Dist. 18, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 18
Articulus I. De clavibus in generali.
Quaestio I. Utrum claves Ecclesiae sint datae.
Circa primum ostenditur, quod claves Ecclesiae sint datae:
1. Per illud quod habetur Matthaei decimo sexto1: Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum.
2. Item, hoc ipsum probatur per illud quod dicitur Ioannis vigesimo2: Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis etc.: ergo in potestate Apostolorum fuit introducere ad iustitiam, ergo ad vitam; sed omnis qui potest admittere, vel excludere a regno, habet clavem regni: ergo Apostolis datae fuerunt claves, non nisi in quantum erant praelati Ecclesiae: ergo etc.
3. Item, ratione videtur: quia nullus potest ingredi regnum caelorum nisi per Ecclesiam, et hoc significatum est, ubi dicitur Genesis vigesimo octavo3: Non est hic aliud nisi domus Dei et porta caeli; sed constans est, quod ad rectum ordinem oportuit praelatos in Ecclesia institui; sed nullus sufficienter portae praeest, nisi qui habet clavem ipsius: ergo videtur, quod Dominus claves illis concesserit.
4. Item, decet regem terrenum, ut clavem ostii sive portae suis servis committat, qui ministrant in eius curia; sed non est liberalior rex terrenus quam rex aeternus, immo multo minus: ergo videtur, quod aliquibus servis sive hominibus claves commisit.
Ad oppositum ita arguitur: 1. Nulla necessitas est clavium, ubi ostium semper est patens et apertura; sed ostium semper est caeli et Ecclesiae apertum: ergo etc. Minor probatur sic: ostium paradisi Christus Dominus est, qui dicit Ioannis decimo4: Ego sum ostium; sed illud semper est apertum, quia Ioannis sexto dicit ipse: Eum qui venit ad me, non eiiciam foras; et Apocalypsis quarto: Vidi, et ecce in caelo ostium apertum: ergo etc.
2. Item, illi soli conceditur clavis, qui potest claudere et aperire; sed hic est solus Christus, Isaiae vigesimo secundo5: Dabo clavem domus David super humerum eius, et claudet, et non erit qui aperiat etc.: ergo solius Christi est aperire et claudere: ergo etc.
3. Item, solus ille fert clavem, qui potest obstaculum amovere; sed obstaculum regni caelorum solus Christus potuit amovere: ergo etc. Probatio minoris. Super illud Isaiae vigesimo secundo6: Dabo clavem domus David; Glossa: « In passione resera-
vit quod ante non poterat »: sed hoc fuit solius Christi: ergo etc.
4. Item, maius quid est habere claves paradisi, quam habere claves mortis et inferni; sed Christus clavem mortis et inferni sibi soli reservavit nec dedit Ecclesiae7: ergo clavem regni multo fortius.
Conclusio. Data est Ecclesiae clavis ministerii contra debitum peccati dimissi, quae descendit a clave auctoritatis mediante clave excellentiae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nomen clavis translatum est ad spiritualia ab ipsis corporalibus. In his autem corporalibus clavis est instrumentum ad removendum aliquod obstaculum8. Quoniam igitur in spiritualibus invenimus obstaculum ad ingrediendum in regnum caeleste; necesse est illud removere. Ideo spiritualia ad nomen clavis transferimus, vocantes clavem illam virtutem, per quam obstaculum removetur, sive per quam excluditur, vel includitur.
Secundum hoc igitur notandum, quod cum triplex sit obstaculum ingrediendi in regnum, et triplex potestas illud removens; triplex est clavis spiritualis, differens secundum gradum et dignitatem. Obstaculum autem ingrediendi in caelum est debitum alicuius peccati; hoc autem est triplex; primum peccati mortalis commissi, et hoc est debitum aeterni supplicii. Hoc autem obstaculum solus Deus amovet, quia hoc removetur per culpae deletionem; et ideo potestas hoc removens est potestas divina, quae ab aliquibus dicitur clavis auctoritatis. — Secundum obstaculum est debitum peccati contracti, et illud est debitum solutionis pretii9; et hoc solvi potuit per eum qui potuit satisfacere; talis autem fuit solus Christus; et ideo haec potestas removens illud obstaculum est solius Christi, et vocant eam aliqui clavem excellentiae. — Tertium obstaculum est debitum peccati dimissi, quia, postquam homini dimissa est culpa, adhuc est obligatus ad temporalem poenam, et hoc removeri potest per illum qui potest peccati10 poenam taxare; et talis est minister Christi, non tantum Christus, et ista potestas est hominibus communicata, et vocatur ista potestas clavis ministerii.
Cum igitur triplex sit potestas secundum triplex obstaculum, triplex est clavis; prima scilicet auctoritatis, a qua est; secunda scilicet excellentiae, et haec est in solo Christo; et tertia est clavis ministerii, quae descendit a clave auctoritatis, mediante clave excellentiae; et de hac dictum est Petro: Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum, Matthaei decimo sexto11. — Et de hac procedunt auctoritates et rationes ad primam partem; sed rationes ad oppositum procedant de aliis clavibus.
1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod soli ostium semper est apertum; dicendum, quod hoc verum est de se; sed tamen homo sibi claudit per debitum peccati, quod incurrit, a quo oportet hominem per aliquam clavium liberari.
2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solus Christus potest claudere; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de clave excellentiae, per quam clausit lymbum Sanctis, ne ibi descendant, et aperuit paradisum; et de ista apertione dicitur in oratione paschali12: « Deus, qui aeternitatis nobis aditum, devicta morte, reserasti »: de hac intelligitur textus et Glossa; et ita patet sequens obiectio.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de clavibus inferni, potest responderi secundum aliquos, quod istae etiam sunt claves inferni, sed tamen denominantur a digniori13, quia, dum aperiunt caelum, claudunt infernum; sed principaliter sunt ad aperiendum caelum. — Potest aliter dici, quod claves inferni habet Christus secundum quod Deus, quia ipse est, qui potest animam et corpus perdere in gehennam14, et qui potest liberare et ibidem includere; unde hoc competit ei secundum clavem auctoritatis, quae est in removendo culpam. Et ideo plus dicit per clavem inferni quam per clavem regni; sicut plus est liberare a culpa et morte aeterna, quam liberare ab aliqua poena temporali introducendo in gloriam. Ideo non valet illud.
I. Fide constat, « potestatem remittendi et retinendi peccata ad reconciliandos fideles post baptismum lapsos Apostolis et eorum legitimis successoribus fuisse communicatam » (Concil. Trident. Sess. XIV. c. 1; cfr. can. 3.). Item, haeresis est dicere, « absolutionem sacramentalem sacerdotis non esse actum iudicialem, sed nudum ministerium pronuntiandi et declarandi, remissa esse peccata confitenti » (ibid. can. 9; cfr. can. 10. et c. 2.). Ex parte poenitentis requiritur « contritio in animo, confessio in verbo, satisfactio in facto »; quibus « debito modo concurrentibus cum absolutione facta ab eo, in quo est ordo, clavis et iurisdictio, absolvitur homo a peccato [in Sacramento poenitentiae] et reunitur Ecclesiae et reconciliatur Christo mediante clave sacerdotali » (Breviloq. p. VI. c. 10.). — « Clavis potestas spiritualis est, quae est aliquid datum animae in sigillatione, qua sigillatur charactere sacerdotali » (infra d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.); ipsa confertur tantum in nova lege (ibid.) et cum ordine sacerdotali (ibid. a. 2. q. 1.), nec « videtur a charactere differre nisi secundum relationem quandam »; « fundatur radicaliter in anima quantum ad essentiam » (ibid. a. 2. q. 2.); denique quoad usum huius potestatis requiritur status viatoris et iurisdictio (ibid.). Distinguitur autem in sacerdote duplex clavis (infra a. 3. q. 1. 2.); et generatim quoad remissionem peccati clavis auctoritatis, excellentiae et ministerii (hic q. 1, infra dub. 2, d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.).
II. Quoad duas huius articuli quaestiones quaedam locutiones illa aetate communes indigent explicatione, quae exhibetur infra a. 2. q. 1. in scholio. De triplici clave, scilicet auctoritatis, excellentiae et ministerii, eodem sensu loquuntur locis infra citt. Alex. Hal., S. Thom., Scot., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. et Durand. — De forma iudiciali cfr. supra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3. — De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 1. et m. 6. a. 3. — Scot., de hac et seq. q. infra d. 19. n. 4. 5. et n. 21. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Suppl. q. 17. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 1.; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.
III. De seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 2, et m. 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. a. 1. q. 2.
---
Article I. On the keys in general.
Question I. Whether the keys of the Church have been given.
Concerning the first, that the keys of the Church have been given is shown:
1. By that which is found in Matthew, the sixteenth chapter1: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
2. Likewise, this same thing is proved by that which is said in John, the twentieth chapter2: Whose sins you remit, they are remitted to them etc.: therefore it was in the power of the Apostles to lead [men] to justice, therefore to life; but everyone who can admit, or exclude from, the kingdom has the key of the kingdom: therefore the keys were given to the Apostles only insofar as they were prelates of the Church: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because no one can enter the kingdom of heaven except through the Church, and this was signified where it is said in Genesis, the twenty-eighth chapter3: There is nothing here but the house of God and the gate of heaven; but it is certain that for right order it was necessary that prelates be instituted in the Church; but no one is sufficiently set over the gate except him who has its key: therefore it seems that the Lord granted the keys to them.
4. Likewise, it is fitting for an earthly king to commit the key of the doorway or gate to his servants, who minister in his court; but an earthly king is not more liberal than the eternal king, rather far less so: therefore it seems that he committed the keys to some servants or men.
To the opposite it is argued thus: 1. There is no necessity of keys where the doorway is always open and free of obstruction; but the doorway of heaven and of the Church is always open: therefore etc. The minor is proved thus: the doorway of paradise is Christ the Lord, who says in John, the tenth chapter4: I am the door; but it is always open, because in John, the sixth chapter, he himself says: Him who comes to me I will not cast out; and in the Apocalypse, the fourth chapter: I saw, and behold, in heaven a door opened: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, a key is granted only to him who can shut and open; but this is Christ alone, Isaiah, the twenty-second chapter5: I will give the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall shut, and there shall be none who opens etc.: therefore it belongs to Christ alone to open and to shut: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, he alone bears the key who can remove the obstacle; but the obstacle of the kingdom of heaven Christ alone was able to remove: therefore etc. The proof of the minor. Upon that text of Isaiah, the twenty-second chapter6: I will give the key of the house of David; the Gloss: "In his passion he opened what before he could not": but this was Christ's alone: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, it is something greater to have the keys of paradise than to have the keys of death and of hell; but Christ reserved the key of death and of hell to himself alone and did not give it to the Church7: therefore [he reserved] the key of the kingdom much more strongly.
Conclusion. The key of ministry has been given to the Church against the debt of forgiven sin, which descends from the key of authority by means of the key of excellence.
I respond: It must be said that the name "key" has been transferred to spiritual things from corporeal things themselves. Now in these corporeal things a key is an instrument for removing some obstacle8. Since therefore in spiritual things we find an obstacle to entering into the heavenly kingdom, it is necessary to remove it. Therefore we transfer [the term] to spiritual things under the name "key," calling that power a key by which the obstacle is removed, or by which [one] is excluded or included.
According to this, then, it is to be noted that, since there is a threefold obstacle to entering into the kingdom, and a threefold power removing it, there is a threefold spiritual key, differing according to grade and dignity. Now the obstacle to entering heaven is the debt of some sin; and this is threefold: the first, of mortal sin committed, and this is the debt of eternal punishment. But this obstacle God alone removes, because it is removed through the deletion of guilt; and therefore the power removing this is the divine power, which by some is called the key of authority. — The second obstacle is the debt of contracted sin, and that is the debt of paying the price9; and this could be paid by him who was able to make satisfaction; but such was Christ alone; and therefore this power removing that obstacle belongs to Christ alone, and some call it the key of excellence. — The third obstacle is the debt of forgiven sin, because, after guilt has been forgiven a man, he is still bound to temporal penalty, and this can be removed through him who can assess the penalty of sin10; and such is a minister of Christ, not Christ only, and this power is communicated to men, and this power is called the key of ministry.
Since therefore there is a threefold power according to the threefold obstacle, there is a threefold key: the first, namely, of authority, from which [it is]; the second, namely, of excellence, and this is in Christ alone; and the third is the key of ministry, which descends from the key of authority, by means of the key of excellence; and of this it was said to Peter: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Matthew, the sixteenth chapter11. — And concerning this proceed the authorities and reasons for the first part; but the reasons to the opposite proceed concerning the other keys.
1. To that, therefore, which is objected first, that the doorway alone is always open; it must be said that this is true of itself; but nevertheless man shuts it to himself through the debt of sin which he incurs, from which man must be freed through one of the keys.
2. 3. To that which is objected, that Christ alone can shut; it must be said that that is understood of the key of excellence, by which he shut limbo for the saints, lest they descend there, and opened paradise; and of this opening it is said in the paschal prayer12: "O God, who, death being conquered, have opened for us the entrance of eternity": of this the text and the Gloss are understood; and thus the following objection is clear.
4. To that which is objected concerning the keys of hell, it can be answered according to some that these are also keys of hell, but are nevertheless named from the worthier13, because, while they open heaven, they shut hell; but they are principally for opening heaven. — It can be said otherwise that Christ has the keys of hell insofar as he is God, because it is he who can destroy soul and body in hell14, and who can free [one] and shut [him] in there; whence this belongs to him according to the key of authority, which is in the removing of guilt. And therefore he says more by the key of hell than by the key of the kingdom; just as it is more to free [one] from guilt and eternal death than to free [him] from some temporal penalty by leading [him] into glory. Therefore that [objection] is invalid.
I. It is established by faith that "the power of remitting and retaining sins, for reconciling the faithful who fall after baptism, was communicated to the Apostles and their lawful successors" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV. c. 1; cf. can. 3.). Likewise, it is heresy to say "that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins have been remitted to the one confessing" (ibid. can. 9; cf. can. 10. and c. 2.). On the part of the penitent there is required "contrition in the mind, confession in word, satisfaction in deed"; with which "duly concurring with the absolution made by him in whom there is order, key, and jurisdiction, man is absolved from sin [in the Sacrament of penance] and reunited to the Church and reconciled to Christ by means of the priestly key" (Breviloquium p. VI. c. 10.). — "The power of the key is a spiritual power, which is something given to the soul in the sealing by which it is sealed with the priestly character" (below d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.); it is conferred only in the new law (ibid.) and with the priestly order (ibid. a. 2. q. 1.), nor "does it seem to differ from the character except according to a certain relation"; "it is founded radically in the soul as to its essence" (ibid. a. 2. q. 2.); finally, as to the use of this power, the state of a wayfarer and jurisdiction are required (ibid.). But a twofold key is distinguished in the priest (below a. 3. q. 1. 2.); and in general, as to the remission of sin, [there is] the key of authority, of excellence, and of ministry (here q. 1, below dub. 2, d. 19. a. 1. q. 1.).
II. As regards the two questions of this article, certain expressions common in that age need explanation, which is provided below a. 2. q. 1. in the scholion. Concerning the threefold key, namely of authority, excellence, and ministry, in the same sense there speak, in the places cited below, Alexander of Hales, St. Thomas, Scotus, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, and Durandus. — On the judicial form cf. above d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3. — On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 20. m. 1. and m. 6. a. 3. — Scotus, on this and the following question, below d. 19. n. 4. 5. and n. 21. ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1; Suppl. q. 17. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 1. — On this and the following question Durandus, here q. 1.; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.
III. On the following (2nd) question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 3. a. 2, and m. 2. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. subquestion 2; Suppl. loc. cit. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. subquestion 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. a. 1. q. 2.
---
- 1[Page 469] In codd. desideratur haec propositio: secundo... ligare. Edd., perperam posito tres habet pro duas habet [falsitas lectionis edd. colligi iam potest ex voce Similiter], subinde legunt: In secunda ostendit, quod possunt... In tertia determinat modum.[Page 469] In the codices this proposition is lacking: secundly... to bind. The editions, having wrongly put has three [parts] for has two [parts] [the falsity of the editions' reading can already be gathered from the word Likewise], then read: In the second it shows that they can... In the third it determines the manner.
- 2Vers. 19.Verse 19.
- 3Vers. 23.Verse 23.
- 4Vers. 17. Cfr. Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum in hunc loc., quae est ex Rabano et in qua dicitur, quod evigilans a torpore inertiae et sese exercens in bonis operibus « in Ecclesia supereminentem gratiam et introitum regni caelestis intelliget ». Glossa interlinearis apud Lyranum sumta ex August. (Qq. in Pentateuch. l. q. 83.): Tanquam inde fiat aditus credentibus ad capessendum regnum caelorum. — In fine arg. pro illis, quod habet cod. U, alii codd. aliis, edd. Apostolis.Verse 17. Cf. the Glossa ordinaria in Strabus and Lyranus on this place, which is from Rabanus, and in which it is said that one waking from the torpor of sloth and exercising himself in good works "will understand in the Church the surpassing grace and the entrance of the heavenly kingdom." The Glossa interlinearis in Lyranus, taken from Augustine (Questions on the Pentateuch bk. 1 q. 83.): As though thence an entrance be made for believers to lay hold of the kingdom of heaven. — At the end of the argument, for to them, which codex U has, other codices [read] to others, the editions to the Apostles.
- 5Vers. 7. — Seq. locus est Ioan. 6, 37, ubi codd. Omnis qui pro Eum qui; tertius Apoc. 4, 1. — Cod. huic arg. subiungit: Item, Ecclesia nulli claudit gremium, ergo neminem excludit, quantum in se est; ergo ille potius claudit peccando, qui [se] excludit, quam Ecclesia vel praelatus: ergo etc.Verse 7. — The following passage is John 6, 37, where the codices [read] Everyone who for Him who; the third [is] Apocalypse 4, 1. — A codex appends to this argument: Likewise, the Church shuts its bosom to no one, therefore it excludes no one, as far as it lies in itself; therefore he rather shuts [it] by sinning who excludes [himself], than [does] the Church or the prelate: therefore etc.
- 6Vers. 22. Vulgata post eius addit et aperiet, et non erit qui claudat. Codd. omittunt domus.Verse 22. The Vulgate after his adds and he shall open, and there shall be none who shuts. The codices omit of the house.
- 7Vers. 22. Etiam hic codd. omittunt domus. — Glossa ordinaria (ex Hieron. in hunc loc.) a Strabo et Lyrano sic exhibetur: Quod in passione [Hieron. elicit hoc ex verbis Dabo clavem super humerum eius, scil. crucem portatam in pas[sione]] reseravit claudi non poterit; quod in caerimoniis [Iudaeorum] clausit nemo aperiet.Verse 22. Here too the codices omit of the house. — The Glossa ordinaria (from Jerome on this place) is presented thus by Strabus and Lyranus: What in his passion [Jerome draws this out from the words I will give the key upon his shoulder, namely the cross carried in his pas[sion]] he opened cannot be shut; what among the ceremonies [of the Jews] he shut, none shall open.
- 8[Page 470] Apoc. 1, 18. seq.: Ego sum primus et novissimus; et vivus, et fui mortuus... et habeo claves mortis et inferni. Cfr. expositio in hunc locum, quae inter opera Ambrosii habetur, et haec est: Qui clavem alicuius domus habet, quem vult intromittit, et quem vult ab ingressu domus repellit. Per clavem ergo potestas Filii Dei intelligitur. Claves igitur mortis et inferni ipse possidet, quia quos vult a damnatione mortis perpetuae misericorditer liberat, et quos vult in eodem damnationis periculo iusto iudicio remanere sinit.[Page 470] Apocalypse 1, 18. f.: I am the first and the last; and living, and I was dead... and I have the keys of death and of hell. Cf. the exposition on this place, which is found among the works of Ambrose, and it is this: He who has the key of any house admits whom he wills, and repels from entry to the house whom he wills. By the key, therefore, the power of the Son of God is understood. He therefore possesses the keys of death and of hell, because those whom he wills he mercifully frees from the damnation of perpetual death, and those whom he wills he allows to remain by a just judgment in the same peril of damnation.
- 9Isidor., XX. Etymolog. c. 13. n. 5: Clavis dicta, quod claudat et aperiat.Isidore, Etymologies XX. c. 13. n. 5: It is called a "key" (clavis) because it shuts (claudat) and opens.
- 10Cod. Z debiti pretii. Cfr. supra d. 15. p. I. q. 1.Codex Z [reads] of the debt-price. Cf. above d. 15. p. I. q. 1.
- 11Cod. H peccatori, multi alii peccato.Codex H [reads] to the sinner, many others to sin.
- 12Vers. 19. — Superius codd. omittunt prima.Verse 19. — Above, the codices omit first.
- 13Apud Gregor., Lib. Sacramentor. in die sancto Paschae (quo die etiam in Breviario Romano habetur). Permulti codd. omittunt nobis.In Gregory, Book of Sacraments, on the holy day of Easter (on which day it is also found in the Roman Breviary). Very many codices omit for us.
- 14Sive, ut dicitur infra q. 2. in corp. secundum Aristot. (cfr. tom. I. pag. 14, nota 7.), ab optimo et fine. — Matth. 10, 28.Or, as is said below q. 2. in the body, according to Aristotle (cf. vol. I. p. 14, note 7.), from the best and the end. — Matthew 10, 28.