Dist. 19, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 19
Articulus I. Utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves.
Quaestio I. Utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves.
Primo ergo quaeritur, utrum sacerdos legalis habuerit claves. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia, sicut legisperiti instituti fuerunt ad populum docendum, ita sacerdotes ad sanctificandum, sicut patet per totum Leviticum et in Exodo; sed legisperiti in veteri testamento acceperunt clavem scientiae ad peragendum suum officium: ergo pari ratione et sacerdotes legales ad suum. Minor patet per hoc quod dicitur Lucae undecimo: Et vobis legisperitis vae, qui tulistis clavem scientiae etc.
2. Item, clavis est sequela ordinis sacerdotalis, sicut melius iam patebit; sed sacerdos legalis habuit ordinem et pontificatum, secundum quod patet ad Hebraeos quinto1: Nec quisquam sibi sumit honorem, sed qui vocatur a Deo, tanquam Aaron: ergo cum habuerit principale, videtur, quod et habuit annexum.
3. Item, clavis est auctoritas discernendi et ligandi et solvendi, faciendo reconciliationem peccatoris cum Ecclesia; sed hoc totum fuit in sacerdote summo in veteri testamento, quia ad ipsum pertinebat leprosum iudicare et expiare, sicut dicitur Levitici decimo quarto2: ergo habuit clavem. Si tu dicas, quod illa erat potestas carnalis, sicut expiatio et ipsa lepra; contra: a lepra non potuit mundare corporaliter: ergo si expiabat aliquo modo per aspersionem, sicut ibi ponitur; ergo expiatio illa erat spiritualis.
Contra: 1. Claves sacerdotales sunt ad aperiendum regnum caelorum; sed regnum caelorum non fuit apertum ante mortem Christi3: ergo claves ante mortem Christi fabricatae non fuerunt; ergo nec aliquis eas habere potuit ante.
2. Item, per claves istas spirituales reconciliatur peccator, dum solvitur et ligatur; sed reconciliatio non potuit fieri nisi per mediatorem, mediator autem unus tantum est, scilicet Christus Dominus: ergo ante adventum ipsius haberi non potuerunt.
3. Item, lex Moysi lex carnalis dicitur ab Apostolo4 et lex occidens; sed ista potestas est spiritualis et ad vivificandum vel ad perficiendum in vita: ergo talis potestas clavium nullo modo legi illi competebat.
Conclusio. Potestas clavium propria est sacerdotis evangelici, et tantum figurata in veteri lege.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliqui doctores dicere voluerunt, quod potestas clavis fuit in lege Moysi et est in lege gratiae, sed differenter: quia ibi fuit imperfecte et semiplene, hic autem perfecte; ut, sicut illa fuit imperfecta lex, et haec perfecta, et haec addit supra illam; sic clavis ad clavem: et sicut poenitentia inchoavit in veteri et fuit ibi, ita et clavis, secundum cuius arbitrium consummatur poenitentia. Et hoc nituntur ostendere per hoc, quod sacerdotibus commissum fuit, ut peccantibus per ignorantiam sacerdos imponeret poenam iuxta mensuram delicti, sicut dicitur Levitici quinto5; et illud fuit quoddam ligare ad poenam. Non tamen perfectam habuerunt potestatem, quia non poterant solvere remittendo partem poenae; et hoc quidem habent a Christi passione claves in nova lege. Et per hoc respondetur secundum illos ad obiecta utriusque partis, ut patet intuenti.
Alia opinio est, ut credo, probabilior, quod potestas clavium propria est sacerdotis evangelici; nec in lege veteri fuit inchoata, sed magis figurata; et illud apparet clarius, si respiciatur ipsius6 essentia, origo et finis. — Clavis enim potestas spiritualis est, quae est aliquid datum animae in sigillatione, qua sigillatur charactere sacerdotali; et quoniam lex illa non spiritualis, sed carnalis dicitur; ideo non competebat ei, sed novae, quae est lex spiritus. — Similiter patet hoc, si respiciatur clavis origo. Cum enim triplex sit clavis, ut in praecedentibus7 visum est, scilicet auctoritatis, excellentiae et ministerii; clavis ministerii descendit a clave auctoritatis, mediante clave excellentiae: quoniam, etsi Deus per se delet culpam, et sacerdos aliquam poenae particulam, Christus tamen fuit, qui solvit debitum in passione sua, solvit, inquam, debitum Adae, et tantum superabundavit, quod ministris communicavit virtutem solvendi a poena. — Similiter patet, si respiciatur finis: quoniam clavis ad aperiendum est per reconciliationem; et quoniam in reconciliatione illa mediator est homo, qui tenet locum Dei, ex tunc potuit et debuit dari clavis, ex quo Deus factus est homo, «ut nos divinitatis suae tribueret esse participes8», et ex quo pretium reconciliationis fusum est; et hoc debuit esse in nova lege: et ideo primo dictum est Petro: Tibi dabo claves, quasi ante datae non fuissent. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes probantes, quod solus sacerdos evangelicus habet claves.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de clave scientiae, dicendum, quod illa clavis scientiae dicitur clavis alia quam ista: quia illa fuit ad docendum ea quae iuris erant et Legis, haec autem ordinatur ad dirigendum clavem potentiae ligandi et solvendi a poena9; et ita haec aperit caelum, sed illa aperiebat, id est, aditum praeparabat ad sciendum. Lex autem nova communicat cum veteri in scientia, quia utraque lex docet, licet hic clarius ape-
riantur mysteria Legis et Prophetarum; sed in redundantia et copia gratiae et spiritualitate potestatis differebat. Et ideo non valet illud.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est sequela ordinis; dicendum, quod sicut in lege veteri non fuit clavis vera, sed figuralis; ita etiam et ordo. Et hoc patet, quia verus ordo est, qui veram offert hostiam et sacrificium Deo acceptum; et hoc est in novo testamento, ubi offertur vera Christi caro. In lege vero veteri offerebatur caro bovis, vel agni qui erat huius signum1b.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habuerunt discernendi auctoritatem et similiter expiandi; dicendum, quod illud erat carnale, non spirituale. — Quod obiicit, quod non mundabat ab immunditia2b carnis; dicendum, quod expiatio et illa sanctificatio proprie non erat carnalis nec spiritualis, sed figuralis; unde non fiebat ad munditiam carnis vel spiritus conferendam, sed potius ad significandam munditiam spiritualem. Dicitur tamen carnalis, pro eo quod de munditia carnis certificabat auctoritate et iudicio sacerdotis.
I. Opinio 1. relata in quaestione 1. improbatur ab Alexandro, S. Bonav. et S. Thoma aliisque posterioribus communiter. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 6. a. 1. 2. — Scot., hic q. unica, passim. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; Suppl. q. 19. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 14. 3. — 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.
II. De solutione 2. quaestionis cfr. Concil. Trident. Sess. XIV. can. 10. et c. 6. Aliqui casus ad hanc rem spectantes solvuntur infra dub. 2. 3. — De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 7. a. 1. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 19. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2.
---
Article I. Whether the priest under the [Old] Law had the keys.
Question I. Whether the priest under the [Old] Law had the keys.
First, then, it is asked whether the priest under the [Old] Law had the keys. And that he did seems [to be the case]:
1. Because, just as the experts in the Law were appointed to teach the people, so the priests [were appointed] to sanctify, as is clear throughout the whole of Leviticus and in Exodus; but the experts in the Law under the Old Testament received the key of knowledge for carrying out their office: therefore by parity of reasoning the priests under the Law [received it] for theirs. The minor is clear from what is said in Luke, the eleventh [chapter]: And woe to you experts in the Law, who have taken away the key of knowledge, etc.
2. Likewise, the key is a consequence of the priestly order, as will better appear later; but the priest under the Law had order and the pontificate, according as is clear from Hebrews, the fifth [chapter]1: Nor does anyone take the honor to himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron [was]: therefore, since he had the principal [thing], it seems that he also had the annexed [thing].
3. Likewise, the key is the authority of discerning and of binding and of loosing, by making reconciliation of the sinner with the Church; but all this was [present] in the high priest under the Old Testament, since to him it belonged to judge and to expiate the leper, as is said in Leviticus, the fourteenth [chapter]2: therefore he had the key. If you say that that was a carnal power, like the expiation and the leprosy itself; on the contrary: he could not cleanse from leprosy bodily: therefore if he expiated in some way by sprinkling, as is set down there; therefore that expiation was spiritual.
On the contrary: 1. The priestly keys are for opening the kingdom of heaven; but the kingdom of heaven was not opened before the death of Christ3: therefore the keys were not forged before the death of Christ; therefore neither could anyone have them before.
2. Likewise, by these spiritual keys the sinner is reconciled, while he is loosed and bound; but reconciliation could not be made except through a mediator, and the mediator is one only, namely Christ the Lord: therefore before His coming they could not be had.
3. Likewise, the law of Moses is called by the Apostle4 a carnal law and a law that kills; but this power is spiritual and [ordered] to giving life or to perfecting in life: therefore such a power of the keys in no way belonged to that law.
Conclusion. The power of the keys is proper to the priest of the Gospel, and only prefigured under the Old Law.
I respond: It must be said that some doctors wished to say that the power of the key was [present] in the law of Moses and is [present] in the law of grace, but in a different way: because there it was imperfectly and half-fully, but here perfectly; so that, just as that law was imperfect, and this one perfect, and this one adds upon that one; so [it is with] key to key: and just as penance began under the Old [Law] and was there, so also the key, according to whose judgment penance is consummated. And they strive to show this by [the fact] that it was committed to the priests that the priest should impose a penalty upon those sinning through ignorance according to the measure of the offense, as is said in Leviticus, the fifth [chapter]5; and that was a certain binding unto punishment. Yet they did not have the perfect power, because they could not loose by remitting part of the punishment; and this indeed the keys have from the passion of Christ under the new law. And by this there is answered, according to those [doctors], the objections of either side, as is clear to one who looks [at it].
There is another opinion, more probable, as I believe, that the power of the keys is proper to the priest of the Gospel; nor was it begun under the Old Law, but rather prefigured; and that appears more clearly if one looks at its6 essence, origin, and end. — For the key is a spiritual power, which is something given to the soul in [the act of] sealing, by which it is sealed with the priestly character; and since that law is called not spiritual, but carnal; therefore it did not belong to it, but to the new [law], which is the law of the spirit. — Likewise this is clear, if one looks at the key's origin. For since the key is threefold, as was seen in the foregoing7, namely of authority, of excellence, and of ministry; the key of ministry descends from the key of authority, by means of the key of excellence: since, even though God by Himself blots out the fault, and the priest [blots out] some particle of the punishment, yet it was Christ who paid the debt in His passion — paid, I say, the debt of Adam, and so superabounded that He communicated to the ministers the power of loosing from punishment. — Likewise it is clear, if one looks at the end: since the key is for opening through reconciliation; and since in that reconciliation the mediator is a man who holds the place of God, from then on the key could and ought to be given, from [the time] when God became man, «that He might grant us to be partakers of His divinity8», and from [the time] when the price of reconciliation was poured out; and this had to be under the new law: and therefore it was first said to Peter: To you I will give the keys, as if they had not been given before. — Therefore the reasonings are to be granted which prove that the priest of the Gospel alone has the keys.
1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the key of knowledge, it must be said that that key of knowledge is called a key other than this one: because that one was for teaching the things which were of right and of the Law, but this one is ordered to directing the key of the power of binding and loosing from punishment9; and so this one opens heaven, but that one was opening, that is, was preparing the approach unto knowing. But the new law has in common with the old [law] in knowledge, since both laws teach, although here are more clearly opened
the mysteries of the Law and of the Prophets; but in the redundance and abundance of grace and in the spirituality of [its] power it differed. And therefore that [objection] is of no force.
2. To that which is objected, that it is a consequence of order; it must be said that, just as under the Old Law there was no true key, but a figural one; so also there was [no true] order. And this is clear, because the true order is that which offers a true victim and a sacrifice acceptable to God; and this is [the case] under the New Testament, where the true flesh of Christ is offered. But under the Old Law there was offered the flesh of an ox, or of a lamb which was a sign of this1b.
3. To that which is objected, that they had the authority of discerning and likewise of expiating; it must be said that that was carnal, not spiritual. — As to what is objected, that it did not cleanse from the uncleanness2b of the flesh; it must be said that the expiation and that sanctification was properly neither carnal nor spiritual, but figural; whence it was not done for conferring a cleanness of flesh or of spirit, but rather for signifying spiritual cleanness. It is nevertheless called carnal, for the reason that it gave assurance concerning the cleanness of the flesh by the authority and judgment of the priest.
I. Opinion 1, set out in question 1, is disproved by Alexander, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas, and by the later [doctors] commonly. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 20. m. 6. a. 1. 2. — Scotus, here q. unica, throughout. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 1. little-question 1; Suppl. q. 19. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 14. 3. — 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; Denis the Carthusian, here q. 1.
II. On the solution of the 2nd question, cf. the Council of Trent, Sess. XIV. can. 10. and c. 6. Certain cases bearing on this matter are resolved below in dub. 2. 3. — On the same question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 7. a. 1. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 2. little-question 2; Suppl. q. 19. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. little-question 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 2.
---
- 1Vers. 4. — Maior ostenditur infra a. 2. q. 1. 2.Verse 4. — The major [premise] is shown below, a. 2. q. 1. 2.
- 2Vers. 2. seqq. Cfr. ibid. c. 13.Verse 2 ff. Cf. ibid. c. 13.
- 3Cfr. III. Sent. d. 22. q. 6.Cf. III Sent. d. 22. q. 6.
- 4Hebr. 7, 16: Qui non secundum legem mandati carnalis factus est; II. Cor. 3, 6: Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat. Vide III. Sent. d. 40. q. 2. — Inferius pro perficiendum edd. proficiendum (Hebr. 7, 19: Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit Lex).Hebr. 7, 16: who was made not according to the law of a carnal commandment; II Cor. 3, 6: For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. See III Sent. d. 40. q. 2. — Below, for perficiendum [perfecting] the editions [read] proficiendum [advancing] (Hebr. 7, 19: For the Law brought nothing to perfection).
- 5Vers. 18: Offeret... iuxta mensuram aestimationemque peccati. Cfr. Deut. 25, 2.Verse 18: He shall offer... according to the measure and the estimation of the sin. Cf. Deut. 25, 2.
- 6Supple cum cod. X clavis. Idem cod. mox post Clavis enim addit essentia.Supply, with codex X, of the key. The same codex shortly after, following Clavis enim [for the key], adds essentia [essence].
- 7Dist. 18. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.Dist. 18. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.
- 8Gregor., Libr. Sacramentor. Praefat. in ascensa Domini. — Seq. textus Scripturae est Matth. 16, 19.Gregory, Book of Sacraments, Preface for the Ascension of the Lord. — The following text of Scripture is Matth. 16, 19.
- 9Vide supra d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. seq.See above d. 18. p. I. a. 3. q. 1. f.
- 1bCfr. Hebr. 7-11. — Pro qui erat cod. H et ed. 1 quae erat.Cf. Hebr. 7-11. — For qui erat [who was] codex H and ed. 1 [read] quae erat [which was].
- 2bCodd. M O nisi ab immunditia [cod. O immunditiis].Codices M O [read] nisi ab immunditia [except from the uncleanness] [codex O immunditiis (uncleannesses)]. ---