, non contra. Secundo probatur ratione, in Scripturis fundata ; nam omnia nomina, quae in Scrip¬ turis tribuuntur Christo, unde constat eum esse supra Ecclesiam, eadem omnia tribuun¬ tur Pontifici. Ac primum, Christus est pater- familias in domo sua, quse est Ecclesia, Pon¬ tifex in eadem est summus oeconomus, id est, paterfamilias loco Christi, Lucae XII : Quis est fidelis dispensator , et prudens , quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam etc. (1). Hic enim per dispensatorem, sive oecono¬ mum, ut Graece habetur, intelligunt Episco¬ pum. Ambrosius in hunc locum, et Hilarius, et Hieronymus in cap. XXIV Matth. ubi si¬ milis habetur sententia. Et quamvis Patres non loquantur expresse de Episcopo Roma¬ no, tamen sine dubio sententia Scripturae illa est ; ut Episcopi particulares sunt summi oeconomi in suis Ecclesiis, ita esse Episco¬ pum Romanum in Ecclesia universa. Unde Ambrosius in illud I. Tim. III : Ut scias quo¬ modo te oporteat conversari in domo Dei etc. « Domus Dei, inquit, Ecclesia dicitur, cujus hodie rector estDamasus. n Et Cbrysosto- mus lib. It de sacerdotio circa initium, hunc ipsum locum : Quis est fidelis servus etc. de Petro exponit. Quod autem oeconomus summus sit supra familiam, et ab ea judicari, ac puniri non (1) Lue* XII, 42. h possit, patet ex hoc eodem loco, Dominus enim ait : Quem constituit Dominus super fa¬ miliam suam. Et ibidem : Quod si dixerit ser¬ vus ille in corde suo , moram facit Dominus meus venire et eceperit percutere servos , et an¬ cillas , edere , et bibere , et inebriari, veniet Do¬ minus servi illius in die, qua non sperat , et di¬ videt eum, partemque ejus cum infidelibus po¬ net (i). libi vides -Dominam servare suo ju¬ dicio servum illum, et non committere judi¬ cio familiae. Idem etiam docet usus omnium familiarum ; nulla enim familia est, in qua liceat inferioribus famulis etiam simul con¬ gregatis punire, vel expellere oeconomum, etiamsi pessimus sit, id enim ad solum Do¬ minum totius familise pertinet. Alterum nomen Christi est Pastor, Joan- nis X : Ego sum Pastor bonus etc. (2). Idem communicat Petro, Joan. ult. Pasce oves meas. Constat autem pastorem ita preeesse ovibus, ut nullo modo ab eis judicari possit. Tertium est , Caput corporis Ecclesiae, Ephes. IY idem communicat Petro, ut ha¬ bemus in Concilio Chalcedonensi, act. 3. ubi legati sententiam pronuntiant in Dioscorum, et in epist. Concilii ad Leonem. Porro caput a membris regi, et non ea potius regere, contra naturam est, sicut etiam est contra naturam, quod membra sibi caput prseci- dant, cum forte graviter aegrotat. Quartum est, Yir, seu sponsus, Ephes. V : Viri diligite uxores vestras , sicut Christus di- lexit Ecclesiam , et tradidit seipsum pro ea etc. (3). Idem convenit Petro, nam in Con¬ cilio generali Lugdunensi, ut habetur cap^ Ubi periculum, de elect. in 6. loquens Con¬ cilium de electione Romani Pontificis : ((Ac¬ celeret, inquit, utilis per necessaria totius mundi provisio, idoneo celeriter eidem Ec¬ clesiae sponso dato. » Est autem contra Apostolum Ephes. V et contra naturae ordi¬ nem, ut sponsa praesit sponso, et non potius subsit. Probatur secundo ex verbis expressis Con¬ ciliorum, et Pontificum. Cum enim contro¬ versia ista sit de potestate Conciliorum, et Pontificum, si inter se Concilia et Pontifices conveniunt, quid opus est, ut nos litigemus? Primum ergo exstat Concilium Sinuessanum sub Marcellino, in cujus fine legimus : « Pri¬ ma sedes a nemine judicabitur (4). » Paulo post exstitit Concilium Romanum sub Syl- vestro, in cujus ult. can. similiter legimus : « Nemo judicabit primam sedem. » Praeterea ex Concilio Chalcedonensi colli¬ gitur Pontificem esse majorem Concilio, nam act. 3. recitantur, multae epistolae scriptae ex variis locis ad Concilium, quae omnes ita incipiunt : « Sanctissimo et beatissimo uni¬ versali Patriarchae magnae Romae Leoni, et sancto universali Concilio congregato in Chalcedonensi civitate etc. » Nemo autem in toto Concilio fuit, qui reclamarit, ac di¬ xerit, non debere anteponi Pontificem toti Concilio. Imo in fine illius actionis exstat epistola Concilii ad eumdem Leonem, in qua eum, et caput, et patrem suum agnoscunt. Praeterea in eadem actione damnatus est Dioscorus cum tota Synodo Ephesina II, tum ob alias causas, tum praecipue quia judicare, et damnare ausus fuerat Romanum Pontifi¬ cem Leonem. Ut enim Nicolaus I ait in epis¬ tola ad Michaelem, non tam ob haeresim damnatus est Dioscorus, quam ob horren¬ dam praesumptionem, qua in summum Pon¬ tificem sententiam dictare ausus fuerat. Ubi notandum, quod si Dioscorus, qui erat Pa¬ triarcha Alexandrinus, id est, primus post Romanum, cum generali Concilio non potuit jure judicare Romanum Pontificem, certe sequitur evidenter, Concilium non esse su¬ pra Pontificem. Cur enim non potuit Pontifi¬ cem judicare, si erat supra ipsum, imo ejus judex, ut adversarii volunt? Item Concilium Romanum V sub Sym¬ macho recepit, et approbavit tamquam sua decreta, librum Ennodii Diaconi, in quo sic legimus : « Aliorum hominum causas Deus voluit per homines terminari. Sedis istius praesulem suo sine quaestione reservavit ar¬ bitrio, voluit Petri Apostoli successores coelo tantum debere innocentiam. » In VIII Syno¬ do generali action. 7. legimus, Romanum Pontificem de omnium Ecclesiarum praesu¬ libus judicasse ; de eo vero neminem un¬ quam judicasse; intellige, legitime, ita ut fuerit receptum ab Ecclesia ejusmodi judi¬ cium. Scribunt Platina in vita Leonis III, Paulus iEmilius lib. III historiae Francorum, cum Carulus Magnus Romam venisset ad cognoscendam causam Leonis Pontificis, cui multa crimina objecta fuerant, et simul con¬ venisset ingens Concilium Episcoporum, om¬ nes Episcopos una voce clamasse, non licere (1) Luc. XII, 45. — (2) Joan. X, 14. — (3) Eph. V, 25. — (4) De hujus Concilii authenticitate non constat. ulli hominum judicare summum Pontificem, tum vero Carolum destitisse a munere illo judicandi, et Leonem juramento seipsum purgasse. Praeterea Concil. Lateranense sub Alexan¬ dro III, ut habetur cap. Licet, extra de elec¬ tione : « In Romana Ecclesia, inquit, aliquid specialiter constituitur, quia non poterit ad superiorem haberi recursus. » Ubi Concilium docet, majori cautela debere eligi Romanum Pontificem, quam alios Episcopos, quia si eligatur malus Episcopus, potest ille corrigi, et dejioni per Romanum Pontificem ; si au¬ tem eligatur malus Pontifex summus, non est remedium ullum, non enim habet supe¬ riorem, a quo deponi possit. Item in Cons- tantiensi Concilio edita est Bulla Martini Y, ipso approbante Concilio, in qua jubentur suspecti de haeresi interrogari, an non cre¬ dant Romanum Pontificem habere in Eccle¬ sia Dei supremam potestatem. At certe su¬ prema est, qua nulla est major, et cui nulla aequalis. Denique Lateranense ultimum sub Leone X, sess. XI diserte et ex professo docuit, Pontificem esse supra omnia Concilia, et re¬ probavit contrarium decretum, editum in Concilio Basileensi : « Solum, inquit, Roma¬ num Pontificem , tamquam super omnia Concilia auctoritatem habentem, Concilio¬ rum indicendorum, transferendorum, ac dissolvendorum plenum jus, et potestatem habere, nedum ex sacrae Scripturas testimo¬ nio, dictis sanctorum Patrum ac aliorum Romanorum Pontificum, sed propria etiam eorumdem Conciliorum confessione, mani¬ feste constat. » Ad hunc locum- nihil potest responde¬ ri, nisi vel non fuisse Concilium generale, vel non fuisse ab Ecclesia receptum, vel non definivisse hoc, tamquam de fide. Sed non fuisse generale, vix dici potest ; nam etsi fuerunt Episcopi paucissimi, nam ad centum non pervenerunt ; tamen Concilium omnibus patebat, et omnes vocati fuerant, et in eo summus Pontifex verus, et indubitatus prae¬ sidebat. Quod autem non fuerit receptum, saltem ab omnibus, parum refert, nam de¬ creta Conciliorum non indigent approbatione populi, cum ab eo non accipiant auctorita¬ tem. Verum est quidem, decreta de moribus, si non recipiantur, et Pontifex conniveat, tandem consuetudine abrogari : sed hoc non accidit ex eo quod indigeant populi appro¬ batione, sed quia decreta mutabilia sunt ; et cum Pontifex videt longo tempore ea non servari, et tacet, censetur ipse abrogare. At decreta de Fide immutabilia sunt, nec pos¬ sunt ullo modo abrogari, posteaquam semel statuta sunt ; tale autem est hoc, de quo agimus. Quod vero Concilium hoc rem istam non definierit, proprie, ut decretum fide Catholica tenendum, dubium est, et ideo non sunt proprie haeretici, qui contrarium sentiunt, sed a temeritate magna excusari non possunt. Accedant jam tertio Pontifices. Leo epist. 84. ad Anastasium, in fine : « Magna, in¬ quit, Dei dispositione provisum est, ne om¬ nes sibi omnia vendicarent, sed essent in singulis provinciis singuli , quorum inter fratres haberetur prima sententia, et rursum quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti sol¬ licitudinem susciperent ampliorem, per quos, ad unam Petri sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret, ut nihil unquam a suo ca¬ pite dissideret. » Jam si cura universalis Ecclesiae ad Petrum pertinet , certe etiam Concilii, quod universalis Ecclesiae vicem gerit. Gelasiusin epist. ad Episcopos Dardaniae, « Cuncta, inquit, per mundum novit Eccle¬ sia quod sacrosancta Romana sedes fas de omnibus habeat judicandi, nec cuique liceat de ejus judicare judicio. » Nicolaus I. in epist. ad Michaelem, idem repetit : « Patet, inquit, profecto sedis Apo- stolicae, cujus auctoritate major non est, ju¬ dicium, a nemine fore retractandum. » Gregorius lib. IX, epist. 39. ad Theotis- tam patritiam : « Si, inquit, B. Petrus, cum a fidelibus culparetur, auctoritatem, quam in sanctam Ecclesiam acceperat, attendisset, respondere poterat : ut Pastorem suum oves reprehendere non auderent. Sed si in que¬ rela fidelium aliquid de sua potestate dice¬ ret, doctor mansuetudinis non fuisset ; hu¬ mili ergo eos ratione placavit. » Paschalis Papa , ut habetur cap. Signifi¬ casti, extra de electione : «Aiunt, inquit, in Conciliis statutum non inveniri, quasi Roma¬ nae Ecclesiae legem Concilia ulla praefixerint, cum omnia Concilia per Romanae Ecclesia; auctoritatem et facta sint, et robur accepe¬ rint, et in eorum statutis, Romani Pontificis patenter excipiatur auctoritas. » Innocentius III, serm. 2. de consecratione Pontificis: «In tantum, inquit, mihi fides necessaria est , ut cum de caeteris peccati» Deum judicem habeam, propter solum pec- catum, quod in fide committitur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. » Bonifacius VIII , in extravaganti , Viam sanctam, titulo de majoritate, et obedientia: « Si deviat, inquit, terrena potestas, judica¬ bitur a potestate spirituali , Si deviat spiri¬ tualis, minor a majori. Si vero suprema, a Deo solo , non ab homine poterit judicari. » Accedat testimonium S. Bonifacii Episcopi Moguntini, qui etiam si summus Pontifex non fuerit, fuit tamen summae auctoritatis. Is ergo, ut habetur distinet. 40. can. si Papa : «Cunctos, inquit, judicaturus, a nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide de¬ vius. » Probatur Quarto ex appellationibus aCon- cilio ad Papam ; sine controversia enim sem- per a minore ad majorem appellatur. Ap¬ pellari autem a Concilio ad Papam , non contra, perspicuum est, ex Gelasio in epist. ad Episcopos Dardaniae : « Ad sedem, in¬ quit , Apostolicam de qualibet mundi parte appellandum est, ab illa autem nemo est ap¬ pellare permissus. » Et ne putemus eum loqui de appellatione ab aliquo Episcopo, non a Concilio : subdit, saepe Romanos Pontifices solvisse eos, quos inique Concilia ligaverant; cujus rei exstant exempla clarissima. Nam Athanasius Epis¬ copus Alexandrinus , et Paulus episcopus Constantinopolitanus, a Concilio depositi, ad Julium Papam appellaverunt, et ab eo in suas sedes restituti sunt, ut auctor est Sozo- menus lib.III liist. cap.7. similiter Flavinus Episcopus Constantinopolitanus appellavit a Concilio Ephesino II generali , ad Leonem Papam, ut testatur Leo epist. 25 ad Theodo¬ sium Augustum. Item Theodoretus Episco¬ pus Cyri appellavit a Concilio eodem Ephe¬ sino II, ad eumdem Leonem, ut patet ex Li¬ berato in Breviario, cap. 12. et ex ipsa epis¬ tola Theodoreti, quse exstat ad finem operum Leonis. Denique Joannes Chrysostomus a Concilio depositus appellavit ad Innocentium Papam , ut testatur Gelasius , ubi supra, et idem colligitur ex epistolis Chrysostomi ad Innocentium. Probatur Quinto , ex approbatione et re¬ probatione Conciliorum; Nam omnia revo¬ cantur tandem ad examen Romani Pontifi¬ cis, et quse ille probat, recipiuntur, qua} im¬ probat rejiciuntur , ut testatur Gelasius in eadem epistola ad Episcopos Dardania}. Et quidem quod ad petitionem Conciliorum ap¬ probaverit Pontifex multa Concilia, patet ex gestis ipsis Conciliorum, praecipue I, II, III, IV et VI. Quod autem Pontifices aliquando Conci¬ liorum decreta reprobaverint, quod est aper¬ tum signum superioritatis, ex Basilio patet, qui in epistola ad Athanasium, quae est 52. scribit, videri sibi bonum, ut rogetur Roma¬ nus Episcopus, ut mittat aliquos in Graeciam, qu.i ejus nomine irritent Concilium Arimi¬ nense. Ipse etiam Damasus in epistola ad Episcopos Illyrii reprobat Concilium illud. Similiter Leo in epist. 55. ad Pulcheriam : « Confessiones, inquit, Episcoporum, cano¬ num apud Nicaeam conditorum regulis repu¬ gnantes, in irritum mittimus , et per aucto¬ ritatem B. Petri Apostoli generali prorsus definitione cassamus.» B. Gregorius lib. IV, epist. 34 : « Cuncta, inquit, acta illius Sy¬ nodi, sede contradicente Apostolica, soluta sunt. »