Summa de Ecclesia

Truly it seems to be held without any doubt that no priest can have the use of the keys in absolving anyone from sins unless he has, joined to the power of orders, the power of jurisdiction. Hence it must be confessed that a priest lacking jurisdiction is not the due minister of the sacrament of penance, not only by the ordination of the Church but by divine ordination, which is shown thus. When all the things concur that are required by divine ordination for a sacrament, the Church or the Pope cannot impede the effect of the sacrament: for just as the Church or the Pope cannot change a sacrament, so it cannot impede its effect when those things concur that are required by divine ordination. Since therefore the sinner, by confessing and being penitent, is sufficiently disposed to receive both the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament, and an integral confession of sins is the due matter by divine ordination as the Church holds, if a priest lacking jurisdiction were by divine ordination the due minister, the Church could not impede a confessing and penitent sinner from being truly absolved by such a priest not having jurisdiction. But it is established in fact that the Church does impede, for it holds that such a one is not absolved but is bound to confess the same sins again. If perchance it be said that such a one is not absolved, not indeed because of a defect of the minister, but because by confessing to a priest other than the one having jurisdiction over him he sinned by acting against the ordination of the Church, whence by confessing to one other than he ought according to the ordination of the Church, sinning mortally, he could not receive the benefit of absolution. But this does not hold, for it is not established that he sins mortally by confessing to one other than his own priest, since the Church has not forbidden it under precept although it has ordained that each one confess once a year to his own priest; and venial sin does not impede the fruit of absolution, and this holds especially if he confesses from devotion and not from contempt, ignorant of the ordination of the Church. Moreover the Church does not hold that such a one is not absolved because by submitting himself to one other than he ought he sinned, since this can be done without any sin if the priest says he has authority. But the Church holds that he is not absolved for this reason, that he confessed to one not having authority over him. If however it be said that he is truly absolved but the Church does not hold him absolved on account of the dangers that could follow therefrom: this cannot be, for it is most unfitting to say that the Church would dogmatize falsehood, which it would do if it held and taught that one who was truly and really sacramentally absolved is not absolved. It is clear therefore that a simple priest lacking jurisdiction is not the due minister of the sacrament of penance. And hence it is that in the definition of the keys one thing is put pertaining to orders and another pertaining to jurisdiction, when it is said that it is the power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge ought to receive the worthy and must exclude the unworthy from the kingdom.

¹

These things having been established, we must answer the reasons to the contrary. To the first, when it is said that a priest lacking jurisdiction is the due minister, it is answered that this is not true. And what is brought in for the proof of this, that the minister of this sacrament is arbitrary, taken up at the will of the parties, does not hold, for although by the will of God he is voluntarily taken up as a priest, it does not follow from this that it is by the will of God that he use the keys upon anyone at all, unless it be proved in another way; just as although it is by the will of the king that someone is made bailiff or provost, from this he does not have it that he can exercise his office upon anyone at all in his kingdom. And to what is said, that on the part of the subject too he is voluntary, we say that it is required on the part of the one confessing that he confess his sins voluntarily, not that this voluntary confession confers on the priest the authority of absolving, but that it is a disposition necessary in order that the one confessing receive the benefit of absolution. For a sinner can voluntarily confess to someone to whom he has not given the authority of absolving, as is clear of itself. To what was brought in secondly in confirmation of the above reason, it is answered that the Pope can submit himself to whom he will, since the care of him is determinately committed to no one, at whose discretion he must make satisfaction. But it is not so with others, whose care is committed to another, as for instance Peter, who was constituted pastor of all the faithful according to the words: Feed my sheep, John, last chapter. Whence if Peter had sinned mortally he was bound to confess, and because he was spiritually bound to no one he could submit himself to any priest, and by submitting give jurisdiction over himself in the forum of conscience, although he could not himself use the power of the keys upon himself; and so with his successors. And if it be said that he cannot give what he does not have in himself. It is answered that although no one gives what he does not have, yet one gives something that he does not have in one way but has in another way. Whence a prelate gives a prebend which he does not have for possessing but for giving; so in this place the Pope gives to others a jurisdiction which he has, but not to be exercised over himself by himself but through another. Wherefore, as lord Bonaventure says in bk. 4, dist. 19, although, because jurisdiction and subjection are toward another, no one can be subject to himself, nothing nevertheless prevents him from being able to submit himself to another, especially if he is of free power. Which we say for this reason, that even if others whose care is determinately committed to certain persons cannot do this, he nevertheless who is determinately subject to no one but is free can do this; just as even if the servant of Peter cannot make himself the servant of Martin, nevertheless he who is free can submit himself to another as a servant either simply or in some respect. To the second confirmation it is answered that the reason made, as lord Bonaventure says, fails in two ways. First, because excommunication is against a man, but absolution is for a man, and a man cannot use authority for himself although he could against himself. Second, as St. Thomas and lord Bonaventure say, because the exterior judgment is according to men or among men, but the judgment of confession is toward God, before whom one is rendered lesser by the fact that he sins but not before man as regards preferments; and therefore in the exterior judgment, just as no one can give a sentence of excommunication against himself, so neither can he commit to another that he excommunicate himself. But in the forum of conscience he can commit to another his own absolution although he could not himself use it, as was said above. To the second principal reason we answer by denying the consequence, for as St. Thomas says in bk. 4, dist. 20, one can use the jurisdiction of another by his will, since those things that belong to jurisdiction can be committed. And it is by the will of the Church that every priest not having jurisdiction have the use of jurisdiction in the article of necessity, and this appears most of all as regards sentences of excommunication, from which it is established that a priest insofar as he is a priest cannot absolve, and yet in the article of necessity he indeed can: which cannot be except by jurisdiction committed in that case. To the third principal reason it is answered that when it is said that custom gives jurisdiction, we say that this is true if the custom is just and not prejudicing divine law or the intention of the legislator; otherwise it would not give jurisdiction. But since by divine law every Christian except Peter or his successor must make satisfaction, if a contrary custom existed it did not avail. And if in the beginning of the Church some are read, as for instance the apostles or other saints, to have used the power of the keys indifferently among those to whom they turned, this nevertheless does not suffice unless by the express will of Christ or of Peter, and thus consequently, supported by authority, they did this.