Summa de Ecclesia

¹

After we have shown that for the perfect government of the Christian commonwealth two powers are necessarily given in it, namely the secular and the spiritual, it follows that we add what we understand by the name of spiritual power, of which we have now principally proposed to speak. Concerning the secular power, however, we shall take up the discussion again in the following book, God helping, when we dispute whether both powers meet in the supreme pontiff. We say, moreover, that the spiritual power of the Church is twofold, namely one of orders or sacramental, and one jurisdictional. The power of orders or sacramental is said to be that which is conferred through some consecration for the confecting and the administration of the sacraments. The jurisdictional power, however, is for governing the people according to the divine law in order to supernatural beatitude, and it is conferred not through consecration but by the simple injunction of God or of man. Concerning these powers, that we may make our knowledge of them more illustrious, we shall describe in conclusions what we think of them. Let the first conclusion be thus. Each of these spiritual powers in the Church is originally from God. This conclusion is clear by reason and by authority. By reason thus. Whatever is and exceeds the whole faculty of nature must have drawn its origin from the author of nature; but each spiritual power exceeds the whole faculty of nature; therefore it must be said that it drew its origin from God alone, who is the author of nature. The consequence is good, and the major is manifest. The minor also seems known, first indeed concerning the power of orders, since through it one ordained priest has the power of confecting the body of Christ and the authority of dispensing the divine sacraments, through which heavenly grace is bestowed on those who receive them worthily, which are indeed effects transcending every faculty of nature. The same is also clear concerning the power of jurisdiction, which is ordained to governing the Christian people according to the divine law in order to supernatural beatitude. The conclusion is also clear by authority. First Matt. 16, where Christ promises that he will give to Peter the power of the keys, saying: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Second John last, where Christ, ordaining Peter shepherd and ruler of his sheep, says: Simon, son of John, feed my sheep.

The second conclusion, comparing these two powers with each other. The first power, namely of orders, is worthier than the second power, namely of jurisdiction. The conclusion is clear, since the power of jurisdiction is ordained to the power of orders; for the power of jurisdiction exists for this, that the people be restrained from evils and exercised in good things, so that they may be fit and worthy to partake of the sacraments; therefore the conclusion is true.

²

The third conclusion. The power of orders or sacramental, although in relation to the true body of Christ it is equally in all priests, is nevertheless in relation to the mystical body of Christ greater in the bishop than in the simple priest. The first part of this conclusion is clear, since all priests equally confect the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; therefore in relation to the true body of Christ this sacramental power is equally in all priests. The second part is also clear, since the simple priest cannot dispense all the sacraments, for he cannot dispense the sacrament of confirmation, which can be completed by bishops alone, as Eusebius the Pope says in ch. manus, de conse. dist. 5, nor the sacrament of orders, which is also conferred by bishops alone; therefore in relation to the mystical body of Christ the sacramental power is ampler in the bishop than in the simple priest, which Isidore manifestly shows in ch. clerus, dist. 21, saying thus: Priests are called priests for this reason, because they give holy things as bishops do; for although priests are priests, yet they do not have the summit of the pontificate, for they neither sign the forehead with chrism nor give the Paraclete Spirit, which the reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows to be owed to bishops alone. Thus far he. But that this majority of the sacramental or orders power in the bishop over the simple priest is greater not only from the institution of the Church, as some have wished to say, but also from the nature of the order and of the consecration according to divine institution, is shown thus. Those things which are in the new law were figured by those things which were in the old law; but it is so that in the old law the bishop or high priest was consecrated by divine ordination with a special consecration and for a special act beyond the simple priests. For as is found in Levit. 8, only the high priest, who had among his offices to ordain others and to whom alone it was lawful to enter the holy of holies once in the year, was anointed with the oil of holy unction; therefore it likewise seems that it is from divine institution that the head of the bishop, who is the high priest, be consecrated with the unction of chrism for the special act which belongs to him, such as to consecrate and ordain ministers and other things of this kind which belong to bishops alone, which are set down by blessed Isidore in ch. Perlectis, dist. 25. The truth of this conclusion is also had quite manifestly from what was said in ch. 86, where we showed that from divine institution there is a real difference between the bishop and the priest.

³

The fourth conclusion. To one and the same power of orders pertain these two acts, namely to confect the body of Christ and to render the people fit and worthy for the reception of it. This conclusion is shown to be true according to Saint Thomas in 4 contra Gentiles ch. 178, thus. It seems to belong to the same virtue both to bestow some perfection and to prepare the matter for the reception of it, just as fire has the virtue both to transfuse its form into another and to dispose the matter for the reception of the form. Since therefore the power of orders extends to this, that it confect the sacrament of the body of Christ and hand it to the faithful, the same power must extend to this, that it render the faithful fit and congruous for the reception of so great a sacrament. The faithful man is rendered fit and congruous for the reception of this sacrament by this, that he is immune from sin, since he cannot otherwise be united spiritually to Christ to whom he is joined sacramentally by receiving this sacrament. It is necessary, therefore, that the power of orders extend to the remission of sins through the dispensation of those sacraments which are ordained to the remission of sins, of which kind are baptism and penance. The power of orders has therefore this twofold act, of which the first is to confect the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; the second is to make the recipient fit by the absolution of sins for the reception of the sacrament.

⁴

The fifth conclusion. The power of orders, as to the first act of confecting the body of Christ and ministering it to others, was given to the apostles in the supper of the Lord, to whom the Lord said in Luke 22: Take among you and divide; this is my body which shall be handed over for you; do this in my commemoration, where the interlinear Gloss has: take and give. As to the second act, however, which is the absolution of sins, it was given in John 20, when it was said to the apostles: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall remit, they are remitted to them. Upon which word blessed Gregory says in his homily: They are conscious of the principates of the supernal judgment, so that in the place of God they retain the sins of some and remit those of others.

⁵

The sixth conclusion. The power of orders by which sins are loosed is the same essentially as the sacerdotal character or as the power of consecrating the body of Christ, and they are not distinguished except insofar as they are compared to diverse acts or effects. Although this conclusion is had quite clearly from what has been said, it is nevertheless shown thus from what Saint Thomas says in 4 dist. 18. To two things of which one is the cause of the other one power is ordained, as in fire for heating and for dissolving; but all grace and remission in the mystical body comes from Christ the head; therefore the same power seems to be in essence that by which the priest can confect the body of Christ and that by which he can loose and bind if jurisdiction is present, nor does it differ except in notion according as it is compared to diverse acts and effects, just as fire also is called heating in one notion and liquefying in another. And since the character of the sacerdotal order is nothing other than the power of exercising that to which the order of the priesthood is principally ordained, namely to confecting the body of Christ, it follows that the character itself and the power by which sins are loosed are the same essentially.

⁶

The seventh conclusion. The spiritual power is fittingly designated by the name of keys. The conclusion is clear, since Christ, who is the wisdom of God, designates that power thus, saying to blessed Peter, Matt. 16: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For which it is to be noted that key is transferred from corporeal to spiritual things. For the material key is the instrument by which the closed door is opened, and so in spiritual things the power by which the entrance of the kingdom of heaven is opened is called a key; and since the kingdom of heaven is closed only by sin, both as to the stain and the debt of punishment, therefore the power by which such an obstacle to the kingdom of heaven is removed is called a key. This power, moreover, is called threefold by the doctors. One of authority, which is in God alone, who alone opens principally through the infusion of grace and closes by just judgment in permitting man to fall into sin by not infusing grace. Another is called the power of excellence, which is placed in Christ by reason of his human nature, who opens heaven through the merit of his passion. Another ministerial, in the ministers of the Church, namely the priests, who open heaven through the dispensation of the sacraments, which operate in virtue of the passion of Christ, according to that saying, 1 Cor. 4: So let man reckon us as ministers of Christ.

⁷

The eighth conclusion. The key is fittingly defined when it is said: A key is the power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge ought to receive the worthy and exclude the unworthy from the kingdom. The conclusion is clear both by the authority of Jerome, who sets it down in the Gloss on Matt. 16 upon that passage, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and by the authority of the Master of the Sentences in 4 dist. 18. The fittingness of the aforesaid definition is declared here by reason, according to Saint Thomas in 4 on the same distinction, following Phil. 2 de anima that powers are distinguished through acts; hence since the key is a certain power, as has been said, it must be defined through its act or use, and in the act its object must be expressed from which the act receives its species, and the mode of acting from which the power appears ordained. The act of the spiritual power, however, is not to open heaven absolutely, since it is already opened, but to open it as to this man, which indeed cannot be done in an ordained way unless the fitness of him to whom it is to be opened is weighed. And therefore in the aforesaid definition of the key there is set down the genus, namely power, and the subject of the power, namely the ecclesiastical judge, and the act, namely to exclude and to receive, following the two acts of the material key, to open and to close; it touches its object in this, that it says from the kingdom, and the mode from this, that worthiness or unworthiness is weighed in those toward whom the act is exercised.

⁸

The ninth conclusion. The two keys of orders, the knowledge of discerning and the power of receiving the worthy or excluding the unworthy from the kingdom, are fittingly described. The conclusion is clear by authority from the Gloss of Jerome on Matt. 18. By reason, moreover, this aforesaid conclusion is shown to be true according to Saint Thomas in 4 dist. 18. In every act which requires fitness on the part of the recipient, two things are necessary for him who must exercise that act: judgment concerning the fitness of the recipient, and the completion of the act. And therefore also in the act of justice by which there is rendered to anyone that of which he is worthy, there must be the judgment by which it is discerned whether he is worthy, and the rendering itself, and for each of these a certain authority or power is required. For we cannot give except what we have in our power, nor can it be called judgment unless it has coercive force, from the fact that judgment is already determined to one thing, which determination in speculative matters comes about through the virtue of first principles which cannot be resisted, and in practical matters through the superior force existing in the one judging. And since the act of the key requires fitness in him in whom it is exercised, because through the key the ecclesiastical judge receives the worthy and excludes the unworthy, as is clear from the definition set down in the preceding conclusion, therefore he needs the judgment of discretion by which he judges fitness, and the very act of completion or rendering. And for each of these a certain power or authority is required, and according to this the two keys are distinguished.

⁹

The tenth conclusion. These two keys of orders, namely the knowledge of discerning and the power of receiving the worthy and excluding the unworthy from the kingdom, are not distinguished in the essence of the authority, but are one and the same power or authority in essence, and are distinguished only by comparison to acts of which one presupposes the other. This conclusion is that of Saint Thomas, and the truth of this conclusion is declared thus from what the same doctor says. To the same authority in essence, of whoever ought by office to exercise some act which requires fitness on the part of the recipient, pertain both the judgment concerning fitness and the completion of the act, as appears in the act of the virtue of justice by which there is rendered to anyone that of which he is worthy, in that to the same man to whom it pertains to render something to a worthy man pertains the judgment whether he is worthy or not. Since therefore, as has been said in the preceding conclusion, through the key of orders the ecclesiastical judge receives the worthy and excludes the unworthy, it is necessary that to the same authority pertain each act, namely the judgment concerning the fitness of him who is to be absolved, and the act of absolution. These keys ought therefore to be distinguished only by comparison to diverse acts of which one presupposes the other. For that is called the power of binding and loosing which immediately opens heaven by removing the bar of sin. But the key which is called knowledge shows the bolt — to whom it is to be opened. The power therefore is one and the same, which by reason of these diverse subordinate acts is variously named, since by reason of the first act, which is to judge, it is called the key of knowledge, but by reason of the second, which is to exclude the unworthy or admit the worthy to the kingdom, it is called the key of power.

¹⁰

The eleventh conclusion is that the power of the keys extends in some way to the remission of fault and punishment. This conclusion is proved by authority and by reason. By authority through that passage in John 20, where the Lord says to the apostles: Whose sins you shall remit, they are remitted to them. But this cannot be understood as to manifestation only, as some say, as the Master of the Sentences holds in 4, dist. 18, since thus the priest of the new testament would have no greater power than the priest of the old testament, who only showed leprosy in a man to be cleansed, which yet he in no way cleansed; which is not to be said. Therefore the power of the priest of the new testament extends even to the remission of fault, and by consequence of punishment. Which is proved by reason thus. The sacraments of the new law effect what they signify, which is clear from the definition of a sacrament. For a sacrament is, according to Aug., the visible form of invisible grace, so that it bears its image and exists as its cause. But sacramental absolution signifies the remission of fault, as is clear from the form. For the priest says: I absolve thee. Therefore it must be said that the sacerdotal power extends in some way to the remission of fault and punishment. To see how this is, it is to be noted according to Saint Thomas in 4 dist. 18 that the power of the keys in the priest stands to the effect of the sacrament of penance as the virtue in the water of baptism stands to the effect of baptism. Baptism and the sacrament of penance agree in some way in effect, since each is directly ordained against fault, which is not the case with the other sacraments. But they differ in this, that the sacrament of penance, from the fact that it has the acts of the recipient as quasi matter, cannot be given except to adults, in whom preparation is required for receiving the effect of the sacraments. But baptism is sometimes given to adults and sometimes to children and others lacking the use of reason, and therefore through baptism grace and the remission of sins are given to children without any preceding preparation of their own, but not to adults, in whom there is presupposed a preparation removing the obstacle, which preparation indeed sometimes precedes sufficiently for the reception of grace before baptism is actually received, but not before the vow of baptism after the time of the truth made manifest; and then baptism actually received is not said to take away fault, since it was already remitted, nor to confer grace, since it was already conferred, but to increase the grace previously conferred. Sometimes, however, such preparation does not precede in time but is simultaneous with the reception of baptism, and then through the reception of baptism the grace of the remission of fault is conferred. But through the sacrament of penance grace is never given unless preparation is present or was present before; hence if in the penitent, before he receives the sacrament of penance, there precedes a sufficient disposition deleting fault and conferring grace, then the sacrament of penance supervening does not take away fault, since it does not find it, nor does it confer grace, but increases that previously conferred. If, however, there does not precede a sufficient contrition which deletes fault but attrition, which upon the supervening of the sacrament is made sufficient by virtue of the keys, then through the sacrament actually received fault is deleted and grace is conferred. And thus the virtue of the keys extends to the remission of fault, just as the water of baptism, whether existing in the vow or exercising itself in the act. But as baptism does not act as the principal agent but as an instrument, indeed not reaching to cause the very reception of grace even instrumentally, but disposing to the grace through which the remission of fault comes about, so it is with the power of the keys. Hence God alone remits fault by himself, and in virtue of him both baptism acts instrumentally, as an inanimate instrument, and the priest as an animate instrument. And therefore the priest acts as minister. And thus it is clear that the power of the keys is ordained in some way to the remission of fault, not as causing it but as disposing to it. Hence if before absolution a man had not been perfectly disposed to receive grace, in the very confession and sacramental absolution he would obtain grace, if he put no obstacle. From which it is manifestly concluded, as the same holy doctor says in the third part, that the exposition which some give, saying, I absolve thee, that is, I show thee absolved, although in some respect it is true, is nevertheless not a perfect exposition, since the sacraments of the new law not only signify but also effect what they signify. Hence just as the priest, in baptizing a man, shows the man to be inwardly illuminated through words and deeds not only significantly but also effectively, so also when the priest says, I absolve thee, he shows the man to be absolved not only significantly but also effectively. Nor yet does the priest speak presumptuously as of an uncertain thing, since just as the other sacraments of the new law have a certain effect from the virtue of Christ, who is the institutor of the sacraments, although the effect of the sacrament can be impeded on the part of the recipient, so also in this sacrament. Hence Aug. in his book on adulterous marriages: The reconciliation of marriage after adulteries committed and purged will not be shameful nor difficult, where through the keys of heaven the remission of sins is not doubted to come about.

¹¹

The twelfth conclusion, that power of the keys of this kind belongs only to the evangelical priest. This conclusion has two parts. In the first it says that only the priest has the power of the keys; in the second, that only the evangelical priest. The first part is proved thus. That which is given through consecration is not had except by the consecrated. But the power of the keys is given through sacerdotal consecration, as is clear from the words of the bishop, who says in the imposition of hands: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall remit, etc., which words directly convey the use of the keys; therefore that power is only in those having sacerdotal consecration. This part is also clear from the sixth conclusion set down above, in which it was said that the power of the keys of orders is the same essentially as the sacerdotal character. This part is also clear by the authority of blessed Ambrose, speaking thus in his On Paradise, and it is found de pe. dist. 1, econtra, that this right of binding and loosing has been granted to priests alone. The second part of the aforesaid conclusion, saying that the priest of the law did not have the keys but the evangelical alone has them, and by consequence therefore the priest of the law, who was the dispenser of those sacraments, did not have them, is proved thus, since the keys are ordained to opening the kingdom of heaven, but the kingdom of heaven could not be opened before the passion of Christ; therefore the priest of the law did not have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Secondly thus. The sacraments of the old law did not confer grace, but the approach to the heavenly kingdom cannot be opened except through grace; therefore through those sacraments it could not be opened; by consequence therefore neither did the priest of the law, who was the dispenser of those sacraments, have the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Hence just as those sacraments were a figure of heavenly things, so the power of those priests was a figure of the power of the keys. From this conclusion, most of all from its first part, a corollary is most clearly drawn, that no community in the Church or university in the manner of a university can have these keys of orders of which we speak, as Albert the Great, Saint Thomas, and the lord Bonaventure say and prove in iiii, dist. xix. Which we also show by many reasons. First thus. The whole university of the Church is not signed with the sacerdotal character; therefore the whole university of the Church, as such, neither has nor can have the power of the keys. The antecedent is manifest, and the consequence is clear, both because, since the power of the keys is given through consecration, it cannot be had except by the consecrated, and secondly because, since the power of the keys is the same essentially as the sacerdotal character, that which is not capable of the priesthood is not capable of the keys. Since therefore the university, as such, is not capable of the priesthood, the corollary is clear.

¹²

Secondly thus. The university, as university, does not have a rational soul, as the lord jurists say, and it is true; therefore it, as such, cannot be the subject of the power of the keys; the consequence is known, since only the rational soul can be the subject capable of absolute spiritual being, of which kind is the power of orders or of the keys, which is essentially the same as the sacerdotal character; therefore the corollary is true.

¹³

Thirdly thus. Everyone having the power of the keys is a mediator between God and the people, and everyone of that kind is appointed in those things which are toward God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins; therefore this power pertains only to him to whom it pertains to offer sacrifice; but this cannot pertain to the university of the Church, but belongs only to its priests; therefore the same as before. Fourthly thus. To him is given the power of the keys who is appointed minister of the sacrament of penance; but the university of the Church cannot be the minister of the sacrament of penance, since sacramental confession cannot be made to it, as is manifest; therefore the corollary is true.