Summa de Ecclesia

¹

Against, most of all, two conclusions set down in the preceding chapter objection is made by the adversaries. And first against the fourth conclusion, in which it is held in its sentence that those having the power of orders cannot go forth into the act of the keys by absolving anyone from sins unless they have the authority of jurisdiction, it is argued thus by the reasons of the lord Durandus in 4 dist. 18, where he strives to prove by many reasons that, with every ordination of the Church set aside, any priest can absolve anyone. First thus. When all things concur for the sacrament which are of the necessity of the sacrament, along with the due disposition of the recipient, there is a true sacrament, and the recipient receives every effect of the sacrament; but with every ordination of the Church set aside from the sacrament of penance, any priest is the due minister, and the confession of all sins is the due matter, and the due form is, I absolve thee, etc. The confessed man, moreover, if he becomes penitent, is sufficiently disposed to receive both the sacrament and the effect of the sacrament; therefore, when these concur, there is not only a true sacrament but also the recipient truly receives every effect of the sacrament. The major is clear; the minor is clear as to the matter and form of the sacrament, but doubtful as to the ministry and disposition of the sacrament, and as to this it is proved by three means. First thus, since that any priest is not the due minister, nor any penitent sinner sufficiently disposed to receive the sacrament of penance and its effect from any priest, cannot be said except because penance is a judicial sacrament, and therefore requires that its minister be a priest having jurisdiction and that the one to be judged be his subject, which is not found in any priest with respect to any sinner whatsoever; but this does not compel, since if penance is a judicial sacrament, it is voluntary. Hence the priest who is judge in the sacrament of penance is rather an arbiter assumed by the will of the parties than one having jurisdiction of himself over the parties, whether they be unwilling or one unwilling. For since the sacrament of penance is enacted between God and man, it is agreed that the priest on the part of God is a voluntarily assumed judge, since God made priests mediators and arbiters between Himself and men, and so it is on the part of men, since however much the priest knew the sin of the penitent, unless the penitent himself voluntarily expressed it and exposed himself to the judgment of the priest, the priest could not act judicially with him as to the forum of penance; therefore the sinner voluntarily subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the priest assumes him as an arbiter whom God assumed for this before, and it seems that he is the true judge and he a true subject, provided he be penitent.

²

³

Secondly it is confirmed thus. The Pope can be subject to none except insofar as he voluntarily subjects himself to another; for by divine law he is subjected to none but is over all. By human law also he can be subjected to none, since the statutes of the canons do not oblige the Pope, just as nor do the laws of emperors, as is noted Extra de const. ch. 1, in the Gloss; therefore when he subjects himself to someone in the forum of penance, it must be that the subjection which comes about from mere will suffices.

This is also clear thirdly from another thing, since the Pope cannot subject himself to the jurisdiction of another as to the contentious forum, whence he cannot share with anyone that he excommunicate him unless his sentence has come forth, since such jurisdiction is involuntary as to the subject and depends on the will of another, and so it would likewise be in the jurisdiction of the forum of penance unless it were merely voluntary.

⁴

Secondly thus and principally. If by divine ordination the minister of the sacrament were one having jurisdiction, in the case of extreme necessity no priest could absolve any sinner, since no necessity changes the minister instituted by God. Hence just as in extreme necessity none can be absolved sacramentally except by a priest, from the fact that the priest is the instituted minister of the sacrament of penance, so none could be absolved except by a priest having jurisdiction, if jurisdiction were required for the minister by the institution of Christ. But the Church holds that in the case of necessity any priest can absolve any sinner from any sin, nor could the Church perhaps ordain the contrary. Therefore etc.

⁵

Thirdly the same is clear thus, since, granted that the minister of the sacrament is a priest having jurisdiction, the same follows, since custom gives jurisdiction. But then there would have been the custom that anyone be absolved by anyone. Therefore etc.