An English Translation of Juan de Torquemada's Summa de Ecclesia, Book II, Chapter 110

Chapter CX. The Said Privileges of the Apostolic See are Proved and Confirmed by Arguments from Reason

Since we have shown from the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and subsequently the expositions of the holy fathers and doctors that the Apostolic See necessarily cannot err in matters of faith and the salvation of men due to the divine promise of our Lord, it remains that we confirm this by arguments from reason. 

The first is from what has been said above: that See is believed to be unerring in matters of faith whose teaching authority pertains to defining and determining what is to be believed by the Christian people with a Creed, and which dares to declare answers to questions of the faith in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. This is clear; indeed, it seems most evident, as if it were a first principle, since no other than the authority and judgment of that See would be firm and certain concerning matters of faith about the condemnation of errors concerning the sacraments, the canonization of the saints, and difficult questions of interpretation. That which is doubtful or fallible would be most unsuitable and most dangerous in the Christian religion. But it belongs to the Apostolic See to determine matters of faith and dare to make a Creed, and to interpret the Sacred Scriptures when questions arise about them, as was shown in Chapter 107 above. Therefore, it follows that the Apostolic See’s judgment in matters of faith cannot err. 

Moreover, this argument is confirmed thus: Every assent about a certain thing engenders fear when there is the possibility of the opposite, and thus it is not a firm assent, nor does anyone assent firmly by means of it. To assent with the possibility of the opposite is not to be firm; and therefore a firm and unchanging assent concerning something requires that its opposite cannot be true, but must be entirely false. But that demonstration which causes an unwavering assent is from necessity, and one cannot have it otherwise. 

Likewise, faith is a theological virtue, belonging to necessary things, to which falsehood cannot be subject, because it rests upon the First Truth; otherwise it would not produce firm and unshakable assent. If, therefore, the Apostolic See (or the Roman Church, whose authority and primacy in the Apostolic See was established by Christ) could err and deviate in matters of faith, then believers would hold that it is possible for it to be false, and not necessarily infallibly true, and consequently they would believe with fear and with doubt of possible error: and so believers would waver and be doubtful in faith, and so become unbelievers. Thus, many hardships would follow, as anyone can see.

The second is this: the judgment of that See which has never failed nor seems to defect in faith is unerring in its judgment concerning the Faith. But the Apostolic See has never failed or defected in faith. Therefore, the Apostolic See’s judgment is unerring in matters of faith. The argument is valid, as is the major premise. The minor is clear from the many testimonies of the holy fathers. So Pope Eusebius says, “In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved free from stain.” Also Pope Sixtus, as it is read in the Decretum. The same testifies saying, “I remember that I preside under the name of that Church whose confession was glorified by the Lord Jesus Christ, and whose faith was never tarnished by heresy, but rather destroyed all heresies.” Also St. Jerome, who says, “the holy Roman Church has always remained immaculate by the providence of the Lord, and with help of St. Peter, it will remain in the future, continuing to be firm and immovable at all times, despite all the attacks of heretics.” The same is said also by Pope Pelagius when he testifies, “It is, therefore, the See of the first of the Apostles, the Roman Church, which has no stain or wrinkle or any such thing.” These are also most clearly supported by the authorities of the holy fathers which were laid down in the previous chapter.

The third confirmation is now gathered from this reasoning: The judgment of that See in matters of faith is unerring which no wickedness of man has the power to destroy. But no wickedness of man has the power to destroy the Apostolic See (or the Roman Church). Therefore, the judgment of the Apostolic See is unerring. The argument is valid. The major premise is evident, and the minor can be proved on the authority of Pope Pelagius who says, “Since the Church is one, it is clear that there can be no other except that which is established and founded upon the Apostolic root.” And below, reciting the words of Augustine, he adds: “But no community in which there is schism can truly be called the Church. Therefore, since the Church can never cease to exist, it must be that the Church which, rooted in the Apostolic See through the succession of bishops, cannot be driven out by the malice of any men, even if it be known, but is judged, according to the circumstances of the time, to be tolerated, and in no way can it extinguish [the Church].” 

The fourth is thus: The judgment of that See in matters of faith is unerring when anyone at any time who opposes it is to be judged a heretic. But anyone who opposes the Apostolic See in matters of faith at any time is deemed a heretic. Therefore, the Apostolic See is unerring in its judgment on matters of faith. The argument seems valid. The major premise is evident. The minor is true, as St. Jerome says, “This is the faith, most blessed Pope, which we have learned in the Catholic Church and which we have always held; and if, perchance, something in it has been stated less skillfully or with insufficient cause, we desire it to be corrected by you, who hold both the See and the faith of Peter. But if this our confession is approved by the judgment of your apostleship, whoever shall wish to accuse me will prove himself to be ignorant, and ill-disposed, or even a heretic rather than a Catholic.” The minor is also proven by the authority of St. Cyprian the martyr, [as related by Ambrose]: "he summoned Bishop Satyrus to himself and considered none to be right except one who had the grace of true faith; and he inquired of him whether he was indeed one of the Catholic bishops—that is, whether he agreed with the Roman Church.” 

The fifth is thus: The judgment of that See is believed in the Church to be unerring in matters of faith when division from it makes one outside the Church. But division from the judgment of the Apostolic See makes one outside the Church. Therefore, etc. The argument is valid. The major premise does not require proof. The minor is shown from St. Cyprian, “He who does not defer to the Chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, should not trust that he is in the Church.” Again, the minor premise is proved from St. Jerome when he says, “I speak to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of Christ. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Those who would eat the lamb outside of this house is profane; he who is not found in the ark shall perish when the flood prevails.” And later: “I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.” The same opinion is also gathered in the Decretum. 

The sixth: The judgment of that See is believed to be unerring in matters of faith to which the most serious causes and questions on matters of faith are referred to for the highest definition. But all causes on matters of faith are referred to the Apostolic See to be defined. Therefore, the judgments of the Apostolic see concerning faith cannot fail. The argument is valid, and the major premise is clear, seeing that, just as in the [philosophical] disciplines, inquiry can be resolved back to the first principles, which cannot be false, so likewise matters of faith must be referred to the throne whose judgment cannot err. This is because no other except the Apostolic See can define and end an issue, such that [the result] is held firmly and without doubt, and so following schism and heresy among the faithful, and so the original faith would vanish. The minor is truly shown in the Decretum where we read, “Whenever the matter of faith is under discussion, I think that all the brethren, our fellow bishops, ought to refer it only to Peter, that is, to the authority of his name and honor, just as your charity has now referred it, so that it may be able to benefit all the churches throughout the whole world in common.” Again, the same opinion is in a certain epistle of Pope Pelagius, which says, “Indeed, the greater and more difficult questions, as established by the holy synod and as holy tradition determines, are always referred to the Apostolic See.” Also St. Gregory, “It is beyond doubt that not only the settlement of pontifical matters, but every matter relating to holy religion, ought to be referred to the Apostolic See, as to the head of the churches.” The same is found in Chalcedon, when the epistle that Pope Leo had written to bishop Flavian against the errors of bishop Eutyches was read out, the council declared: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles, thus we all believe, thus we orthodox believe. Anathema to he who does not believe. Peter has spoken through Leo!” 

The seventh: The judgment of that See is unerring in matters of faith whose decrees are accepted by all as if the voice of Peter himself had confirmed it. But that is true of the decrees of the Apostolic See. Therefore, etc. The argument is valid. The major premise is clear. The minor is seen in Agatho’s works, as well as in another place in the Decretum. Also, when Pope Adrian II writes to the Emperor Basil, he says, “Because, most tranquil Emperor, you listened to the voice of God relayed to you from the Apostolic See,” etc. 

The eighth is this: The judgment of that See is believed to be unerring in matters of faith to which all doctors, however learned or holy, said that they refer to it for examination and submit to it for correction. But the Apostolic See is such a See. Ergo, etc. The argument is valid. The major is manifest, otherwise, the holy doctors would be erring gravely in doing this. The minor is shown from many [sources]. The first from submission is St. Jerome, which is witnessed in the Decretum. The second example of such submission is St. Augustine, who writes to Pope Boniface in his little book called "Against Two Epistles of the Pelagians", "These words which, as I said, I am writing in answer to those two letters of theirs in respect of that argument, I have determined to address especially to your sanctity [Pope Boniface], not so much for your learning as for your examination and, if perchance anything should displease you, for your correction." The same is also seen in St. Anselm in his epistle on the Incarnation of the Word, where he writes thus to Pope Urban, “To lord and father of the universal pilgrim Church on earth, Pope Urban, supreme pontiff: Anselm—sinner in life, monk in habit—[offers] due subjection,” etc And later: “Since divine providence has chosen your Holiness, to whom it has entrusted the guarding of the Christian life and faith, and the governing of His Church; it is to no one else more fittingly referred, if anything against the Catholic faith arises in the Church, that it be corrected by his authority; nor to anyone else more safely, if anything is to be replied to against error, that it be shown, so that it may be amended by his prudence. Wherefore, whether I could present this letter to no one more worthily, or to no one more willingly, I give it to your wisdom [Pope Urban], in order that, if there is anything in it to be corrected, your censure may amend it, so that, in preserving the tenor of truth, it may be strengthened by your authority.” The same is read in St. Bernard, as we showed in the previous chapter. That same opinion is also made clear in that which was written in the last of his epistles on the celebration of the conception of the Blessed Virgin written to the canons of Lyon. And again, the same is said by St. Thomas, as shown in the beginning of his Catena Aurea. We read that almost all the scholastic doctors, interpreters of the divine Scriptures, have held to this observance of reverence toward the Apostolic See, and hold that all which they say is submitted for correction to the Apostolic See. 

The ninth reason is this: The judgment of that See is unerring in matters of faith of which it is not permitted to reject what it has approved, but rather all receive it reverently. But so is the judgment of Apostolic See. Ergo, etc. The argument is valid. The major is clear, and the minor is shown from the Decretum where it is said, “If the works of the doctors (along with the decrees of other men) are approved or rejected by the Roman Pontiffs, so that the Apostolic See has truly approved them, then today they must be held as accepted,” etc. This is supported by the glosses in the Decretum. 

The tenth is thus: the judgment of that See is believed to be unerring in matters of faith which all saints follow and ecumenical councils embrace and venerate as the teacher of the rule of faith and summit of all ecclesiastical discipline. But the Apostolic See is exactly that. Ergo, etc. The argument is valid, and the major premise seems very clear since, unless that See is teacher and establishes unwavering judgments of faith, the faith of the holy fathers would otherwise seem to waver and change. And the minor premise is gathered from the epistle of Pope Agatho to Emperor Constantine (cited above), which was read out at the sixth ecumenical council, and was accepted. In which, after the above-mentioned words, he says thus, speaking about the Apostolic See: “Whose authority, namely that of the prince of the apostles, the whole Catholic Church of Christ and the universal synods have always faithfully embraced and in all things have followed; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its apostolic teaching, through which also the most proven lights of Christ have shone forth, and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it; but the heretics, with false accusations and the hatred of insults, have persecuted it.” Likewise, in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, we read thus: “Whence the most reverend bishops shouted, ‘for we believe Leo; and to whoever contradicts him, anathema! Leo expounds rightly,’ and all the most reverend bishops shouted: ‘We all rightly yield to persuasion: this we all believe, this we follow, this we hold, that contains the confession of Leo, the father of us all.’” And again, the profession of the eighth ecumenical council, in which the fathers read out the decree of Pope Adrian II, which says: “since, just as we had proclaimed, in following the Apostolic See in all things and being observant of all her statutes, we hope to be worthy to be received into the one communion of the Apostolic See, in which is the truth and strength and the genuine solidity of the Christian religion.” This is also testified to by the fathers of the second ecumenical council in Lyons as it is in the Decretum, which says, “This we firmly hold, profess, proclaim, and teach: that the holy Roman Church is teacher of all the faithful.” Whence St. Ambrose professes that in all things he follows the holy Roman Church as his teacher.

The eleventh argument is thus: the judgment of that See is unerring in matters of faith whose authority and judgment strengthens and confirms the canons of the holy councils. But the authority and judgment of the Apostolic See strengthens and makes firm the canons of the ecumenical councils. Ergo, it seems necessary to assert that the judgment of the Apostolic See is unerring in matters of faith. The argument is valid, and the major premise seems clear. The minor is also manifest from three passages in the Decretum. It is also shown from that praiseworthy observance of the holy fathers in ecumenical councils, that they always, as a habit, ask for confirmation of their canons by the Roman Pontiff, that is, by the prince of the whole Church: just as we will show (Christ willing)  from many sources in the third book of this work.

The twelfth argument: Seeing as it is impossible to please God without faith, as the Apostle says in Hebrews 11, and faith may be the first foundation of the whole Christian religion, as Chrysostom says, it is necessary that it be stable and unchangeable, like the firm Rock in the building of the Church. Whence, the Church is said to be founded upon the rock in Matthew 16, and since manifold questions appear and many doubts emerge among the faithful concerning matters of faith (and the insults of heretics), it was necessary to give one clearly known, final tribunal and judgment in the Church which endures until the consummation of the age, that is, as long as we struggle against the forces of darkness, such that causes in all harder and greater matters concerning faith and doctrine can easily have recourse to a judgment and determination which is made clear to all. This is further proved from the fact that, since no other determination—whether definition or declaration—concerning the faith from any other source would be adhered to with the same firmness [as that of the Apostolic See], it does not appear that any other could sufficiently provide for the Church. Against such [a view of insufficiency] the Prophet speaks (Isaiah 5): ‘What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it?’ Yet this tribunal, or supreme judge, does not appear to regularly be the ecumenical councils. Therefore, it seems that the Apostolic See, or Chair of Peter, is that judge to whose judgment all greater cases are to be brought for determination and conclusion in the Church of God. The argument is valid: The major premise is also evident. The minor premise is shown from many sources. The first is that we read of many universal councils which err in matters of faith and matters necessary to salvation, and so [we may say that] their judgment has defected. This is proven from the Council of Ariminium which numbered up to 830 bishops, and the same is shown from the second Council of Ephesus, which was condemned by Pope Leo I and corrected at the council of Chalcedon. 

But the Apostolic See never errs in matters of faith, as this is forbidden, so many saints firmly testify, just as we said in the previous chapter and prior. Thus also does St. Ambrose says on Matthew: “The barque of Peter may never be disturbed, but that of Judas can be.” And Augustine, in his fourth sermon concerning St. Peter, making this prerogative of the Apostolic See clearer than light, says: “The barque of Peter sails into the sea of this age such that, as the world perishes, it saves unharmed all whom it receives, as it is prefigured in the Old Testament. For, just as the Ark of Noah thus preserved those whom it received unharmed as the world flooded, so the Church of Peter, with the world in flames, will preserve all whom she shall embrace.” The second justification of the aforementioned principle, that it is regularly the judgment of the Apostolic See and not the universal councils [which is the final tribunal], is gathered from the fact that this judgment should be so fixed in the Church and continue permanently, as it is necessary each day, but universal councils cannot be convoked so, since we read that they are celebrated rarely, and not only now but also in ancient times. However, the Apostolic See was always in place, and it never perished, as we showed above in the Liber Extra. The third proof for this same principle is gathered from that Catholic profession of the holy Fathers, in which they speak concerning the Apostolic See and proclaim that the Church is founded upon it, as Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine, which we quoted earlier. Therefore, the teachers agree that it is the Church which derives her judgment from the chair of Peter, and not the chair of Peter that derives it from the Church. The fourth reason of the same conclusion is collected from the holy doctors and also the canons, which [say] that the causes of greatest importance, especially in matters of faith, are commanded to be referred to the Apostolic See, as we showed above. Never, though, do we read that they should be referred to universal councils. 

The fifth reason is that it seems better for these matters to be determined by he who rules over the Church rather than the multitude. This is because, as St. Thomas says [ST.II-II.Q.A10 and SCG.4], “because the faith of the whole Church ought to be one, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1, ‘that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you,’ since unity of the faith cannot be served unless questions of faith that arise would be determined by he who presides over the whole Church, seeing as his sentence is held firmly by the whole Church.” St. Maximus, too, in his epistle to those of the East, says, “To the ends of the earth, those who accept God sincerely, and of the whole earth, where the faith of Christ is confessed: in the Roman Church, they look upon the Pontiff as though upon the sun, and from him the truth of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith is received. Nor is it undeservedly read that Peter is first of perfect faith, professing the revelation of Christ in Matthew 16, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' and the Lord says to him, 'I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not.'" Also Pope Nicholas, in the epistle which he wrote to the Patriarch Photios which is found in the fourth Act of the Eighth Ecumenical Council, says, “the universal faith is derived from this holy Roman Church, which is head over all the Churches and which seeks out and requires the integrity of the faith. Those who are worthy and redeemed by the grace of God implore the remission of sins, and this ministry is entrusted to it to exercise with due care,” etc. Also Pope Gelasius in his epistle to the Emperor Anastasius: “There is one Christian faith, which is Catholic; and truly Catholic is that faith which, separated from all perfidies and from the succession of their accomplices, is preserved in pure and immaculate communion. This is that Apostolic See which has been greatly commended, for the Apostolic glory is confessed even to the ends of the earth—neither concealed in private nor tainted by any contagion—unless (which God forbid, for we do not believe it possible) such a thing should arise, or some error against which we would already dare to stand, or from which we might have to seek correction for those who go astray.” From this, it is shown that dangerously do our adversaries assert what is alien to Christ and the holy fathers, namely that the judgment of the Apostolic See in matters of faith is neither certain nor firm, but rather it is defectible and able to deviate [from the truth], and by that fact sometimes errs and defects. This most pernicious error, namely that the definitions of faith, declarations of the condemnations of heresies, confirmations of canons, and canonizations of saints of the Apostolic See are dubious, ambiguous, and by consequence suspect  to falsity which undermines faith, and stains the Christian religion. This error is common amongst all the heretics, so that, with the authority of the Apostolic See cast down, they would be entrenched in their errors by unrestrained presumption and audacity.

[Please note: some citations removed]