WILLIAM OF OCKHAM 1 Dial. 5.11-21
TEXT AND TRANSLATION
BY JOHN SCOTT

Capitulum 11

Chapter 11

Discipulus Ut cerno, preposita interrogacio mea dependet ex alia, an scilicet ecclesia Romana seu sedes apostolica valeat infici heretica pravitate. Ideo de illa disserere non postponas.

Student: As I see it, the question I put forward before depends on another, whether, that is, the Roman church or the apostolic see can be infected with heretical wickedness. Would you therefore not delay discussing it.

CAN THE ROMAN CHURCH BECOME HERETICAL?

Magister Ex predictis potes elicere evidenter quod circa istam interrogacionem tuam non omnes consenciunt. Unde quidam dicunt absque distinccione quod nec ecclesia Romana nec sedes appostolica potest errare contra fidem, intelligentes per Romanam ecclesiam et sedem apostolicam papam tantum vel collegium cardinalium tantummodo vel simul papam et cardinales. Alii autem dicunt quod Romana ecclesia contra fidem errare non potest, intelligentes per Romanam ecclesiam clerum Romanum qui papam et cardinales et alios clericos comprehendit. Alii dicunt quod ecclesia Romana que comprehendit omnes clericos in quibuscumque mundi partibus constitutos errare non potest. Et quidam istorum dicunt quod licet aliqui clerici possint errare contra fidem tamen maior pars numquam contra fidem errabit. Alii vero dicunt quod multitudo clericorum potest errare contra fidem, semper tamen aliqui clerici in fide remanebunt.

Alii autem de ecclesia Romana distinguunt, dicentes quod aliquando papa, aliquando collegium cardinalium, aliquociens papa cum cardinalibus, quandoque totus clerus Romanus, interdum tota Romana dyocesis, nonnumquam vero tota congregacio fidelium nomine Romane ecclesie importatur. Et de ecclesia Romana isto ultimo modo dicta dicunt quod non potest errare. De papa autem et de cardinalibus et de tota Romana dyocesi que est distincta ab aliis dyocesibus in provinciis aliis constitutis concedunt quod potest errare contra fidem. Nec est certum neque per Scripturam neque per doctrinam universalis ecclesie quod civitas Romana cum tota regione que spectat ad episcopatum Romanum cum venerit Antichristus sibi minime adherebit, nec eciam an ante tempora Antichristi tota discedet a fide.

Master: You can clearly elicit from the above that not everyone agrees about that question of yours. So some people say, without making a distinction, that neither the Roman church nor the apostolic see can err against faith, understanding by the 'Roman church' and the 'apostolic see' the pope alone, or the college of cardinals alone or the pope and the cardinals together. However others say that the Roman church can not err against faith, [but] understand by the 'Roman church' the Roman clergy, who consist of the pope, the cardinals, and other clerics. Others say that the Roman church which consists of all the clergy living in every part of the world can not err. And some people say that although some clergy can err against faith, yet the greater part [of them] will never err against faith. But others say that the multitude of clergy can err against faith, yet some clergy will always remain in the faith.

However others make distinctions concerning the Roman church, saying that sometimes the pope is meant by the name 'Roman church', sometimes the college of cardinals, sometimes all the Roman clergy, now and then the pope with the cardinals, sometimes the whole Roman diocese, sometimes indeed the whole congregation of believers. And they say about the Roman church used in this last way that it can not err. Of the pope, however, and the cardinals and the whole diocese of Rome, distinguished from other dioceses established in other provinces, they grant that they can err against faith. And it is not certain either from scripture or from the teaching of the universal church that the city of Rome together with the whole region pertaining to the bishopric of Rome will not adhere to anti-Christ when he comes, nor even whether it will not all forsake the faith before the time of anti-Christ.

Capitulum 12

Chapter 12

Discipulus Miror quod isti dicunt Romanam ecclesiam aliquando congregacionem fidelium importare. Unde si hoc possunt trahere ex scripturis autenticis, aperire digneris.

Student: I wonder at their saying that sometimes 'Roman church' means the congregation of believers. So if they can extract this from genuine writings, would you kindly show me.

"The Roman Church" can mean the totality of believers

Magister Quod per Romanam ecclesiam congregacio fidelium valeat importari ex scriptura nituntur ostendere. Primo sic: omnis ecclesia Romanorum potest Romana ecclesia appellari; sed omnes fideles possunt appellari Romani. Unde et beatus Paulus extra totam Italiam natus antequam Romam venisset se esse civem Romanum asseruit (Actuum 16 c). Ergo tota congregacio fidelium potest Romana ecclesia appellari.

Master: They try to show from scripture that the congregation of believers can be meant by the 'Roman church'. Firstly as follows: every church of Romans can be called the Roman church; but all believers can be called Romans. And thus blessed Paul who was born completely outside Italy affirmed that he was a Roman citizen before he had come to Rome (Acts 16[:37]). Therefore the whole congregation of believers can be called the 'Roman church'.

Secundo sic arguunt: illa ecclesia que non habet maculam neque rugam neque aliud huiusmodi potest Romana ecclesia appellari, teste Pelagio papa qui, ut habetur dist. 21, c. Quamvis, loquens de Romana ecclesia ait, "Est ergo prima apostoli Petri sedes Romana ecclesia, non habens maculam neque rugam nec aliquid huiusmodi." Ubi dicit glossa, "Argumentum quod ubicumque sunt boni ibi est Romana ecclesia." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod tota congregacio bonorum ubicumque sunt potest Romana ecclesia appellari, et per consequens tota congregacio fidelium potest Romana ecclesia appellari.

They argue secondly as follows. That church which has neither stain nor wrinkle nor something other of this kind can be called the Roman church, as Pope Pelagius attests. Speaking of the Roman church, as we find in dist. 21, c. Quamvis, he says [col.70], "So the first see of the apostle Peter is the Roman church which has neither stain, nor wrinkle nor any thing of this kind." The gloss on this says [s. v. nec aliquid; col.95], "Argument: wherever there are good people, there is the Roman church." We are given to understand by these words that the whole congregation of good people, wherever they are, can be called the Roman church and, as a consequence, the whole congregation of believers can be called the Roman church.

Capitulum 13

Chapter 13

Discipulus Circa interrogacionem propositam considero sentencias hominum multipliciter variari, de quibus duas tantummodo pertractes ad presens. Primo enim allega pro illa sentencia qua asseritur quod Romana ecclesia que distinguitur a congregacione fidelium sicut pars a suo toto non potest contra fidem errare. Postea pro assercione contraria allegare coneris?

Student: I perceive that people's opinions about the proposed question vary in many ways. Would you investigate only two of them at the moment. Argue first for that opinion which affirms that the Roman church that is distinguished from the congregation of believers as a part from its whole can not err against faith. Would you later try to argue for the opposing assertion?

(A) That the Roman Church that is part of the wider church can not err

Magister Quod ecclesia Romana que distinguitur a tota congregacione fidelium sicut pars a suo toto contra fidem errare non possit multis modis ostenditur. Primo sic: illa ecclesia que voce evangelica Domini et Salvatoris ceteris ecclesiis est prelata contra fidem errare non potest, quia, ut habetur Actuum 5 c., "Opus Dei dissolui non potest ab hominibus." Si autem illa ecclesia que voce divina ceteris ecclesiis est prelata contra fidem erraret, desineret esse caput aliarum ecclesiarum et ita opus Dei dissolveretur. Sed Romana ecclesia que distincta est contra alias ecclesias, et per consequens contra totam congregacionem fidelium sicut pars contra totum suum, voce Domini ceteris ecclesiis est prelata, teste Pelagio papa qui, ut habetur dist. 21, c. Quamvis, ait, "Quamvis universe per orbem catholice ecclesie institute unus thalamus Christi sit, tamen sancta Romana ecclesia catholica et apostolica nullis synodicis institutis ceteris ecclesiis prelata sed evangelica voce Domini et Salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit." Ergo hec ecclesia Romana errare non potest.

Master: That the Roman church which is distinguished from the whole congregation of believers like a part from its whole can not err against faith is shown in many ways. Firstly as follows: that church which has been preferred by the words of the Lord and Saviour in the gospel to the rest of the churches can not err against faith because, as we find in Acts 5[:39], "If it be from God, you can not overthrow it." If however that church which has been preferred by divine word to the rest of the churches were to fall into error the other churches would be lacking a head and so the work of God would be dissolved. But the Roman church which is distinguished from other churches and consequently the whole congregation of believers as a part from its whole has been preferred by the word of the Lord to other churches, as Pope Pelagius attests. As we find in dist. 21, c. Quamvis, he says [col.70], "Although all the catholic churches established throughout the world make up the one marriage bed of Christ, yet the holy Roman church, catholic and apostolic, preferred to the rest of the churches not by the decrees of synods but by the word of our Lord and Saviour in the gospel, has acquired primacy." Therefore this Roman church can not err.

Secundo sic: illa ecclesia contra fidem errare non potest que privilegium super alias ecclesias non potest amittere, quia eo ipso quod quecumque ecclesia hereticaretur omne privilegium super quoscumque orthodoxos amitteret cum omnes heretici quibuscumque catholicis sunt minores (24, q. 1, para. Si autem). Ecclesia autem Romana privilegium super alias ecclesias non potest amittere, quia si posset privilegium amittere non esset hereticus reputandus qui auferre sibi privilegium conaretur, cum pro assercione illius quod potest veritatem habere non sit quis inter hereticos numerandus. Sed qui privilegium Romane ecclesie auferre conatur in hereticam labitur pravitatem, teste Nicolao papa qui, ut habetur dist. 22, c. 1, loquens de Romana ecclesia que est distincta contra alias ecclesias ait, "Non dubium est quia quisquis cuiuslibet ecclesie ius suum detrahit iniusticiam facit. Qui autem Romane ecclesie privilegium ab ipso summo omnium capite ecclesiarum traditum auferre conatur hic proculdubio in heresim labitur, et cum ille vocetur iniustus hic est dicendus hereticus." Ex quibus verbis habetur quod qui conatur auferre privilegium Romane ecclesie hereticus est dicendus, et per consequens tale privilegium a Romana ecclesia auferri non potest. Et per consequens ipsa hereticari non potest, quia eo ipso quod hereticaretur omne privilegium perderet.

Secondly [it is shown] as follows. That church can not err against faith which can not lose its privilege over other churches, because any church at all that was to become heretical would thereby lose every privilege over all the orthodox, since all heretics are less than any catholic at all (24, q. 1, para. Si autem [col.967]). However the Roman church can not lose its privilege over other churches because if it could lose its privilege anyone who tried to take away this privilege from it would not have to be regarded as a heretic, since no one should be counted among heretics for an assertion that can be true. But whoever tries to take away the Roman church's privilege falls into heretical wickedness, as Pope Nicholas attests. Speaking about the Roman church which is distinguished from other churches he says, as we find in dist. 22, c. 1 [col.73], "There is no doubt that anyone who takes away from any church its right does an injustice. However whoever tries to take away from the Roman church a privilege given to it by that highest head of all churches undoubtedly falls into heresy, and since the former is called unjust this latter should be called a heretic." We find from these words that whoever tries to take away a privilege of the Roman church should be called a heretic, and consequently such a privilege can not be taken away from the Roman church. And as a consequence of this it can not become heretical because if it were to become heretical it would lose every privilege.

Tercio sic: illa ecclesia contra fidem errare non potest sine qua nulla ecclesia catholica valet regi, quia Deus ecclesiam universalem non rectam numquam usque ad finem seculi non derelinquet. Ergo nec usque ad finem seculi derelinquet illam ecclesiam sine qua nulla ecclesia regitur; sed sine ecclesia Romana nulla ecclesia catholica valet rite disponi, teste Anacleto papa qui, ut habetur dist. 22, c. Sacrosancta, ait, "Hec vero apostolica sedes caput et cardo, ut prefatum est, a Domino et non ab alio constituta est, et sicut cardine ostium regitur sic huius sancte apostolice sedis auctoritate omnes ecclesie Domino disponente reguntur." Ergo hec sedes apostolica que est Romana ecclesia contra fidem errare non potest.

Thirdly, [it is shown] as follows. That church can not err against faith without which no catholic church can be ruled, because God will never, to the end of the age, leave the universal church unruled. Therefore to the end of the age he will not abandon that church without which no church is ruled; but without the Roman church no catholic church can be properly managed, as Pope Anacletus attests. He says, as we find in dist. 22, c. Sacrosancta [col.73], "Now this apostolic see was established, as was said before, as head and hinge by the Lord and not by anyone else and, just as a door is governed by its hinge, so, with the Lord arranging it, all churches are governed by the authority of this holy apostolic see." Therefore this apostolic see which is the Roman church can not err against faith.

Quarto sic: illa ecclesia contra fidem errare non potest a qua quicumque dissentit non est inter episcopos catholicos computandus, quia propter dissensionem ab hereticis nemo est a catholicorum numero excludendus; sed quicumque ab ecclesia Romana dissentit non est de catholicis episcopis reputandus, teste beato Ambrosio qui, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Advocavit, ait, "Advocavit ad se Cyprianus episcopum Satirum, nec ullam putavit veram nisi vere fidei graciam, percunctatusque est ex eo utrumnam de catholicis episcopis esset, hoc est, si cum Romana ecclesia conveniret." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod nemo potest esse de catholicis episcopis nisi cum Romana ecclesia communicat. Ergo ecclesia Romana contra fidem errare non potest.

Fourthly, [it is shown] as follows. That church from which anyone who dissents should not be counted among catholic bishops can not err against faith because no one should be excluded from the number of catholics because of a disagreement with heretics; but whoever disagrees with the Roman church should not be regarded as a catholic bishop, as blessed Ambrose attests. As we find in 24, q. 1, c. Advocavit, he says [col.974], "Cyprian summoned Bishop Satirus; he did not think that any grace was true except the grace of true faith and he questioned him about whether he was among the catholic bishops, that is whether he was in agreement with the Roman church." We are given to understand by these words that no one can be among catholic bishops unless he is in communion with the Roman church. Therefore the Roman church can not err against faith.

Quinto sic: iIla ecclesia contra fidem errare non potest extra quam nemo salvatur; sed extra Romanam ecclesiam nemo salvari potest, teste beato Hieronimo qui, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Quoniam vetus, loquens de Romana ecclesia ait, "Ego nullum premium nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tue, id est cathedre beati Petri, communione Christi consocior. Super illam petram fundatam ecclesiam scio. Quicumque extra hanc domum agnum comederit prophanus est. Si quis in archa Noe non fuerit peribit regnante diluvio." Et infra, "Quicumque tecum non colligit dispergit." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod quicumque non fuerit per conformitatem et unitatem fidei intra Romanam ecclesiam de qua loquitur Hieronimus salvari nequit. Ergo Romana ecclesia contra fidem errare non potest, quia si erraret qui esset intra eam minime salvaretur.

[It is shown] fifthly as follows. That church outside which no one is saved can not err against faith; but, as blessed Jerome attests, no one can be saved outside the Roman church. Speaking about the Roman church he says, as we find in 24, q. 1, c. Quoniam vetus [col.975], "Following no reward except Christ I am joined by communion in Christ to your blessedness, that is the church of blessed Peter. I know that the church has been founded on that rock. Whoever eats lamb outside this house is impious. If anyone is not in Noah's ark he will perish when the deluge rules ... Whoever does not gather with you scatters." We are given to understand by these words that whoever is not through conformity and unity of faith within the Roman church of which Jerome speaks can not be saved. Therefore the Roman church can not err against faith because if it were to err whoever was within it would not be saved.

Sexto sic. Illa ecclesia non potest contra fidem errare a qua omnis Christianus discedens est inter scismaticos computandus; sed quicumque a Romana discedit ecclesia inter scismaticos numeratur, quia extra ecclesiam reputatur, teste Cypriano qui, ut legitur dist. 93, c. Qui cathedram, ait, "Qui cathedram Petri, super quam fundata est ecclesia, deserit in ecclesia se esse non confidat." Et Innocencius 3, ut recitatur Extra De maioritate et obediencia, omnes ab ovili Christi asserit alienos, et per consequens scismaticos, "qui Petrum et successores magistros non cognoscerent et pastores". Ergo Romana ecclesia contra fidem errare non potest.

[It is shown] sixthly as follows. That church from which any christian who withdraws should be counted as among the schismatics can not err against faith. But whoever withdraws from the Roman church is numbered among the schismatics because, as Cyprian attests, he is regarded as outside the church. As we read in dist. 93, c. Qui cathedram, he says [col.321], "He who abandons the see of Peter upon which the church is founded is not assured of being in the church." And as we find in Extra, De maioritate et obediencia, [c. Solite; col.196] Innocent III affirms that all those "who would not recognise Peter and his successors as masters and shepherds" are alien to Christ's sheepfold and consequently are schismatic. Therefore the Roman church can not err against faith.

Septimo sic: corpus sine membris non potest consistere; ecclesia autem fidelium est corpus Christi mysticum; ergo ecclesia sine membris esse non potest. Membrum autem principale noscitur esse caput; ecclesia vero Romana est caput tocius ecclesie Dei; ergo ecclesia Dei sine ecclesia Romana esse non potest. Illa autem ecclesia sine qua ecclesia Dei nequit consistere non potest errare contra fidem; ergo ecclesia Romana errare non potest contra fidem.

[It is shown] seventh as follows. A body can not exist without members; the church of believers, however, is the mystical body of Christ; therefore the church can not exist without members. However the principal member is known to be the head; but the Roman church is the head of the whole church of God; therefore the church of God can not exist without the Roman church. That church without which the church of God can not exist, however, can not err against faith. Therefore the Roman church can not err against faith.

Octavo sic: illa ecclesia non potest contra fidem errare quam nulla malicia valet extinguere; sed Romanam ecclesiam nulla malicia valet extinguere, teste Pelagio papa qui, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Pudenda, ait, "Cum ecclesia una sit, nullam aliam esse constat nisi que in apostolica est radice fundata." Et infra recitans verba Augustini subiungit, "Si nullo modo recte potest dici ecclesia in qua scisma est, restat ut, quoniam nulla ecclesia esse non potest, ea sit quam in apostolice sedis per successiones episcoporum radice constitutam nullorum hominum malicia, eciam si nota excludi non possit sed pro temporis racione tolleranda iudicetur, ullo modo valeat extinguere." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod ecclesiam in radice apostolice sedis per successiones episcoporum constitutam, que est Romana ecclesia, nulla malicia valet extinguere; ergo ipsa contra fidem errare non potest. Conclusionem predictam, quod ecclesia Romana contra fidem errare non potest, auctoritatibus fulcire nituntur. Ait enim Ieronimus, ut legitur 24, q. 1, c. A recta, "Hec sancta et apostolica mater omnium ecclesiarum Christi ecclesia que per omnipotentis dei graciam a tramite apostolice tradicionis numquam errasse probatur nec hereticis novitatibus dampnanda succubuit, sed ut in exordio normam fidei Christiane suscepit ab auctoritatibus apostolorum Christi principibus illibata fide tenus manet." Et idem Ieronimus, ut legitur 24, q. 1, c. Hec est fides, ait, "Sancta Romana ecclesia que semper immaculata permansit, Domino providente et beato Petro opem ferente, in futuro seculo permanebit sine ulla hereticorum insultacione firma et immobilis omni tempore persistet." Ex hiis videtur quod Romana ecclesia numquam contra fidem erravit nec errabit.

[It is shown] eighthly as follows. That church which no evil can destroy can not err against faith. But no evil can destroy the Roman church, as Pope Pelagius attests. As we find in 24, q. 1, c. Pudenda, he says [col.978], "Since there is one church it is certain that there is no other one but that which is founded from an apostolic source." Then reporting the words of Augustine he adds, "If it can in no way properly be said that a church in which there is schism persists, then, since there can not be no church, that one exists which, established by the successions of bishops from the source of the apostolic see, the evil of no men can in any way destroy (even if a known [evil] can not be excluded but is considered as needing to be tolerated because of the times)." We are given to understand by these words that no evil can destroy the church established by the successions of bishops from the source of the apostolic see and this is the Roman church. Therefore it can not err against faith. They try to strengthen with authoritative texts this conclusion that the Roman church can not err against faith. For as we read in 24, q. 1, c. A recta, Jerome says [col.969], "This holy and apostolic church, the mother of all the churches of Christ, is proved never to have wandered from the path of apostolic tradition through the grace of almighty God and has not succumbed in a blameworthy way to heretical novelties. But as it received the rule of christian faith in the beginning from the chief texts of the apostles of Christ it remains uninjured as far as faith is concerned." As we read in 24, q. 1, c. Hec est fides, Jerome also says [col.970], "The holy Roman church, which with the Lord providing for it and blessed Peter bringing it help has always remained unstained, will in future ages remain strong and free from the scoffing of heretics and will persist as immovable throughout all time." It seems from these [texts] that the Roman church has never erred and never will err against faith.

Capitulum 14

Chapter 14

Discipulus Si non fallor, ad sciendum an ecclesia Romana possit contra fidem errare confert non modicum indagare a quo Romana ecclesia super omnes alias ecclesias obtinuit principatum, quia si habuit principatum a Deo non videtur quod possit illo principatu privari nisi a solo Deo. Et ita usque in finem seculi est habitura principatum, et per consequens numquam contra fidem errabit. Si autem habuit principatum ab homine non video quare ipsa non possit errare contra fidem sicut alie particulares ecclesie. Unde peto ut, aliqualiter a principali proposito disgrediendo, de hac re cures disserere quid scolastici senciant indicando. Bene enim postea ad propositum principale faciam te reverti.

Student: If I am not mistaken, to know whether the Roman church can err against faith it is useful to investigate at some length from whom the Roman church acquired rule over all other churches, because if it obtained rule from God it does not seem possible for it to be deprived of that rule except by God alone. And thus it will have that rule until the end of the age, and consequently it will never err against faith. If it obtained its rule from a man, however, I do not see why it can not err against faith like other particular churches. So I ask you to digress a little from the main theme and to take time to discuss this matter by indicating what scholars think of it. For later I will surely get you to return to the main theme.

How did the Roman Church come to rule all other churches?

Magister De principatu seu primatu Romane ecclesie diversi diversas et adversas affirmant sentencias, quibusdam dicentibus quod nec beatus Petrus nec aliquis successor eius nec Romana ecclesia super alias ecclesias habuit a Deo seu a Christo primatum; ymmo dicunt quod nec beatus Petrus ex ordinacione Christi superior fuit aliis apostolis nec aliquis episcopus ex ordinacione Christi est superior alio. Unde 6 asserciones circa hanc materiam probare nituntur. Prima est quod beatus Petrus ex ordinacione Christi non habuit super alios apostolos principatum. Secunda est quod beatus Petrus non fuit Romanus episcopus. Tercia est quod beatus Petrus ex ordinacione apostolorum super alios apostolos primatum obtinuit. Quarta est quod ex ordinacione Christi nullus sacerdos super alios habet aliquam potestatem. Quinta est quod ecclesia Romana ante tempora Constantini super alias ecclesias non habuit principatum. Sexta est quod Romana ecclesia ab ipso Constantino imperatore super alias ecclesias primatum accepit.

Master: Different people assert different and opposing opinions about the rule or primacy of the Roman church, with some saying that neither blessed Peter nor any successor of his nor the Roman church had primacy from God or Christ over other churches. Indeed they say that neither was blessed Peter superior to the other apostles by Christ's ordination nor is any bishop superior to any other by Christ's ordination. Whence they try to prove six assertions about this matter.

  • The first is that blessed Peter did not have rule over the other apostles by Christ's decree..

  • The second is that blessed Peter was not bishop of Rome.

  • The third is that blessed Peter acquired primacy over the other apostles by decree of the apostles.

  • The fourth is that no priest has any power over other [priests] by Christ's decree.

  • [See Significant Variants, para. 33.]The fifth is that before the time of Constantine the church of Rome did not have rule over other churches.

  • The sixth is that the church of Rome received primacy over other churches from the emperor Constantine himself.

Capitulum 15

Chapter 15

Discipulus De istis conclusionibus valde miror quod eas aliquis literatus tenere presumit; Veruntamen ob exercitanda ingenia mociua eorum audire desidero, quia ex ipsis forsitan veritas clarius elucescet.

Student: I am very surprised that anyone learned presumes to maintain those conclusions. Nevertheless in order to exercise my wits I want to hear their arguments because perhaps from them the truth will shine more clearly.

(1) Christ did not appoint Peter to rule the other apostles

Magister Primam assercionem, quod videlicet beatus Petrus super alios apostolos ex ordinacione Christi non habuit principatum auctoritatibus Scripture Divine et sanctorum probare nituntur. Talem autem possunt facere racionem. Beatus Petrus super illos a Christo nullum habuit principatum qui equalem potestatem seu principatum aut primatum potestati beati Petri seu primatui receperunt a Christo, quia par super parem nullum noscitur primatum habere. Apostoli autem potestatem equalem potestati beati Petri receperunt a Christo. Hanc auctoritatibus Sacre Scripture et sanctorum moliuntur ostendere. Primo autem hanc declarare nituntur auctoritate Christi dicentis cunctis apostolis Matthei 18 c., "Amen dico vobis quecumque ligaveritis super terram erunt ligata et in celo." Ex quibus verbis dicunt manifeste patere quod potestas ligandi et solvendi equalis potestati Petri fuit data apostolis a Christo. Beatus autem Petrus non aliam potestatem in qua dicatur excellere alios recepit a Christo nisi potestatem ligandi et solvendi; ergo beatus Petrus et omnes alii apostoli equalem potestatem habuerunt a Christo. Hoc eciam Iohannes Evangelista recitans verba Salvatoris videtur asserere 20 c. dicens, "Dixit ergo eis iterum, 'Pax vobis. Sicut misit me pater et ego mitto vos.' Hec cum dixisset insufflavit et dixit eis, 'Accipite Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis et quorum retinueritis retenta sunt.'" Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod Christus claves regni celorum quas promiserat beato Petro tunc dedit omnibus apostolis, et ita in persona beati Petri cum dixit, "Tibi dabo claves regni celorum', omnibus apostolis promisit claves regni celorum. Quare cum claves promisse et postea date beato Petro eius potestatem designent, sequitur quod alii apostoli equalem potestatem cum beato Petro receperunt a Christo, et ita Petrus potestatem seu principatum aut primatum super alios apostolos a Christo non habuit.

Master: They try to prove the first assertion, namely that blessed Peter did not obtain rule over the other apostles by Christ's ordination, by texts from the divine scriptures and from the saints. They can, however, make the following argument. Blessed Peter obtained no rule from Christ over those who received from Christ power, rule or primacy equal to the power or primacy of blessed Peter, because an equal is known to have no primacy over an equal. However the apostles received from Christ power equal to blessed Peter's power. They try to show this by texts [taken from] sacred scripture and the saints. They try to make this clear first on the authority of Christ's saying to all the apostles at Matthew 18[:18], "Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven." They say that it is quite clear from these words that a power of binding and loosing equal to Peter's power was given to the apostles by Christ. Blessed Peter received from Christ, however, no other power in which he may be said to excel the others except the power of binding and loosing. Blessed Peter and all the other apostles, therefore, obtained equal power from Christ. John the evangelist seems to affirm this too when he reports the Saviour as saying in chapter 20[:21-3], "[Jesus] said therefore to them again, 'Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.' When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.'" We are given to understand by these words that the keys of the kingdom of heaven which Christ had promised to blessed Peter he gave at that time to all the apostles and so when he said [Matt. 16:19], "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven", he promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven to all the apostles in the person of blessed Peter. Wherefore, since the keys promised and later given to blessed Peter designate his power it follows that the other apostles received from Christ power equal to that of blessed Peter; and so Peter did not obtain from Christ power, rule or primacy over the other apostles.

Amplius, recipere potestatem super alios quam non debet in eos recipiens exercere est superfluum, vanum et inutile reputandum; in operibus autem Christi nichil superfluum, vanum vel inutile potest reperiri. Christus autem non dedit beato Petro aliquam potestatem super alios apostolos quam in eos non debuit exercere; ymmo talem potestatem beato Petro et omnibus aliis apostolis super apostolos interdixit, dicens Matthei 20, "Scitis quod principes gencium dominantur eorum et qui maiores sunt potestatem exercent in eos. Non ita erit inter vos." Et Marci 10 ita legitur, "Iesus autem vocans eos ait illis, 'Scitis quod hi qui videntur principari gentibus dominantur eis et principes eorum potestatem habent ipsorum. Non ita autem est in vobis." Et Luce 22 c. refert verba Christi dicentis, "Reges gencium dominantur eorum et qui potestatem habent super eos benefici vocantur, vos autem non sic." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod nullus apostolus debuit in alios potestatem exercere; ergo nec beatus Petrus habuit a Christo potestatem super alios apostolos seu primatum.

In addition, it should be regarded as unnecessary, vain and useless for someone to receive power over others which he ought not exercise over them. However, nothing unnecessary, vain or useless can be found among the works of Christ. Now Christ did not give blessed Peter any power over the other apostles that Peter ought not to have exercised over them. On the contrary he forbad such power over the apostles to blessed Peter and to all the other apostles, saying at Matt. 20[:25-6], "You know that the princes of the gentiles lord it over them and they that are the greater exercise power over them. It shall not be so among you." We read the following too at Mark 10[:42-3], "But Jesus calling them said to them, 'You know that they who seem to rule over the gentiles lord it over them, and their princes have power over them. But it is not so among you.'" Luke 22[:25-6] also reports Christ as saying, "The kings of the gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them over them are called beneficent.. But not so with you." We are given to understand by these words that no apostle should have exercised power over the others. Therefore, blessed Peter did not have from Christ power or primacy over the other apostles.

Discipulus Iste auctoritates non videntur facere ad propositum. Nam verba Christi predicta intelligi debent de potestate temporali; beatus autem Petrus non habuit a Christo potestatem temporalem super alios apostolos sed spiritualem. Quare per auctoritates premissas probari non potest nisi quod beatus Petrus non habuit potestatem temporalem super alios apostolos qualem reges et principes gencium noscuntur habere.

Student: Those texts do not seem to address the point. For the above words of Christ ought to be understood of temporal power. However, blessed Peter did not have from Christ temporal power over the other apostles but spiritual power. So it can be proved by the above texts only that blessed Peter did not have the temporal power over the other apostles that the kings and rulers of the Gentiles are known to have.

Magister Hanc responsionem conantur excludere, ostendentes quod Christus cuilibet apostolo super alios apostolos potestatem omnem temporalem et spiritualem interdixit. Nam teste Hilario, ut legitur Extra De verbis significacione c. Intelligencia, "Intelligencia dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi." Verba ergo Christi premissa ex causa dicendi debent intelligi; Christus autem dixit verba predicta occasione accepta ex contencione apostolorum quis eorum videretur esse maior. Ita enim legitur Luce 22, "Facta est autem contencio inter eos quis eorum videretur esse maior. Dixit autem eis, 'Reges gencium'", etc. Inter ipsos autem non fuit contencio de maioritate temporali sed spirituali. Ergo Christus potestatem interdicens eisdem sub potestate non solum temporalem sed spiritualem eciam comprehendit; ergo beatus Petrus potestatem super alios nec temporalem nec spiritualem accepit a Christo.

Master: They try to exclude this reply by showing that Christ forbad any apostle to have any temporal and spiritual power over the other apostles. For as we read in Extra, De verborum significacione, c. Intelligencia [col.913], Hilary attests that "the meaning of what is said should be taken from the reasons for speaking." The aforesaid words of Christ, therefore, should be interpreted according to his reason for speaking. Christ uttered the above words, however, on the occasion presented to him by the dispute among the apostles about which of them would be seen to be greater. For we read as follows in Luke 22[:24-5], "And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them, 'The kings of the gentiles'" etc. The dispute among them, however, was not about temporal but about spiritual greatness. When Christ forbad them to have power, therefore, he included not just temporal power but spiritual power too. Therefore blessed Peter did not receive from Christ any power, either temporal or spiritual, over the other [apsotles].

Rursus: si aliqua potestas vel primatus spiritualis fuit data beato Petro a Christo super alios apostolos data fuit sibi per illa verba Iohannis ultimo, "Pasce oves meas"; sed per illa verba nulla fuit data potestas spiritualis vel primatus super alios apostolos. Ergo primatum super alios apostolos non accepit a Christo. Maior istius racionis conceditur ab aliis. Minor probatur quia spiritualiter pascere oves non contingit nisi tripliciter, scilicet salutari doctrina et vita exemplari et disciplina et correccione; sed quilibet istorum modorum pascendi oves Christi communis fuit omnibus apostolis. Universi enim apostoli omnes oves Christi doctrina pascere debuerunt, ipsa veritate testante que omnibus precepit apostolis Matthei ultimo dicens, "Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, docentes eos servare omnia quecumque mandavi vobis." Omnes eciam debuerunt pascere vita exemplari, ipsis Christo dicente Matthei 5 c., "Vos estis lux mundi", et sequitur, "Sic luceat lux vestra coram hominibus, ut videant opera vestra bona et glorificent patrem vestrum qui in celis est." De modo pascendi correccione et disciplina habetur Iohannis 20 c. ubi dixit Christus omnibus apostolis, "Quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis, et quorum retinueritis retenta sunt", ubi videtur Christum omnibus apostolis potestatem corripiendi alios commisisse.

Again, if any spiritual power or primacy was given by Christ to blessed Peter over the other apostles it was given to him by those words in the last chapter of John [21:17], "Feed my sheep." But no spiritual power or primacy over the other apostles was given by those words. Therefore, he did not receive from Christ primacy over the other apostles. The major [premise] of this argument is granted by others. The minor [premise] is proved because it is possible to feed sheep spiritually in only three ways, that is by beneficial teaching, by exemplary living and by discipline and correction; but each of these ways of feeding Christ's sheep was common to all the apostles. For all the apostles were bound to feed all Christ's sheep by teaching, as the Truth himself attested when he gave this order to all the apostles in the last chapter of Matthew [28:19-20], "Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." They were also all bound to feed [Christ's sheep] by exemplary living since Christ said to them in Matthew 5[:14,16], "You are the light of the world. ... So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven." We read in John 20[:23] about the way of feeding by correction and discipline when Christ said to all the apostles, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain they are retained." Here Christ is seen to have committed to all the apostles the power of correcting others.

Discipulus Ista racio non concludit quia beato Petro collata fuit potestas corripiendi cunctos Christianos non solum in foro consciencie sed eciam in foro ecclesie; aliis autem apostolis cum Christus dixit eis, "Quorum remiseritis", etc., potestas corripiendi in foro consciencie tantum fuit commissa.

Student: That argument is not conclusive because the power to correct all christians was granted to blessed Peter not only in the forum of conscience but also in the forum of the church; however, when Christ said to the other apostles, "Whose sins you shall forgive", etc, he committed to them only the power to correct in the forum of conscience.

Magister Hanc responsionem isti improbare nituntur hoc modo. Ubi Christus ordinavit modum corrigendi in foro ecclesie nichil speciale beato Petro commisit, sed potestatem corrigendi in foro ecclesie commisit solummodo communitati ecclesie, dicens Matthei 18, "Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, vade et corripe eum inter te et ipsum solum. Si te audierit, lucratus eris fratrem tuum; si autem te non audierit, adhibe tecum unum vel duos, ut in ore duorum vel trium testium stet omne verbum. Quod si non audierit eos, dic ecclesie; si autem ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod Christus dedit ecclesie potestatem corripiendi in foro ecclesie et non alicui apostolo in speciali.

Master: They try to attack that reply in this way. When Christ regulated the way of correcting in the forum of the church he did not commit anything special to blessed Peter; rather he committed the power of correcting in the forum of the church to the community of the church only, saying at Matthew 18[:15-8], 'But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shalt hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word might stand. And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." We are given to understand by these words that it was to the church that Christ gave the power of correcting in the forum of the church not to any apostle in particular.

Discipulus In istis verbis agitur de correccione fraterna et non de correccione iudiciali in foro ecclesie.

Student: Those words speak about fraternal correction, not about judicial correction in the forum of the church.

Magister Respondent isti quod in principio auctoritatis ait Christus de correccione fraterna que debet precedere saltem sepe correccionem iudicialem; in fine autem loquitur de correccione iudiciali in foro ecclesie cum dicit, "Quod si non audierit eos, dic ecclesie; si autem ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus et publicanus."

Master: They reply that in the beginning of that text Christ is speaking about the fraternal correction that, often at least, should precede judicial correction; he speaks about judicial correction in the forum of the church, however, at the end when he says, "And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican."

Discipulus Quomodo potest hoc stare quod Christus potestatem corripiendi in foro ecclesie solummodo commiserit ecclesie, cum tamen Apostolus Paulus Corinthium excommunicaverit et 1 ad Timotheum primo asserit se quosdam Sathane tradidisse?

Student: How can it be valid that Christ committed the power of correcting in the forum of the church only to the church when the apostle Paul excommunicated a Corinthian and affirms in 1 Timothy 1[:20] that he handed some people over to Satan?

Magister Ad hoc respondetur quod ex commissione Christi sola communitas fidelium habuit potestatem corripiendi in foro ecclesie. Christus tamen non artavit communitatem fidelium ad certum modum corripiendi, quin scilicet posset per se totam, quando esset expediens, vel per aliquam singularem personam que gereret vicem communitatis corrigere delinquentes; et ideo communitas poterat potestatem corripiendi committere determinate persone, et ita dicunt beatum Paulum potestatem corrigendi accepisse a communitate fidelium unius provincie vel diversarum provinciarum.

[See Significant Variants, para. 34.]Master: The reply to this is that by Christ's commission only the community of believers had the power of correcting in the forum of the church. Nevertheless Christ did not limit the community of believers to a fixed way of correcting, so that it could not correct those at fault itself as a whole, when it was convenient, or through some particular person who would act as the community's representative. And therefore the community could commit the power of correcting to a person it decided on, and it was in this way, they say, that blessed Paul received the power of correcting from the community of believers in one province or in various provinces.

Discipulus Secundum hoc sequitur quod Christus non reliquit aliquod caput ecclesie.

Student: According to this it follows that Christ did not leave any head for the church.

Magister Concedunt isti quod Christus non reliquit caput ecclesie quod ex ordinacione Christi haberet potestatem coercendi delinquentes in foro ecclesie. Nec tamen insufficienter providit ecclesie, quia ordinando quod ecclesia haberet potestatem corrigendi disposuit quod ecclesia sibi unum caput vel plura secundum diversitatem provinciarum eligeret; ymmo dicunt quod pro bono communitatis est ecclesie quod in potestate sit ecclesie sibi unum caput vel plura eligere, quod eciam vel que quando expediens videretur ecclesie posset deponi. Cum ergo Christus optime providerit ecclesie in potestate posuit ecclesie sibi unum caput vel plura eligere. Sicut enim sepe expedit communitati unum caput habere, ita interdum posset esse expediens communitati regi a pluribus, sicut eciam nonnumquam expedit rectorem habere perpetuum ita aliquando expedit non rectorem perpetuum habere sed ad tempus. Et ideo in quibusdam communitatibus secularibus non improvide ordinatur quod rectores annis singulis vel post tres menses vel post alium numerum mensium vel annorum vel dierum suum resignent officium vel penitus deponantur; in quibusdam eciam communitatibus non unus solus sed plures preficiuntur regentes. Racio autem predictorum assignatur quia in providendo regimini alicuius communitatis non solum condiciones et mores subditorum sed eciam condiciones et mores preficiendorum oportet attendere. Et ideo quia potest contingere quod in communitate non inveniatur aliquis idoneus et sufficiens ut solus regimen super communitatem accipiat, in tali casu non unus sed plures communitatem utiliter gubernabunt. Quando autem in communitate invenitur idoneus ut solus regat et subditi sponte unius regimen paciuntur, tunc melius est unum quam plures communitati preesse. Igitur propter multiplicem varietatem personarum, locorum et temporum non potest in huiusmodi regula certa dari. Cum ergo Christus, ubi certa regula convenienter dari non potest, nequaquam ecclesie regulam certam dedit, relinquitur quod Christus minime ordinavit semper unum caput ecclesie preficiendum cum hoc sepe possit in perniciem ecclesie redundare.

Master: They grant that Christ did not by his decree leave any head for the church which would have the power to restrain those at fault in the forum of the church. Nevertheless this was not an inadequate provision for the church because by decreeing that the church would have the power to correct he arranged it that the church might choose for itself one head or several according to the diversity of provinces. Indeed, they say that it is for the good of the community of the church that it is in the power of the church to choose for itself one head or several, either of which could be deposed when it seemed appropriate to the church. Since Christ made the best provision for the church, therefore, he put it into its power to choose for itself one head or several. For just as it is often convenient for a community to have one head, so it could sometimes be convenient for a community to be ruled by many, just as it is also convenient sometimes to have a perpetual ruler and at other times not a perpetual one but one for a while. And so it is not incautiously arranged in some secular communities that their rulers resign their office or are completely deposed every year or after three months or after some number of months, years or days. In certain communities also there is not one man alone set in charge as ruler but several. Now an argument for the above is provided by the fact that it is appropriate to attend not only to the conditions and customs of the subjects, when making provision for the rule of any community, but also to the conditions and customs of those who are to be put in charge. And therefore because it can happen in a community that no one is found suitable and adequate to undertake alone rule of that community, not one person but several will in such a case govern advantageously. When someone who can suitably rule alone is found in a community, however, and its subjects willingly endure the rule of one person then it is better for one person to be in charge of the community than several. Because of the great variety of persons, places and times, therefore, no certain rule can be given in matters of this kind. Since Christ did not give the church a certain rule, therefore, when a certain rule can not conveniently be given, we are left [to conclude] that Christ did not decree that one head should always be set over the church since this can often redound to the destruction of the church.

Discipulus Isti omnino nituntur potestatem summi pontificis annullare. Sed de hoc transeamus ad presens, et si aliter prefati assertores suam opinionem quod beatus Petrus non accepit a Christo super alios apostolos potestatem seu primatum fulcire nituntur, enarra.

Student: They are trying to annul completely the power of the highest pontiff. But let us pass over this now. If those who make this assertion try to strengthen in some other way their opinion that blessed Peter did not receive from Christ power or primacy over the other apostles would you tell me.

Magister Eandem assercionem auctoritatibus sanctorum patrum munire conantur. Et primo auctoritate beati Anacleti, qui fuit vicinus temporibus apostolorum et ideo gesta apostolica sibi magis nota fuerunt. Ait enim idem Anacletus, ut recitatur dist. 21, c. In novo, "In novo testamento post Christum Dominum a Petro cepit sacerdotalis ordo, quia ipsi primo pontificatus in ecclesia Christi datus est, dicente Domino ad eum, 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc Petram edificabo ecclesiam meam, et porte inferi non prevalebunt adversus eam; et tibi dabo claves regni celorum.' Hic ergo ligandi solvendique potestatem primus accepit a Domino primusque ad fidem populum virtute sue predicacionis adduxit. Ceteri vero apostoli cum eodem pari consorcio honorem et potestatem acceperunt." Ex quibus verbis colligunt isti quod beatus Petrus nullam super alios apostolos ex ordinacione Christi habuit potestatem, tum quia asserit Anacletus eos pares in potestate et honore fuisse, tum quia asserit pontificatum datum beato Petro in potestate ligandi et solvendi consistere. Omnes autem apostoli in hac potestate pares fuerunt, ergo quantum ad pontificatum fuerunt pares.

Master: They try to fortify that assertion with authoritative texts from the holy fathers, and first with a text from blessed Anacletus who was near in time to the apostles and so was more familiar with their deeds. For as we find in dist. 21, c. In novo, Anacletus says [col.69], "In the New Testament the priestly order began after Christ the Lord from Peter because it was to him that a pontificate in the church of Christ was first given, when the Lord said to him [Matt. 16:18-9], 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' It was this man, therefore, who first received the power of binding and loosing from the Lord and first led the people to faith by the power of his preaching. But the rest of the apostles received honour and power with him in equal fellowship" They gather from these words that blessed Peter had no power over the other apostles by Christ's decree, both because Anacletus affirms that they were equal in power and honour and because he affirms that the pontificate given to blessed Peter consists in the power of binding and loosing. All the apostles were equal in this power, however, and so they were equal in their pontificate.

Discipulus Ista auctoritas non facit pro eis quia, ut dicit ibidem glossa, "Omnis episcopus est par apostolico quantum ad ordinem et racionem consecracionis, Petrus tamen maior fuit aliis in administracione."

Student: That text does not serve their purpose because, as the gloss on it says, "Every bishop is equal to the pope with respect to the order and nature of his consecration, yet Peter was greater than the others in administration."

Magister Nonnulli predictorum assertorum dicunt hic glossam errare quia textum aperte corrumpit, cum textus affirmet omnes apostolos cum beato Petro pares in potestate fuisse; administracio autem est potestas quedam vel actus potestatis. Ergo Petrus in administracione alios apostolos nullatenus precellebat.

Master: Some of those who affirm the above say that the gloss is wrong here because it clearly falsifies the text, since the text affirms that all the apostles were equal in power to blessed Peter. Administration, however, is a certain power or an act of power. Therefore Peter was not superior to the other apostles in administration.

Item predictam assercionem, quod beatus Petrus alios apostolos minime precellebat, probant auctoritate Cypriani qui, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Loquitur, ait, "Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, 'Ego tibi dico quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam.' Super unum edificat ecclesiam et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurreccionem suam parem potestatem tribuat et dicat, 'Sicut misit me pater, et ego mitto vos. Accipite Spiritum sanctum', tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique ceteri apostoli quod Petrus fuit pari consorcio prediti honoris et potestatis." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod licet Petrus prius habuerit potestatem a Christo, postea tamen apostoli parem potestatem acceperunt, et ita Petrus ex tunc eos ex ordinatione Christi in potestate et per consequens nec in administracione nullatenus precellebat.

Also, they prove the above assertion, that blessed Peter was not superior to the other apostles, by a text of Cyprian found at 24, q. 1, c. Loquitur. He says [col.971], "The Lord says to Peter, 'And I say to you, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church'. He builds his church on one man, and although he bestows equal power on all the apostles after his resurrection, saying to them, 'As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. ... Receive ye the Holy Ghost', yet so that he might clearly show its unity he organised by his own authority the origin of that unity, which began from one man. In this way the rest of the apostles were undoubtedly endowed in a fellowship of honour and power equal to that of Peter." We are given to understand by these words that although Peter had power from Christ first, yet afterwards the apostles received equal power, and so from then on Peter was not superior to them by Christ's ordination in power nor, as a consequence, in administration.

Item hoc probant auctoritate beati Augustini que ponitur 2, q. 7, c. Paulus. Ait enim, "Paulus Petrum reprehendit, quod non auderet nisi se non imparem sciret."

Also, they prove this by the text of blessed Augustine found at 2, q. 7, c. Paulus. For he says [col.493], "Paul censured Peter, which he would not have dared to do if he had not known that he was his equal."

Discipulus Ad hoc respondet glossa ibidem dicens quod scivit se non imparem "meritis non tamen administracione."

Student: The gloss at that point [s. v. imparem; col.698] replies to this when it says that he knew that he was equal "in merit but not in administration."

Magister Hanc responsionem putant falsam et frivolam. Falsa enim est, ut dicunt, quia licet Paulus se in charitate esse scivisset et multa merita habuisse, non tamen scivit se esse parem beato Petro in meritis; ymmo probabile est quod tanquam vere humilis reputaverit beatum Petrum se precellere sanctitate, nec aliquo modo, nisi per revelacionem, potuit scire se non imparem meritis beato Petro. Non autem legitur quod Deus revelaverit beato Paulo quod meritis fuerit par beato Petro. Ergo temerarium est dicere quod beatus Paulus scivit se parem beato Petro quia quod de scripturis autenticis non profertur temerarie affirmatur. Est eciam frivola quia ad hoc quod aliquis reprehendat alium non requiritur paritas meritorum, tunc enim numquam minus bonus posset reprehendere meliorem. Intelligit ergo Augustinus quod Paulus par fuit beato Petro potestate et quod ei non erat subiectus nec in administracione nec in aliis quibuscumque que ad superioritatem et potestatem spectant.

Master: They think that this reply is false and frivolous. For it is false, they say, because although Paul would have known that he was in charity and had many merits yet he did not know that he was equal to blessed Peter in merit; in fact it is probable that, being truly humble, he regarded blessed Peter as surpassing him in sanctity -- and he could not have known in any way except by revelation that he was equal in merit to blessed Peter. We do not read, however, that God revealed to blessed Paul that he was equal in merit to blessed Peter. It is rash to say, therefore, that Paul knew he was equal in merit to blessed Peter because what is not cited from authentic scriptures is rashly affirmed. It is also frivolous because equality of merit is not required in order for someone to censure another for then a less good person could never censure a better one. Therefore Augustine means that Paul was equal to Peter in power and that he was subject to him neither in administration nor in anything else that pertains to superiority and power.

Capitulum 16

Chapter 16

Discipulus Non putabam quod pro ista assercione heretica tot auctoritates vocales sonarent pro ipsa; tamen nolo nunc plures allegaciones audire, quamvis velim eam alias magis diligenter discutere. Sed ut contrariam veritatem catholicam melius intelligam, quomodo eadem veritas maiorum auctoritatibus muniatur ostende. Michi tamen nullatenus manifestes quam assercionem reputes veriorem.

Student: I did not think that so many texts would suggest that heretical assertion by their wording; nevertheless I do not want to hear more arguments for it now, although I do want to discuss it more carefully at another time. But so that I may better understand the opposing catholic truth, show how that truth may be fortified by texts from our forefathers. Yet do not make clear to me which assertion you regard as the truer.

Christ did appoint Peter to rule the other apostles

Magister Quod beatus Petrus super alios apostolos habuit potestatem et primatum a Christo multis modis ostenditur. Primo sic: ille cuius cure et regimini tempore apostolorum fuit totus grex Dominicus commissus a Christo, eciam super apostolos qui tunc erant de grege Dominico, curam et regimen accepit a Christo. Sed cure et regimini beati Petri totus grex Dominicus commissus fuit a Christo, ipso dicente eidem Iohannis ultimo, "Pasce oves meas", inter has oves et illas non distinguens. Ergo et apostoli qui extra numerum ovium nequaquam censendi fuerunt cure et regimini beati Petri commissi fuerunt.

Master: That blessed Peter did have power and primacy over the other apostles from Christ is shown in many ways, firstly as follows. That one to whose care and rule at the time of the apostles the whole of the Lord's flock was committed by Christ also received care and rule from Christ over the apostles, who were at the time part of the Lord's flock. But the whole of the Lord's flock was committed by Christ to the care and rule of blessed Peter when he said to him at the end of John [21:17], "Feed my sheep", not distinguishing between these sheep and those. Therefore the apostles too, who would not have been considered as outside the number of sheep, were committed to the care and rule of blessed Peter.

Secundo sic: illi cui terreni simul et celestis imperii iura commissa fuerunt tempore apostolorum ipsi apostoli subiecti fuerunt. Sed beato Petro tempore apostolorum predicta iura commissa fuerunt, teste Nicolao papa qui, ut habetur 22. dist. c. 1, ait, "Super petram fidei mox nascentis erexit qui beato Petro eterne vite clavigero terreni simul et celestis imperii iura commisit." Ergo apostoli, qui tunc fuerunt, beati Petri subditi extiterunt.

[It is shown] second as follows. The apostles themselves were subject to him to whom rights over both the earthly and the heavenly kingdom were committed in their time. But in the time of the apostles those rights were committed to blessed Peter, as Pope Nicholas attests. As we find in dist. 22, c. 1, he says [col.73], "He who committed rights over both the earthly and the heavenly kingdoms to blessed Peter, who carries the keys of eternal life, erected [the Roman church] on the rock of a faith then being born." Therefore the apostles, who lived then, were subjects of blessed Peter.

Tercio sic: caput super alia membra principatum habere dinoscitur; beatus autem Petrus caput fuit apostolorum, teste Leone papa qui, ut habetur 19. dist. c. Ita Dominus, ait, "Ita Dominus noster Iesus Christus, humani generis Salvator, instituit ut veritas que antea legis et prophetarum preconio continebatur per apostolicam tubam in salutem universitatis exiret, sicut scriptum est, 'In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum et in fines orbis terre verba eorum.' Sed huius muneris sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium apostolorum officium pertinere voluit ut in beatissimo Petro, apostolorum omnium summo, principaliter collocaret, ut ab ipso quasi quodam capite dona sua velut in corpus omne diffunderet." Ex quibus verbis patenter habetur quod beatus Petrus institutus fuit caput apostolorum a Christo; ergo super ipsos habuit primatum a Christo.

[It is shown] third as follows. A head is known to have dominion over other members. Blessed Peter was head of the apostles, however, as Pope Leo attests. As we find in dist. 19, c. Ita dominus, he says [col.62], "In this way our Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, brought it about that the truth which was previously contained in the proclamation of the law and the prophets issued forth from the apostolic trumpet for universal salvation, as has been written, [Romans 10:18] 'Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.' But the Lord wanted the sacrament of this service to pertain to the office of all the apostles so he located it principally in most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles, so that he might pour forth his gifts from him, as though from the head to the whole body." We plainly learn from these words that blessed Peter was appointed by Christ head of the apostles. Therefore he had primacy over them from Christ.

Quarto sic: ille qui tempore apostolorum omnium ecclesiarum constituit sacerdotes super ipsos apostolos habuit principatum. Sed temporibus apostolorum beatus Petrus omnium ecclesiarum constituit sacerdotes iuxta tenorem Innocencii pape, qui, ut legitur dist. 11, c. Quis nesciat, ait, "Cum sit manifestum in omnem Italiam et Gallias et Hispanias et Africam atque Siciliam et Insulas interiacentes nullum instituisse ecclesias nisi eos quos venerabilis apostolus Petrus aut successores eius constituerunt sacerdotes." Ergo beatus Petrus super alios apostolos habuit principatum.

[It is shown] fourth as follows. He who appointed priests for all churches in the time of the apostles had dominion over those apostles. But according to a text of Pope Innocent which we read in dist. 11, c. Quis nesciat, blessed Peter appointed priests for all churches in the time of the apostles. He says [col.26], "Since it is clear that no one established churches in all of Italy, in Gaul, in Spain, in Africa and in Sicily and adjoining islands except those whom the venerable apostle Peter and his successors appointed as priests ... ." Therefore blessed Peter had dominion over the other apostles.

Quinto sic: beatus Petrus acceperat potestatem regendi omnes apostolos, teste Gregorio qui, ut recitatur 2, q. 7, c. Petrus, ait, "Petrus potestatem regendi acceperat, et tamen idem apostolorum primus querimonie contra eum", etc. Ergo beatus Petrus super apostolos habuit principatum.

[It is show] fifth as follows. blessed Peter had received power to rule all the apostles, as Gregory attests. As is recorded in 2, q. 7, c. Petrus [col.496], he says, "Peter had received power to rule, and yet he who was first among the apostles [replied] to a complaint [made] against him ... ." Therefore blessed Peter had dominion over the apostles.

Discipulus Non curo quod pro veritate predicta multas raciones adducas cum auctoritas ecclesie debeat ad eandem tenendam sufficere. Canit enim ecclesia universalis de beato Petro, "Tu es pastor ovium, princeps apostolorum." Ideo ad alias quatuor asserciones de quibus fecisti mencionem procede et motiva eorum compendiose declara.

Student: I do not care for you to bring forward many arguments for the aforesaid truth since the authority of the church should be enough for it to be held. For the universal church sings of blessed Peter, "You are the shepherd of the sheep, prince of the apostles." [See Significant Variants, para. 33.]Would you move on, therefore, to the other four [actually five - end of chapter 14] assertions that you mentioned and briefly make clear the arguments for them.

Capitulum 17

Chapter 17

(2) Peter was not bishop of Rome

Magister Secunda assercio predictorum est quod beatus Petrus non fuit Romanus episcopus. Ad quod ponendum moventur ex hoc quod in tota Scriptura Divina actus apostolicos describente minime reperitur quod beatus Petrus fuerit Rome, et non videtur eis verisimile quod beatus Petrus Romanam rexisset ecclesiam et tamen beatus Lucas de ipso nullam omnino fecisset mencionem.

Master: Their second assertion is that blessed Peter was not bishop of Rome. They are moved to put this from the fact that in all of the divine scripture that describes the acts of the apostles we do not find that blessed Peter was at Rome; and it does not seem probable to them that blessed Peter would have ruled the Roman church and yet that blessed Luke would not have made any mention of this at all.

(3) It was the other apostles who appointed Peter to rule them

Tercia assercio eorum est quod beatus Petrus ex ordinacione apostolorum super ipsos habuit principatum. Quod auctoritate beati Anacleti que ponitur dist. 21, c. In novo ostendunt. Ait enim, loquens de beato Petro, "Ceteri vero apostoli cum eodem pari consorcio honorem et potestatem acceperunt ipsumque principem eorum esse voluerunt." Ergo eleccione apostolorum beatus Petrus fuit factus princeps eorum.

Their third assertion is that it was by their decree that blessed Peter had dominion over the apostles. They show this by a text from blessed Anacletus which is located in dist. 21, c. In novo. For speaking about blessed Peter he says [col.69], "Indeed the rest of the apostles were equal in fellowship in the honour and power they received, and wanted him to be their chief." It was, therefore, by the choice of the apostles that Peter was made their chief.

(4) So far as their power is from Christ, priests are equal

Quarta assercio eorum est quod ex ordinacione Christi nullus sacerdos super alios habet aliquam potestatem. Nec unus habet maiorem potestatem super gregem sibi commissum quam alius ex constitucione Christi. Sed omnis superioritas unius sacerdotis super alium in remedium scismatis et propter bonum commune ab ipsis est sacerdotibus instituta. Hoc autem auctoritate Ieronimi que ponitur dist. 93, c. Legimus probare nituntur. Ait enim, "Cum Apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse episcopos quos presbyteros, quid patitur mensarum et viduarum minister?" etc. Et infra, "Audivi aliud testimonium in quo manifestissime declaratur vel comprobatur eundem esse episcopum atque presbyterum 'Propter hoc reliqui te Crete, ut que deerant corrigeres et constitueres presbyteros per civitates sicut ego tibi mandavi. Si quis est sine crimine, unius uxoris vir, filios habens fideles, non in accusacione luxurie aut non subditos. Oportet enim episcopum esse sine crimine quasi Dei dispensatorem.' Et ad Timotheum, 'Noli negligere graciam que tibi data est per propheciam et per imposicionem manus presbyteri.' Sed et Petrus in prima epistola, 'Presbyteros qui in vobis sunt precor compresbyter.'" Et infra, "Parva tibi videntur tantorum virorum testimonia? Clangat tuba evangelica filius tonitrui quem Jhesus amavit plurimum, qui de pectore Salvatoris doctrinarum fluenta potavit, 'Presbyter electe Domine et filiis eius quos ego diligo in veritate.' Et in alia epistola, 'Presbyter Gaio carissimo quem ego in veritate diligo.' Quod autem postea unus electus est qui ceteris preponeretur in scismatis remedium factum est ne unusquisque ad se trahens ecclesiam Christi rumperet. Nam et Alexandrie a Marco Evangelista usque ad Bedam et Dionysium episcopos presbyteri semper ex se unum eligebant et in excelsiori gradu collocabant, quem episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus sibi imperatorem faciat." Ex quibus verbis colligunt isti quod inter presbyteros de quibus exemplificat beatus Hieronimus, nulla erat superioritas ex ordinacione Christi, cum post exempla supradicta omnia dicat Hieronimus, "Quod autem postea unus electus est qui ceteris preponeretur in scismatis remedium factum est." Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi quod prelacio unius presbyteri super alios post ordinacionem Christi ab ipsis presbyteris extitit instituta. Beatus autem Hieronimus exemplificat de beato Petro et beato Iohanne Evangelista et de aliis presbyteris per Timotheum constituendis. Ergo beatus Petrus super alios presbyteros qualescumque ex ordinacione Christi nullam habuit superioritatem. Ex quo concludunt quod nullus presbyter ex ordinacione Christi est superior alio, sed ex ordinacione humana solummodo.

Their fourth assertion is that by Christ's decree no priest has any power over other [priests]. Nor does anyone by Christ's arrangement have any greater power than any other over the flock committed to him. But any superiority of one priest over another was established by priests themselves as a remedy for schism and for the common good. They try to prove this by a text from Jerome located in dist. 93, c. Legimus. For he says [col.327], "Although the Apostle manifestly teaches that bishops and priests are the same, what does a minister experience of tables and widows? ... I have heard other testimony which makes it very clear or manifestly establishes that a bishop is the same as a priest [Titus 1:5-7], "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee. If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God.' And [1] Tim. [4:14 says], 'Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.' But in his first letter [5:1] Peter says, 'As a priest myself I beseech the priests among you ... .' ... Do the testimonies of such great men seem insignificant to you? The son of thunder whom Jesus loved dearly, who drank in the teachings flowing from the Saviour's heart, sounds forth with his apostolic trumpet [2 John 1]: 'The priest to the elect lady and her children whom I love in the truth.' And in another letter [3 John 1 he says], 'The priest to the dearly beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.' That one was chosen later, however, who was set over the rest was done as a remedy for schism lest everyone should burst Christ's church asunder by taking it to himself. For indeed from Mark the evangelist at Alexandria to the bishops Bede and Dionysius priests always chose one from among themselves and placed him, whom they called a bishop, in a higher position, just as the army makes an emperor for itself." They gather from those words that there was by Christ's decree no superiority among the priests from whom blessed Jerome draws his examples, since after all the above examples Jerome says, "That one was chosen later, however, who was set over the rest was done as a remedy for schism." We are given to understand by these words that the rule of one priest over others was established after Christ's decree by the priests themselves. Blessed Jerome gives the examples of blessed Peter, blessed John the evangelist, and the other priests appointed by Timothy. Therefore blessed Peter did not have by Christ's decree any superiority over any other priests at all. They conclude from this that no priest is superior to any other by Christ's decree but by human decree only.

Item specialiter quod episcopi super presbyteros superioritatem non habeant ex institucione Christi auctoritate beati Hieronimi super epistolam ad Thitum que ponitur dist. 95, c. Olim ostendunt. Ait enim, "Olim idem erat presbyter qui et episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent et diceretur in populis, 'Ego sum Pauli, Ego Apollo, Ego Cephe', communi presbyterorum concilio ecclesie gubernabantur. Postquam autem unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut de presbyteris unus superponeretur et scismatum semina tollerentur." Et paulo post, "Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesie consuetudine ei qui sibi prepositus fuerit esse subiectos, ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispensacionis Dominice veritate presbyteris esse maiores et in communi debere ecclesiam regere." Hiis verbis ut videtur apertissime affirmatur quod ex institucione Domini inter episcopos et presbyteros nulla est distinccio. Unde dicunt isti quod olim quilibet episcopus erat presbyter et quilibet presbyter erat episcopus, et ideo tota distinccio inter papam et patriarchas et archiepiscopos et inter episcopos et presbyteros solummodo est ex ordinacione humana et non ex ordinacione Christi.

Also, they show in particular, from a text of blessed Jerome on the letter to Titus found at dist. 95, c. Olim, that bishops do not have superiority over priests by Christ's arrangement. For he says [col.332], "Formerly the same man who was a priest was also a bishop, and before there were, at the devil's instigation, schools in religion and it was said among the people, 'I belong to Paul', 'I belong to Apollos', 'I belong to Cephas' churches were governed by a common council of priests. After each priest began to think that those he had baptised belonged not to Christ but to him, however, it was determined throughout the world that one priest would be put in charge ... and the seeds of schism removed. ... Just as priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who has been put over them, therefore, so bishops knew that they were greater than priests more by custom than by the truth of the Lord's direction and that they ought to rule the church in common." It seems very obviously to be asserted by these words that there is no distinction by the Lord's arrangement between bishops and priests. So it is that they say that formerly every bishop was a priest and every priest a bishop. And therefore the whole distinction between the pope and patriarchs and archbishops and between bishops and priests arises not by Christ's decree but only by human decree.

Capitulum 18

Chapter 18

Magister Quinta assercio predictorum est quod Romana ecclesia ante tempora Constantini super alias ecclesias non habuit principatum.

Master: [See Significant Variants, para. 33.]Their fifth assertion is that before the time of Constantine the Roman church did not have dominion over other churches.

Sexta vero assercio eorum est quod Romana ecclesia a Constantino imperatore super alias ecclesias primatum aut principatum accepit.

Their sixth assertion is that the Roman church received primacy or dominion over other churches from the emperor Constantine.

(5) The Roman Church did not rule the others before Constantine
(6) The Roman Church received primacy from Constantine

Istas autem duas asserciones simul quidam sic nituntur probare. Constantinus imperator constituit ut Romanus pontifex esset caput omnium ecclesiarum; ergo Romana ecclesia a Constantino et non ante super alias ecclesias habuit principatum. Antecedens probatur per id quod legitur in decretis dist. 96 et accipitur ex gestis beati Silvestri, ubi sic habetur, "Constantinus imperator quarto die sui baptismatis privilegium Romane ecclesie pontifici contulit ut in toto orbe Romano pontifices vel sacerdotes ita hunc caput habeant sicut iudices regem." Et infra, "Et sicut nostram terrenam imperialem potenciam ita eius sacrosanctam Romanam ecclesiam decrevimus veneranter honorari et amplius quam nostrum Imperium terrenumque tronum sedem sacratissimam beati Petri gloriose exaltari, tribuentes ei potestatem et gloriam et dignitatem atque vigorem et honorificenciam imperialem. Atque decernentes sancimus ut principatum teneat tam super quatuor sedes Alexandrinam, Anciochenam, Hierosolymitanam et Constantinopolitanam quam eciam super omnes in universo orbe terrarum Dei ecclesias. Et pontifex qui pro tempore ipsius sacrosancte Romane ecclesie extiterit celsior et princeps cunctis sacerdotibus et tocius mundi existat et eius iudicio que ad cultum Dei vel fidem Christianorum et stabilitatem procurandam firmiter disponantur". Ex quibus verbis datur intelligi ut videtur quod Romana ecclesia non nisi a Constantino super alias ecclesias obtinuit principatum.

 

Now some of them try to prove those two assertions at the same time as follows. The emperor Constantine established the Roman pontiff as head of all churches. It was from Constantine, therefore, and not earlier, that the Roman church had dominion over other churches. The antecedent is proved by what we read in the decretals at dist. 96, [c. 14; col.342], taken from the deeds of the blessed Sylvester, where we find the following, "On the fourth day after his baptism the emperor Constantine conferred a privilege on the pontiff of the Roman church that throughout the whole Roman world pontiffs or priests would have him as their head in the same way as judges have the king. ... And we have decreed that his sacrosanct Roman church be reverently honoured just like our earthly imperial power and that the most sacred see of blessed Peter be more gloriously exalted than our empire and earthly throne, bestowing on it power, glory, dignity, vigour and imperial honour. And we establish by decree that it hold dominion both over the four sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople and also over all the churches of God throughout all the lands of the earth. And let whoever is pontiff of that sacrosanct Roman church at any time be higher than and chief of all the priests throughout the whole world and let whatever has to be managed for the worship of God or for the faith and stability of Christians be firmly regulated according to his judgement." We are given to understand by these words, it seems, that the Roman church acquired dominion over other churches only from Constantine.

Capitulum 19

Chapter 19

Discipulus Ista assercio de primatu Romane ecclesie michi non placet. Ideo assercionem contrariam allegacionibus fulcire conare?

Student: [See Significant Variants, para. 33.]That assertion about the primacy of the Roman church does not please me. Would you therefore try to support the opposing assertion with arguments.

The Roman Church had primacy before Constantine

Magister Tribus modis ponitur quod Romana ecclesia ante tempora Constantini super alias omnes ecclesias habuit principatum. Primus modus est quod habuit principatum auctoritate conciliorum generalium. Unde in decretis sic legitur dist. 17, para. Hinc eciam, "Scientes quod eius sedi primum beati Petri apostoli meritum, deinde, secuta iussione Domini, conciliorum venerandorum auctoritas singularem in ecclesiis tradidit potestatem." Ex quibus verbis habetur quod veneranda concilia tradiderunt sedi beati Petri singularem super ecclesias potestatem.

Master: That the Roman church obtained dominion over all other churches before the time of Constantine is put in three ways. The first way is that it obtained dominion on the authority of general councils. So we read as follows in the decretals at dist. 17, para. Hinc etiam [col.52], "We know that first the merit of the apostle blessed Peter then, following the Lord's order, the authority of venerable councils handed unique power over the churches to his see." We find from these words that venerable councils handed unique power over the churches to the see of blessed Peter.

Capitulum 20

Chapter 20

Magister Aliter dicitur quod Romana ecclesia a Christo immediate, quando ordinavit beatum Petrum in summum pontificem, dicens, "Tu es Petrus", et cetera, super omnes ecclesias primatum ac principatum accepit.

Master: Otherwise it is said that the Roman church received primacy and dominion over all churches directly from Christ when he appointed blessed Peter as highest pontiff by saying [Matt. 16:18], "You are Peter" etc.

Hoc Pelagius papa, ut habetur in decretis dist. 21, c. Quamvis aperte, sentire videtur aperte cum dicit, "Sancta Romana ecclesia catholica et apostolica nullis synodicis constitutis ceteris ecclesiis prelata est, sed evangelica voce Domini et salvatoris nostri primatum obtinuit: 'Tu es', inquit Dominus, 'Petrus et super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam.'"

As we find in the decretals at dist. 21, c. Quamvis [col.70], Pope Pelagius [really Gelasius] seems clearly to believe this when he says, "The holy, catholic and apostolic Roman church was not preferred to the rest of the churches by any decrees of a synod but obtained primacy by the words of our Lord and Saviour in the gospel when the Lord said, 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.'"

Hoc eciam Nicolaus papa videtur asserere qui, ut legitur 22, dist. c. 1 ait, "Omnes sive patriarche in cuiuslibet apicem, sive metropoleon primatus, aut episcopatuum cathedras, vel ecclesiarum cuiuslibet ordinis dignitatem instituit Romana ecclesia. Illam vero solus ipse fundavit et supra petram fidei mox nascentis erexit." Et parum post, "Non ergo quelibet terrena sentencia sed illud verbum quo constitutum est celum et terra, per quod denique omnia condita sunt elementa Romanam fundavit ecclesiam."

Pope Nicholas seems to affirm this too when he says, as we read in dist. 22, c. 1 [col.73], "The Roman church established everyone, whether it was the honour of any patriarch, the primacy of metropolitans, the sees of bishoprics and the dignity of churches of any order. But that church he alone founded and built on that rock of a faith just coming into being ... It was not therefore any earthly opinion that founded the Roman church but that word by which heaven and earth were set up and through which all the elements were founded."

Hiis eciam beatus Anacletus consentire videtur qui, ut habetur dist. eadem c. Sacrosancta, ait, "Sacrosancta Romana ecclesia et apostolica non ab apostolis sed ab ipso Domino salvatore nostro primatum obtinuit, sicut beato Petro dixit, 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc Petram edificabo ecclesiam meam.'"

Blessed Anacletus also seems to agree with these two when he says, as we find at the same distinction, c. Sacrosancta [col.73], "The sacrosanct apostolic Roman church obtained primacy not from the apostles but from the Lord our Saviour himself ... as he said to Peter, 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.'"

Hoc eciam Gelasius papa, ut legitur 9, q. 3, c. Cuncta, approbare videtur. Ait enim, "Apostolica sedes sine ulla synodo precedente et solvendi quod inique synodus dampnaverat et, dampnandi, nulla existente synodo, quos oportuit habuit facultatem, et hoc nimirum pro suo principatu quem beatus Petrus apostolus Domini voce et tenuit semper et tenebit."

 Pope Gelasius seems to agree with this too, as we read in 9, q. 3, c. Cuncta. For he says [col.611], "Without any synod preceding it the apostolic see had the power both to absolve anything that a synod had wrongly condemned and to condemn those whom it so befitted without there being a synod, and it doubtless had this on account of the dominion which the apostle blessed Peter at the word of the Lord has always held and will continue to hold at the word of the Lord.

Item Leo papa, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Cum beatissimus, ait, "Cum beatissimus Petrus apostolus a Domino acceperit principatum, et Romana ecclesia in eius remaneat institutis [...]."

Again, as we find at 24, q. 1, c. Cum beatissimus, Pope Leo says [col.971], "Since the blessed apostle Peter received dominion from the Lord, and the Roman church remains as established by him ... ."

Ex hiis omnibus datur intelligi quod Romana ecclesia ab ipso Christo ante ascensionem eius in celum recepit et habuit super omnes alias ecclesias principatum.

We are given to understand by all these that the Roman church received and obtained dominion over all other churches from Christ himself before his ascension into heaven.

Capitulum 21

Chapter 21

Magister Tercius modus dicendi est quod Romana ecclesia non habuit immediate a Christo super alias ecclesias principatum, ymmo per plures annos post ascensionem Domini alii ecclesie fuit subiecta; nec eciam habuit primo principatum a conciliis vel eciam a collegio apostolorum, sed primo et immediate habuit principatum a beato Petro transferente sedem suam in Romam et Romanam ecclesiam omnibus aliis ecclesiis preferente; et ideo a Christo habuit mediate principatum. Beatus enim Petrus, electus in papam et prelatum tocius ecclesie a salvatore ante ascensionem, pro se et suis successoribus ac eciam pro ecclesia ubi sedem suam disponeret collocare primatum accepit. Et ideo quia transtulit sedem suam de Anciochia usque Romam, nec umquam postea ad aliam ecclesiam transtulit sedem suam, extunc Romana ecclesia super alias ecclesias obtinuit principatum.

Master: A third way of speaking is that the Roman church did not have dominion over other churches directly from Christ; rather it was subject to another church for many years after the Lord's ascension, and it did not in fact first obtain dominion from councils, or even from the college of apostles. But it acquired dominion firstly and directly from blessed Peter's transferring his see to Rome and preferring the Roman church to all other churches; and therefore it acquired dominion from Christ indirectly. For having been chosen as pope and prelate of the whole church by the Saviour before his ascension, blessed Peter accepted primacy on his own behalf, on behalf of his successors and also on behalf of the church where he was disposed to locate his see. And because he transferred his see from Antioch to Rome and never afterwards transferred it to another church, the Roman church from that time held dominion over other churches.

Hoc Marcellinus, scribens omnibus episcopis per Anciochiam constitutis, ut habetur 24, q. 1, c. Rogamus, affirmare videtur. Ait enim, "Rogamus vos fratres dilectissimi ut non aliud doceatis neque senciatis quam quod a beato Petro apostolo et reliquis apostolis et patribus accepistis. Ipse enim est caput tocius ecclesie cui Dominus ait, 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam.' Eius enim sedes primitus fuit apud vos, que postea iubente Domino Romam translata est, cui adminiculante gracia divina hodierna die presidemus. Si vero Anciocena, que olim prima erat, Romane cessit sedi, nulla est que non sit eius subiecta dicioni.

When writing to all the bishops set up through Antioch Marcellinus seems to affirm this. For as we find at 24, q. 1, c. Rogamus he says [col.970], "We ask you, dearest brothers, not to teach or believe anything that you did not receive from the blessed apostle Peter and the rest of the apostles and fathers. For he to whom the Lord said, 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.' is the head of the whole church. For his see was originally with you and was afterwards transferred at the Lord's command to Rome, where we are in charge today with the support of divine grace. But if your Antiochian [church], which formerly was first, has given way to the Roman see, there is no [church] which is not subject to its authority."

Ex hiis plures asserciones ad suum propositum pertinentes nituntur isti colligere. Quarum prima est quod Dominus ante ascensionem suam beatum Petrum caput constituit tocius ecclesie. Et hoc eciam Anacletus papa, ut habetur dist. 22, c. Sacrosancta, asserit manifeste, dicens, "Inter beatos apostolos quedam fuit discrecio, et licet omnes apostoli essent, Petro tamen a Domino concessum est, et ipsi inter se idipsum voluerunt, ut reliquis omnibus preesset apostolis et Cephas, id est, caput et principatum teneret apostolatus." Quod Christus sibi promisit dicens Iohannis 1, "Tu vocaberis Cephas."

 

From these [texts] they try to infer many assertions that are pertinent to their purpose. The first of these is that before his ascension the Lord appointed blessed Peter head of the whole church. Pope Anacletus also obviously affirms this, as we find at dist. 22, c. Sacrosancta, when he says [col.73], "There was a certain difference [of power] among the blessed apostles and although all were apostles, it was nevertheless granted to Peter by the Lord and desired among them that he should rule over all the rest of the apostles, that is, that Cephas would maintain headship and dominion over the apostolate." Christ promised him this when he said in John 1[:42], "Thou shalt be called Cephas."

Secunda assercio quam colligunt ex predictis est quod ecclesia Anciochena super alias ecclesias habuit principatum, quia, sicut beatus Petrus primus fuit et princeps omnium Christianorum, ita eius sedes prima fuit inter omnes ecclesias. Beatus autem Petrus priusquam Rome sedem habuit Anciochie sicut hic dicitur. Quod eciam asserit Anacletus, dicens ubi prius, "Tercia vero sedes apud Anciochiam eiusdem beati Petri apostoli habetur honorabilis, quam illic priusquam Romam veniret habuit." Et hiis concordat Ancius papa, ut scribitur 7, q. 1, c. Mutaciones, dicens, "Petrus, factus magister noster et princeps apostolorum, de Anciochia civitate utilitatis causa est translatus Romam, ut ibidem pocius proficere posset." Ex hiis habetur quod sedes beati Petri primo fuit Anciochie, ubi, sicut in cronicis reperitur, sedit annis septem; et ita ecclesia Anciochena septem annis super omnes ecclesias et super Romanam, si tunc aliqui Romani conversi fuerunt, obtinuit principatum.

The second assertion that they infer from the above [texts] is that the church of Antioch had dominion over other churches because, just as blessed Peter was the first and most eminent of all Christians, so his see was the first among all churches. Before blessed Peter had his see at Rome, however, it was at Antioch, as is said here. Anacletus affirms this too, saying in the text cited above [dist. 22, c. Sacrosancta; col.73], "The third see at Antioch is held to be honourable [from the name] of the blessed apostle Peter. He held the see there before he went to Rome." Pope Anterius agrees with the above when he says, as is written at 7, q. 1, c. Mutaciones [col.579], "Having been made our master and the chief of the apostles Peter was transferred for the sake of usefulness from the city of Antioch to Rome so that he might be able to make more progress there." We find from these [words] that blessed Peter's see was first at Antioch where he remained for seven years, as we find in the chronicles; and so the church of Antioch for seven years possessed dominion over all churches, even the Roman church, if any Romans were converted at that time.

Tercia assercio quam colligunt ex predictis est quod Romana ecclesia post Anciochenam obtinuit principatum, et ita post ascensionem Domini fluxerunt undecim anni antequam ecclesia Romana haberet super alias ecclesias principatum. Ex quo concludunt quod ante ascensionem Domini nequaquam habuit principatum.

The third assertion that they infer from the above [texts] is that the Roman church obtained dominion after [the church] of Antioch, and so eleven years flowed by after the Lord's ascension before the Roman church obtained dominion over other churches. They conclude from this that it did not have dominion before the Lord's ascension.

Discipulus Si predicta vera essent, ecclesia Hierosolymitana quatuor annis habuisset super omnes alias ecclesias principatum, quia, sicut habetur in cronicis, Petrus post passionem Domini, antequam Anciochie sibi sedem eligeret, cathedram quatuor annis tenuit, nec legitur ubi sederit nisi Hierosolymis. Ergo Hierosolymitana ecclesia tunc super omnes alias ecclesias tenuit principatum, quod tamen non videtur veritatem habere.

Student: If the above were true, the church of Jerusalem would have had dominion over all other churches for four years because, as we find in the chronicles, Peter held a cathedral see after the Lord's passion for four years before he chose the see of Antioch for himself, and we do not read that his see was anywhere except at Jerusalem. At that time, therefore, the Jerusalem church held dominion over all other churches; and yet this does not seem to be true.

Magister Ad hoc dicitur uno modo quod beatus Petrus quatuor annis tenuit cathedram, nullam sibi ecclesiam eligendo, sed tanquam prelatus et princeps omnium sedebat ubicumque volebat. Sed post quatuor annos sibi in Anciochia sedem elegit, nolens alium dum esset ibidem preficere in episcopum. Et ideo non Hierosolymitana ecclesia fuit prima, quia, sicut legitur in Legenda beati Iacobi, idem Iacobus post passionem Domini statim ab apostolis Hierosolymitanorum fuit episcopus ordinatus, et ita Petrus illam ecclesiam sibi non appropriavit; sed illi sicut ceteris prefuit, et preter Petrum episcopum habuit specialem; aliter fuit de ecclesia Anciochena.

Master: It is said to this in one way that for four years blessed Peter did not hold any cathedral see by choosing a church for himself, but sat as ruler and chief of all wherever he chose. But after four years he chose a see for himself in Antioch, not wanting to appoint anyone else as bishop while he was there. The church of Jerusalem was not first, therefore, because blessed James was appointed by the apostles as bishop of the people of Jerusalem immediately after the Lord's passion, as we read in his Legend, and so Peter did not make that church his own; but he was in charge of it, as he was of the rest, while it had its own particular bishop besides Peter; it was otherwise with the church of Antioch.

Discipulus Adhuc cupio scire an secundum istos posset papa transferre sedem papalem de Roma in aliam civitatem.

Student: I want to know further whether the pope was able, according to them, to transfer the papal see from Rome to another city.

Magister Ad hoc quidam dicunt eorum quod bene posset fieri auctoritate summi pontificis. Quorum racio est quia papa respectu sedis apostolice est tante potestatis quante fuit beatus Petrus. Sicut ergo beatus Petrus causa utilitatis transtulit sedem suam de una civitate ad aliam, ita posset papa sedem papalem de Roma transferre ad aliam civitatem.

Master: Some of them reply to this that it could indeed be done by the authority of the highest pontiff. Their argument is that the pope has as much power with respect to the apostolic see as blessed Peter had. Just as blessed Peter transferred his see from one city to another for the sake of usefulness, therefore, so the pope could transfer the papal see from Rome to another city.

Discipulus Nunquid secundum istos esset concedendum, si papa transferret sedem Parisius, quod ecclesia Parisiensis voce evangelica Domini obtinuit principatum?

Student: If the pope were to transfer his see to Paris, would it be granted by them that the church of Paris obtained dominion by the word of the Lord in the gospels?

Magister Dicerent quod sic, quia sicut modo dicunt de Romana ecclesia quod voce evangelica Domini obtinuit principatum propter hoc quod Dominus ante ascensionem suam, secundum quod evangelista testatur, beato Petro contulit principatum, cui eciam dedit potestatem preficiendi quamcumque ecclesiam in qua sibi sedem eligeret ecclesiis universis, ita ecclesia Parisienis diceretur obtinuisse super alias ecclesias voce evangelica Domini principatum, quia Dominus ante ascensionem suam cuilibet successori beati Petri in ipso Petro dedit potestatem quamcumque ecclesiam preficiendi ecclesiis aliis universis.

Master: They would say 'yes', because just as they say now of the Roman church that it obtained dominion by the word of the Lord in the gospel because of the fact that before his ascension the Lord conferred dominion on blessed Peter, according to the testimony of the evangelist, and also gave him power to place any church which he chose for his see in authority over all churches, so the church of Paris would be said to have obtained dominion over other churches by the word of the Lord in the gospel, because before his ascension the Lord gave power in the person of Peter to every successor of blessed Peter to place any church at all in authority over all other churches.

Discipulus Tenent omnes isti quod papa posset transferre sedem de Roma?

Student: Do they all maintain that the pope could transfer his see from Rome?

Magister Multi eorum affirmant quod papa non posset, quia Petrus non auctoritate propria sed iubente Domino sedem transtulit de Anciochia Romam, et ideo papa non posset transferre eandem sedem de Roma nisi Dominus ipse iuberet.

Master: Many of them assert that he could not do so because Peter transferred his see from Antioch to Rome not on his own authority but at the command of the Lord, and so the pope could not transfer that see from Rome unless the Lord himself were to command it.

Discipulus Dic aliam responsionem ad obieccionem qua ostenditur quod ecclesia Hierosolymitana super omnes alias ecclesias quatuor annis habuit principatum.

Student: Tell me another reply to the objection by which it is shown that the Jerusalem church had dominion over all other churches for four years.

Magister Alia responsio est quod verum est ecclesiam Hierosolymitanam tanto tempore habuisse super omnes alias ecclesias principatum eo quod tot annis ibidem sedit beatus Petrus.

Master: Another reply is that it is true that the Jerusalem church had dominion over all other churches for so long because blessed Peter had his see there for so many years.

Continued...