Question IV: Whether the Pope can subject himself to someone's judgment

It is certain that this has at times been done; for thus Leo IV, as recorded by D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 67. art. 1. ad 2., as we read in dist. 2. quaest. 7. c. Nos incompetenter, submitted himself spontaneously to the judgment of Louis the second Emperor, and of Charlemagne his great-grandson, in a certain cause, saying: Si iniuste aliquid egimus, cuncta volumus vestro emendare iudicio.

He adds, moreover, Valentia disp 5. quaest. 11. punct. 1., that in that case the Pontiff is bound to comply with him to whom he has spontaneously submitted himself, so that, if he does not obey, he sins.

In which sense Sayrus L. 12. cap. 8. num. 4. admits that the sentence of an arbiter chosen has the force of compelling the Pontiff, though not so perfectly that the Pontiff can be compelled to obey by penalty. This the S. Doctor asserts more strongly; otherwise he could excommunicate himself, which is absurd.

He superadds, Sayrus, following Valentia loco cit., Caietano 2. 2. quaest. 67. art. 1., Soto Lib. 5. de Iust. quaest. 4. art. 1., Aragon ad loco cit. D. Thom., Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 4. num. 25., that the Pope can revoke the arbiter elected by himself for a cause, and although revoking him without cause he would sin, yet the revocation would stand, and his sentence would be null.

Far more certain, however, is it that the Pope can submit himself to another in the judgment of sacramental confession.

It is proved most powerfully by the S. Doctor, because the Pontiff is a man in via, a sharer in human infirmity, and can sin, and therefore is bound to take up the necessary means instituted by Christ, which is the Sacrament of Penance for actual mortal sins; and this the S. Doctor confirms from the Decretal of Gregory, de poenit. et remiss., where it is declared, and by this reason proved.

Against this assertion you will object first: The Pontiff cannot submit himself to another to be excommunicated or punished; as D. Bonavent. teach here, and D. Thom. 4. dist. 19. quaest. 1. art. 3., Richardus dist. 18. art. 5., Paludanus ibi, quaest. 2. Therefore neither can he submit himself to be judged.

The S. Doctor answers ad 3. first, that Excommunication and other penalties are against oneself, and therefore against the will of God, even though they be patiently endured on account of merit; wherefore no one can juridically decree penalties against himself, because they would be willing and violent. But that sentence concerning oneself be passed with the will of the Party, where the cause is doubtful, does not seem contrary to the rationale of the judicial fabric. Valentia uses this answer, Quod ad iudicia extra confessionem.

Yet with this answer the S. Doctor is not content, for in choosing an arbiter he assents voluntarily even to any just sentence against himself, if it be handed down; and therefore it would follow that no one can choose an arbiter who could define anything against himself.

He answers therefore secondly, that the reason is not the same in Excommunication and similar penalties as in an arbitrary judgment, whether of confession or of another kind necessary for salvation; For Excommunication and the other penalties, which are common among men, denote a common jurisdiction over a man, such as is in prelates; But the jurisdiction of confession denotes a mediation between God and man unto reconciliation. And because it is necessary for a man, however great, to submit to the Judgment of God; hence it is that the Pontiff can submit himself to another for Sacramental absolution; indeed even for other matters that touch conscience, such as restitutions and the like, and therefore he can in these submit himself to a man, not as Pope, but as one offending before God, or in doubt about it; But the penalties of excommunication and other human penalties presuppose Prelacy, which cannot be over the Pope, nor can he, remaining Pope, simply acknowledge anyone as prelate over himself, as I showed p. p. tract. 1. disp. 4. proaem. quaest. 8.

From this is clear the answer to the other argument they oppose; namely, whether the arbiter elected by the Pope is either equal to or superior to the Pope. If equal, he cannot judge him, because par in parem non habet imperium. Not superior: First, because the Pope is supreme. Second, because one cannot give authority above that which one is; for no one gives what he does not have. Therefore the Pope cannot make another superior in the power of the Pope.

Caietanus and Valentia answer that the Pope is inferior secundum quid, or in this respect.

But the S. Doctor persists, that he is not subject as Pope, but as a man, who has need to preserve equity in the judgment of God.

Now the Doctors concede this hereditary right, granted by Christ to Pontiffs, in accord with Matthew 17: Ergo liberi sunt filii: For Christ was not, even as man, subject to earthly power, although he subjected himself to it, as he protests to Pilate, Ioan. 19: Non haberes in me potestatem, nisi datum tibi esset desuper. This exemption was due to him by reason of the hypostatic union, as Valentia says disp 5. quaest. 11. puncto 1. Wherefore I do not see why he should make it hereditary in Pontiffs, since they are not hypostatically united to the Word.

It comes to them, therefore, from another source, namely from Divine Law, by which Christ constituted Pontiffs Fathers and Judges of the whole Church. Wherefore I judge that at that time he imposed upon them this dignity, Matth. 16., when Peter confessed Christ to be the Son of God, and God. And Ioan. 22., when he protested him to be beloved above all, as God.

Interim, however, they are accustomed here to ask also: Whether Christ, as man, would be Rex Regum, and therefore by this reason above the power of the Emperor, which Pilatus had delegated, and accordingly Christ submitted himself to him spontaneously, not only as exempt by reason of the hypostatic union, but also by reason of his monarchic dignity.

SOTUS Lib. 4. quaest. 5. art. 1., Caietanus loco cit., and Valentia deny that Christ subjected himself to Pilatus in this way, because he himself confesses: Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo.

BUT D. Bonavent., on Ioan. 19, professes that Pilatus usurped to himself the exercise of power against Christ, and had from above only the power of a Judge, not over Christ, who testified more than once that he was King, in accord with Psalm. 2: Ego autem constitutus sum Rex ab eo, etc.; and if he said: Regnum meum non est hinc; it is no obstacle, because, as the S. Doctor acutely observes, Christ did not say: My kingdom is not here, or not in this world, but: it is not of this world: it is not hence, because he did not hold royal power by the law of nations, but by natural divine law. Christ, therefore, was King, as I shall show 3. part. Tractatu 1. disp. 24. quaestione ultima.