Summa de Ecclesia

CONSEQUENTLY it remains to be seen concerning the fourth supposition of the adversaries and the authorities which they bring forward for it. The fourth supposition of theirs is that the things said among the holy doctors to be in the Church or given to the universal Church are understood of the Church as its universality in all its members joined together at once. Plainly that this supposition is not only false but even derisory, it is sufficiently understood from what was said above, above all where in refuting the position of the adversaries we showed that there would be many things said to be in the Church or given to the Church which in no way can belong to the community of the Church in all its members, nay to attribute those things to the community in that way is altogether foolish. For as we said above, just as in the natural body of man, to whose similitude the Church is called a body, some things were given to the body thus: in one member, which are not in another member nor in all at once, as sight was given to man in the eye, hearing in the ear, smell in the nostrils, so that not in others, so it is in the body of the Church: many things were given to the Church, as the graces which are called freely given graces, of which the Apostle speaks at Rom. 12 and at 1 Cor. 12 and at Eph. 4, which we recalled above, were not given to the body of the Church in such a way as to belong to all its members at once, but to some these and to others those, as the same Apostle says: There are divisions of graces, as we fully showed above. False therefore is this supposition of the adversaries, nor is their proof of any appearance when they say that the Church is a collective name, because from this it does not follow that whatever is said to be in the Church or given to the Church belongs to all its members collected together at once. Hence the Apostle in 1 Cor. 12: For as the body is one and has many members, if the whole body were hearing, if the whole body were eyes, etc. True therefore is it that there are many things of the Church, as they are said to be in the Church, or which the Church has, which nevertheless it does not have in all its members collected together at once but in some only. With these established, answer must be made to each of the authorities brought in from the opposing side.

¹ To the first, which is from ch. Omnibus, 24, q. 1, I answer that it is true that the Church received the keys, and this no Christian denies, but it is said that not in all its members but only in some, namely the bishops and priests, as has often been recalled.

² To the second, which is Augustine's from On Christian Doctrine, it is answered. In the same way, by conceding that Christ gave to his Church the keys, that what she would loose on earth, etc., but He gave these keys, as we said, not in all its members but in the more principal ones, namely the bishops and priests.

³ To the third authority of Augustine on the canon of John, I answer in the same way.

⁴ To the fourth, which is Extra, on the supreme Trinity, I answer first that that authority does not seem to make for the proposition, since the Gloss on the word, according to the keys, expounds according to the form of the Church. Secondly it is answered by denying the consequence — "the keys are named of the Church; therefore the community of the Church in itself and in all its members, and more principally than Peter, has the keys." This consequence is of no force: for this is common, that the keys are said to be of the castle or of the city, and yet the faculty of opening is properly ascribed neither to the castle nor to the city but to the doorkeeper. So in the matter proposed, although the keys are named of the Church, and the sacraments, nevertheless the power of absolving from sins and of dispensing the sacraments belongs to priests alone, and the dispensation of some belongs to bishops alone, as was said elsewhere. Thirdly I answer that the keys are not so said to be of the Church as though the community of the Church itself had them, and in itself subjectively formally and dispensatively, as the adversaries pretend, but in this way it well belongs to Peter, and now they are in his successors, whence the saints name Peter the keeper of the little keys and doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom. But as to the fact that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, although they belong to priests alone, are nevertheless said to be given to the Church, and are called the keys of the Church, several reasons can be assigned. The first is on account of the unity of the members in the body of the Church, as we said above, for since as the Apostle says at Rom. 12: We being many are one body in Christ, therefore the things given to the members of the body are said to be given to the body itself whose parts they are. Second, because the keys were given to the more principal parts of the community of the Church, for as Jerome says, they were given to the whole Church in the bishops and priests; but it is customary that what the more principal do in the community, the whole community itself is said to do, since as the Philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics, the city is said to be what is most principal in it, as man is said to be his intellect, not because the intellect is the whole man, but because the intellect is the more principal part in man, in which the whole disposition of man consists virtually. Thirdly the keys are called of the Church because a power which cannot be perpetuated in one or in several members of some multitude but only through succession is customarily named the power of the community, although such power does not belong to all of that community, as in a perpetual privilege given to the dignity of some church or religious order. Fourthly the keys are called of the Church because for the good of the whole Church they were given by Christ to Peter and to his successors. Hence the Apostle says in 2 Cor. 13: According to the power which the Lord gave me unto edification. Fifthly the keys are called of the Church as the keys of the house are called, because through them entrance is given into the Church or one is excluded from the Church. Sixthly, the keys are called of the Church, because the faith of the Church works much in them in some way, and the sacraments are called of the Church. It is clear therefore that the authority brought in on the part of the adversaries does nothing for the proposition of the adversaries themselves. But as to what the aforesaid adversaries say, that in that authority it is not said that the keys were granted to Peter alone nor that through him they were granted to others, this is not worthy of reply, since it is known to all the learned that argumentation from authority negatively is of no force. For many things belong to blessed Peter which it would be heretical to deny, although of these there is no mention in that chapter alleged by the adversaries, Extra, on the supreme Trinity, and moreover if it is not said there it is said elsewhere, as in ch. fundamenta de elect. lib. 6 and in many other places, as recalled above.

To the fifth⁵ authority, which is brought in from the Acts of the Apostles, I answer that that authority does nothing against our proposition, for although the Holy Spirit is said to have set those presbyters to rule the Church of Christ for that part in which they were appointed pastors and rulers, not on this account does it follow that with them was the power of the keys in its fullness, but only according to the part of solicitude to which they had been called. But the fullness of power is only with him to whose regimen the whole universal Church itself, spread through the whole world, was committed, who is the Roman pontiff. Hence when others after blessed Peter are called princes or rulers or pastors of the Lord's flock, this is not to be understood as though they were such in respect of the whole Church, but in respect of a part or parts of whatever church they are set over — for instance in respect of such or such a province or diocese or parish — according to the part of solicitude to which they were called through the universal pastor and ruler of the whole Church, whence the Gloss on that text of 1 Peter 5, Feed the flock which is among you, says thus: As the Lord bade Peter have the care of the whole flock, so Peter by right mandates to the following shepherds of the Church that each with solicitous governance may guard the flock of the Lord which is with him. To the sixth⁶ authority, which is taken from the preface which is said on the feast of the apostles, a similar answer is clear: for we say that although the other apostles also were pastors of the Church, as also now the bishops are, nevertheless not universally over the whole Church but only according to that part of solicitude to which each was called; but Peter alone was pastor of the universal Church, to whom alone absolutely and without distinction it was said in the last chapter of John: Simon son of John, lovest thou me, feed my sheep — in which universality the Roman pontiff alone succeeds him.