Summa de Ecclesia

SINCE the principal and as it were fundamental point of this matter is to understand how the power of the keys was given to the Church or how it is in the Church, therefore we for fuller illustration of this matter and of the truth which concerning the apostolic principate we have established above both by the authorities of the saints and by reasons shall keep this order.¹ First in this chapter, certain notable points having been laid down, we shall attack the manner of the adversaries in placing the power of the keys and consequently the fullness of power in the universal Church. Second we shall attack the replies given by the adversaries to the authorities of the holy fathers adduced for our conclusion. Third in the following chapter the true and catholic manner in which the power of the keys was given to the universal Church or is in the Church will be explained. Fourth through diverse following chapters a fuller reply to be given will be made to the objections of the adversaries. Concerning the first, first it is to be considered² that concerning the Church which is said to have received the keys, speech can be twofold. For either the Church is taken there in her universality, namely as she is called the whole body or gathering of all the faithful in general, as in ch. ecclesi., on consecration, distinct. 1. Or she is taken there under a lesser universality, namely for the whole body only of all clerics or priests, as others will have it. Second it is to be noted that the power of the keys is twofold, as we distinguished in the first book: namely the power of orders, which properly and immediately, as the doctors say, is called the key of the kingdom of heaven, because it immediately extends itself to heaven itself by removing the impediments of entrance into heaven through the forgiveness of sin, as holy Thomas says in book 4, distinct. 19, in the article; the other is the power of jurisdiction, and this is twofold, one in the forum of conscience, the other in the forum of exterior judgment or of causes. Third it is to be noted that concerning the fullness of power we can speak in two ways. In one way insofar as the fullness of power includes both the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction. In another way insofar as it includes only the power of jurisdiction. Fourth it is to be noted that there is a certain likeness of the mystical body of the Church to the natural body of man, namely in the multitude of members and in their union with one another and in diversity of offices, according to that word of the Apostle to the Romans ch. 12. As in one body we have many members, but all members have not the same office, so we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Nevertheless manifold is the difference and unlikeness. One indeed is, as holy Thomas says in the third part, that all members of the natural body are all together at once; but the members of the mystical body are not all together at once, neither as to the being of nature, because the body of the Church is constituted from men who have been from the beginning of the world even to its end, nor as to the being of grace, because even of those who are at one time some lack grace while others have it. The second difference is: that the members of the human body constitute some one real whole in number, which subjectively in its whole self is capable of some form or quality or real influx, which is the human body itself; but not so the members which are called of the mystical body, since although the faithful are united by faith, hope and charity, as Aug. says, yet since they are distinguished by persons and places they are not said to constitute some one real whole in number which subjectively in its whole self would be capable of some form or quality or of some influx of a real effect, whence when the Church is called one by the unity of faith, hope and charity, it is not to be understood that one habit of faith in number, one habit of hope in number and one habit of charity in number is in that whole body, since the body itself of the Church cannot be the subject of such forms. Hence also the jurists say that a whole body has no soul: the Gloss on ch. Romana, 5, on a whole body; but there are as many habits distinct in number, and of the virtues of faith, hope and charity, as in number are the faithful. What therefore is called one faith of the Church, one hope, one charity, is not understood as unity on the part of one subject of them in number, because there is no such thing, but on the part of the object, because namely all the faithful who in number and merit are in the body of the Church believe the same thing, hope the same thing, love the same thing, as holy Thomas says in book 3, distinct. 13. Through this consideration plainly many fanciful notions of the recent masters, adversaries and doctor canonists vanish, as will be seen below. With these things noted, it remains to show that the supposition of the adversaries is false³: that this may be done more fully, we shall posit certain conclusions, by proving which we refute the supposition of the adversaries in full.

⁴

Let the first conclusion be this. The power of orders of the keys, which is properly called the key of heaven, because through it the forgiveness of sins is effected, was not given to the whole body of the Church in such wise as to have been given to each of her members. This conclusion is proved. First by the authority of blessed Ambrose in the book on Penitence, also found in ch. Si quis audiat, of the Sentences in book four, distinction nineteen, and by master Gratian on Penitence, distinction one, in Nemo, speaking thus: The right of binding and loosing was permitted to priests alone. It is also clear from the fact that of old priests alone judged between leprosy and non-leprosy. Hence in Matt. 8 the Lord says to the leper: Go show thyself to the priests, and in Luc. ch. seventeen, where he says also to the ten lepers: Likewise, show yourselves to the priests. Where the interlinear Gloss says: Who were the figure of the future priesthood in the Church. Likewise it is clear from the fact that the Lord said to none but the apostles, already constituted priests, in Ioan. ch. 20, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. By reason it is thus proved according to holy Thomas and Albert the Great. The grace which is given in the sacraments descends from the head into the members; therefore he alone is minister of the sacraments in which grace is given who has ministry over the true body of Christ; but this belongs to the priest alone who confects the Eucharist; therefore the priest alone can be minister of the sacrament of Penitence, and consequently he alone has the power of binding and loosing from sins. It is not needful to adduce more proofs for this conclusion, since it is already known, and its opposite is not so much held and condemned as heretical in the reprobation of the errors of the Waldensians, who said that all good men have the power of the keys, as it is laughable.

⁵

The second conclusion. The power of orders of the keys, that is, the power of binding and loosing from sins, was not given to the universal Church, nor to the universality, that is, to all her members together. This conclusion is proved from the preceding thus. The aforesaid power of the keys belongs to priests alone. Therefore it does not belong to the community of the Church as a whole body or to all her members; the consequence is clear, because what belongs to one part alone of a whole body cannot be said to belong to the whole body in all her members. Secondly thus. The aforesaid power is given in the consecration of the priesthood, whence when priests are ordained those words are said to them which the Lord said to the apostles, in Ioan. ch. 20, Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; but the community of the Church is not consecrated nor marked with the priesthood; therefore it cannot be said that to the universal Church, as a whole body, the keys of orders or the power of binding and loosing from sins were given. Thirdly thus. No whole body can be said with truth to have perfectly or fully some power into whose exercise it can never of itself go forth. That assumption is clear, since as Aristotle says in On Sleep and Waking, whose the potency is, his is the act. But the whole community of the Church cannot go forth into the act of the power of binding and loosing from sins, both because the priest alone is minister of the sacrament of Penitence, as in ch. Omni utriusque sexus, Extra on penitence and remissions, and because actions belong to supposits. Therefore the conclusion is true. What is said by certain adversaries, that although the universal Church does not have the exercise of the power of the keys in absolving anyone from sins, yet she can command that it be done through some priest, is worth nothing, since from this, as it would be doing by command not elicitivally, it is not argued that the community herself would have the power, just as neither the power of consecrating from the fact that she should command someone to celebrate, just as neither the elect nor the archdeacon not yet constituted in the priesthood, although they can command some priest to absolve someone from sins, are on that account said to have the power of the keys of which we speak. But it is not needful here to multiply arguments, because the conclusion is most clear among theologians, whence Albert the Great, holy Thomas and lord Bonaventure in book 4, distinct. 19, asking whether priests alone have the keys, not only say that priests alone have the keys, which we said in the first conclusion, but also that it is not possible that they belong to any community, which this our second conclusion says. For this conclusion also in the first book we adduced certain reasons.

From these two conclusions certain corollaries follow. The first is⁶ that the aforesaid power of the keys can be in the universal Church neither subjectively nor formally nor radically nor fundamentally, to use all the words of the adversaries, nor in the whole body of clerics or the college of priests as in a certain common subject; the corollary is manifestly clear from what has been said. The second corollary is⁷: that all authorities of sacred Scripture which speak of the power of orders of the keys, which is called the power of binding and loosing from sins, cannot be truly expounded of the universal Church for all her members, whether severally or together, nor of any other community whatever less universal. The corollary is clear from the conclusions expressed, and consequently there cannot be expounded of the universal Church in the aforesaid manner that authority of Ioan. ch. 20, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, since it speaks of the aforesaid power of orders. Which is clear, both from the interlinear Gloss which has it thus, that is, those whom you shall judge worthy of forgiveness, with two keys namely, of power and of discernment, they shall be forgiven them. And from the fact that words of this kind are said to all priests when they are ordained by bishops, to all of whom, nevertheless, no power of jurisdiction is committed. The third corollary is⁸ that the authorities of the saints saying that Peter received power of the keys of this kind in figure of the Church cannot with truth be understood in the sense of the adversaries said above, as is clear from what has been said. The fourth corollary is⁹ that the fullness of ecclesiastical power as it includes the power of orders of the keys cannot be in the universal Church in the said sense of the adversaries.

¹⁰

The third conclusion. The power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the keys, whether in the forum of conscience or of exterior judgment, was not so given to the universal Church that it was given to each of her members as individuals. This conclusion, although it may seem self-evident, nevertheless is proved thus. Among the members of the Church all the faithful are included, both clerics and lay, both men and women. Hence the Apostle to the Galatians ch. 3. For as many of you as were baptized in Christ have put on Christ. And Aug. says to Boniface, also placed in ch. Nulli, on consecration, distinct. 4: In baptism each is made a member of Christ; but to all the faithful the power of spiritual jurisdiction of the keys was not given; this is clear, because not to women nor to laymen nor to all clerics, even priests, as is clear. Therefore the conclusion is true.

The fourth conclusion¹¹. The power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not given to the whole Church as to her universality in all the members of the Church joined together. This conclusion is proved from the preceding thus. No power can belong to any whole body in all her members together, for which a great part of that whole body is unfit; but for the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the forum of conscience or of exterior judgment a great part of the whole body of the Church is unfit nor is capable of it. Therefore such power cannot be said to belong to the whole body of the Church as such. The consequence is good, the major also known, and it can be gathered from ch. cum dilectus, Extra on custom, and ch. constitutis, Extra on appeals. But the minor is clear, both from the preceding conclusion, and because, since the Church, as Bede says in the Gloss on Luc., and also Hugh of St. Victor says in the book on the Sacraments, part 2, embraces two orders, namely lay and clerics, as two sides of one body, the greater part, namely of the lay, is unfit or incapable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence in ch. bene quidem, distinct. 96, the whole synod declares that to lay persons no faculty was given concerning the disposing of ecclesiastical offices; the same in the following chapter. This is also clear more manifestly concerning women, who however much they abound in holiness are unfit to receive the keys; for woman is not a fit subject of principate but rather of subjection. Wherefore the Apostle says in 1 Corinth. ch. 14, Let women keep silence in the church; for it is not permitted, the Gloss, to speak by any authority but to be subject. Also the Philosopher says in the Politics that it is the corruption of civil life when rule or lordship comes to a woman. But it is in no way intelligible that the power of the keys was given to the Church as to her universality in all her members, and that from participation in the aforesaid power are excluded the faithful laymen, men and women, who are not only not outside the members of the body of Christ which is the Church, but also in the greater number or greater part.

The aforesaid conclusion is proved secondly thus. In any whole body whatever to which some power was given as to a whole body, all of that whole body hold themselves equally to the right of that power; this is clear, because all canons hold themselves equally in the act of any power whatever which they have as a college. But not all the faithful, indeed not all clerics, indeed not all priests, who are included within the compass of the body of the Church, hold themselves equally to the right of the power of the keys, as is manifestly clear, since otherwise there would have been no distinction of power among the apostles, nor would there have been a distinction between greater and lesser priests, nor would Peter have been more the head of the Church than any of the rest. All which things are not only false but also condemned by the Church as heretical. Therefore it follows that to the universal Church as such, that is, as in all her members together, no such power of the keys was given. The consequence is good and formal.

Thirdly thus. Whenever to any whole body whatever in common, as to a whole body, some power or some clause was given, no members whatever of that whole body can go forth into the act or execution of the power unless with all together concurring, or at least called, or with none of all the members of that whole body passed over. This seems manifest, as is gathered from ch. quia propter and ch. coram, Extra on election. But if to the universal Church in common, as to a whole body, the power of jurisdiction of the keys had been given, it would follow that neither the Pope nor the prelates of the Church could go forth into the act of its execution of the same power unless with all the faithful at least convoked, both lay and clerical. But this is¹² false, as is clear, since this is not observed in the Church, nor are all the faithful called even to universal councils, nor all clerics, nor even all priests, nor yet are they reckoned passed over if they are not called, nor does the Pope require the consent of any whomsoever for the execution of the power given to him, nor do the other prelates. Therefore it is false that to the whole Church in common, or to the whole college of clerics or of priests, the power of the keys was given as to a whole body. Fourthly thus. Whenever to all members of any whole body whatever some power was given as to a whole body, since all hold themselves equally to the right of the power regularly, the greater part of the community is preferred to the lesser in judgment. Arg. from ch. quia propter, Extra on election, and ch. cum in cunctis, Extra on those things which are done by the greater part. Therefore, were power of the keys of this kind given to the body of the universal Church, or to the college of all clerics or priests in common, it would follow that to the greater part of this whole body, which is the part of the lay, or to the lesser priests or clerics who are the greater part of their college, at length the rule and power of judgment of the whole Church could devolve, which is absurd, according to ch. cum inferior and ch. denique, distinct. 21.

The fifth conclusion. The fullness of the power of jurisdiction of the keys was not given to the universal Church as to her universality in all her members together. This conclusion, although it is clear from the preceding, because once proved that to the universal Church as a community no power of the keys was given, it remains proved that neither the fullness of the power of the keys in that manner was given to her, nevertheless is proved in many ways. First thus. The rule of the Church was instituted by God monarchical, as has often been proved above. This is clear, since this rule is reputed nobler both by the philosophers, as is clear in book 8 of the Ethics and book 3 of the Politics, and by the theologians, and it is to be believed that God instituted the rule of his Church in the nobler species of rule; but in a monarchical principate the fullness of power is not with all or with the community, as it is in political rule, but only with one, namely with the prince, who alone holds the principate. Therefore it follows that from the institution of Christ the fullness of power was not given to the whole body of the Church in all her members, but in one Roman pontiff alone, who is the prince of the Church instituted by Christ, as was shown above. Second thus, confirming the reason made. If the fullness of power is with the whole universal Church, it follows that it is not with the Pope; the consequent is false, since it is against the most open testimonies of the holy fathers, as was seen above. Therefore the antecedent is false — but from the true nothing but the true follows. The consequence is proved, because if with the whole multitude of the Christian people, which is called the universal Church, which is the gathering of all the faithful, it resides, it follows that the principate of the Church is political and not monarchical, and consequently in none but in that whole community itself the fullness of power is to be placed. But this difference is posited by Aristotle in book 8 of the Ethics and book 3 of the Politics among the three species of principate which he posits, namely the monarchical, which is said from monos, which is one, and archos, which is principate, as it were the principate of one, in which alone resides the fullness of power. The second is called aristocracy, which is said from aris, which is virtue, and cratos, which is power, as it were the power or principate of many ruling according to virtue, so that of none. The third species is called by the common name polity, in which many, as the people, hold the principate, so that with none resides the fullness of power, but with all, as is said in the same place, and thus the consequence is clear. Thirdly thus. No community whose care, rule and governance has been committed by its superior to some particular person has been given the power of its own rule and governance. This seems known; but the rule of the universal Church was committed to the Roman pontiff, as the whole doctrine of the holy fathers proclaims. For blessed Gregory says, writing to the Emperor Maurice: To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the voice of the Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy apostle Peter, prince of all the apostles; for to him it is said, Peter, do you love me, feed my sheep. Therefore it seems that to the universal Church as a community no universal power of rule of the whole Church was given, but only to Peter and his successors.

Fourth, confirming this reason, it is argued thus. To him alone the fullness of power seems given who alone is shepherd of the whole flock of the Lord; but Peter alone is shepherd of the whole flock of the Lord, and no other, nor the community itself of the Church, which is the flock itself to be fed and governed; therefore it seems that Peter alone, and so the Roman pontiff alone, was called by Christ into the fullness of the power of the keys. Fifth thus. It is impossible that in any one whole body the prelate and the subjects should have the same fullness of power; this is clear, since reason does not grasp that that through which one is constituted superior and prelate of others should be common to prelate and subjects in the same fullness; but in the whole Christian whole body the Roman pontiff is prelate and all the other faithful are subjects, as has been demonstrated above. Therefore the conclusion is true. Sixth, confirming the preceding reason, it is argued thus. The fullness of power which is placed in the Church is either one and the same in number with that which is placed in the Pope, or it is another; but it cannot be said that it is another, because thus there would be two supreme powers, and a plurality of power, which cannot be. Both because what is said through superabundance in each genus is one only. And because plurality of principates is not good, Metaphysics 12. And because the unity of the Church does not suffer two supreme powers. Nor can it be said that it is one and the same fullness of power in number, because if so then neither would the Pope be superior and prelate of the Church, nor could the Church be called superior in power to the Roman pontiff himself, which yet the adversaries will have; this is clear, because if an equal has no command over an equal, much less where there is identity of power. But the reply which certain adversaries give to this reason, saying that although it is the same, yet because, as they say, that power is in a more excellent manner in the Church, namely invariably and unswervingly, in which manner it is not in the Pope, the Church has jurisdiction over the Pope, is worth nothing. Both first, because it presupposes what is false, because as we have already proved, such fullness of power cannot be subjectively and formally in the whole body of the Church, but only in the Roman pontiff, and consequently, as above about ch. 7 was proved, it cannot be in a more excellent manner in the whole body of the Church than in the Roman pontiff. And second, because even granted that it were, namely one and the same power in number of the Church in each as in one subject, it is impossible to understand that the Church has jurisdiction over the Roman pontiff, nor conversely, nor can concerning one and the same power in number in one and the same subject for the same time such a comparison be considered, that in one it be said to be in a more excellent manner than in the other. Furthermore, even granted that it were, since such a difference, purely to be invariably and variably, neither increases nor diminishes the power itself, it cannot by such a difference be argued that one has jurisdiction over another; otherwise whoever were holier or had longer power in the Church would be said to have greater jurisdiction, which is false. Indeed among the errors of John Hus and Wyclif condemned. Seventh it is argued thus. From the whole of sacred Scripture this cannot be had, that to the universal Church in common, or in all her members together, the fullness of power was given, but rather the contrary; therefore this does not seem to be asserted. The consequence is clear, since as Jerome says, what is not firmly held from sacred Scripture is refuted with the same ease with which it is asserted. The antecedent is clear, since if there were any such Scripture, it would have been adduced by the adversaries. But that none of those which they adduce makes for the point of their position, we shall show below when we shall reply to their arguments. From these conclusions certain corollaries follow.

¹³ First that the authorities of the holy fathers which seem to attribute to the whole Church in common the power of the keys, or the authority of judgment or of teaching, are not to be taken so that to all the faithful, nor to all clerics, or as to individuals, or joined together into one, as to a whole body, such authority or power was given by divine ordination. This is clear, since as we have proved in many ways, this is not only false but also, as it seems, erroneous, since against the Gospel of Christ and the doctrine of the holy fathers it seems to deny that blessed Peter was the head of the universal Church; it seems also to deny that the ecclesiastical principate is monarchical. Likewise it seems to deny that the principate of the Church is hierarchically disposed, and that the Roman pontiff has the fullness of power. which supposition we have shown above to be in part impossible, and below in the reply to the arguments will be seen more clearly.

¹⁴ Second corollary is, that the authorities of sacred Scripture and of the saints which the adversaries adduce, understanding in the aforesaid manner, seem to interpret them perversely and otherwise than the Holy Spirit requires; this is clear from what has been said and more fully from what is to be said in the reply to the arguments. ¹⁵ The third corollary is, that what the adversaries say in the second part of their conclusion is false, namely that the fullness of power is more principally in the universal Church than in the supreme pontiff. This is clear, both from what has been said. And thus. The fullness of the power of the keys is not in the universal Church in their sense, as has been proved; therefore neither is it in her principally nor less principally in their sense, namely in all the members of the Church together. Furthermore the falsity of that is most manifestly clear from the form of absolution which any priest whatever uses in the Church in sacramental absolution. For he speaks thus: By the authority of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul; but he does not say by the authority of the universal Church, and yet this would necessarily have to be said if the power of the keys were more principally in the universal Church in the sense of the adversaries than in Peter or his successor. And this concerning the first principal point.

¹⁶ Concerning the second, in which the reply of the adversaries is to be attacked, which they give to the authorities of the holy fathers saying that the Roman pontiff alone was called into the fullness of power or that to none other the fullness of power was given by Christ, it is to be known that their reply stands in this, that through the word alone no exclusion of the community of the Church is made, but of particular persons or singular members of the Church, and similarly, when it is said that to none but Peter the fullness of power was given, the word none distributes for singular particulars but not for the community. But that this reply is worth nothing and is contrary to the minds of the holy fathers whose authorities are adduced will be clear. Both first, because it presupposes that the fullness of the power of the keys can be subjectively and formally and by dispensation in the universal Church herself or in all her members together, which above has been sufficiently disproved. And second, because the aforesaid doctors, saying that to Peter alone the fullness of power was given, place the principate of the Church as monarchical according to the Gospel of Christ. But of the nature of a monarchical principate, as has often been repeated, is that the fullness of power reside with one, namely the prince, and not with all. And third, because the aforesaid doctors place that Peter is prince, shepherd and head of the whole universal Church, with which it cannot stand that in the universal Church herself over which he presides there should be the same fullness of power with him, and especially with that addition, and with greater preeminence than in him. Hence the most holy Pope Leo in ch. ita Dominus, distinct. 19, says in clearest light that the Lord willed the sacrament of this kind of office to pertain to the office of all the apostles, yet so that in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles, he principally placed it, that from him as from a certain head he might diffuse his gifts as into the whole body. So says he. Therefore from the intention of those fathers it is that through the word alone and through the word none not only other particulars are excluded but also the community herself in the sense of the adversaries. And thus it is clear that the reply of the adversaries is worth nothing.