Dist. 19, Art. 3, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 19
Quaestio II. Utrum inferior possit absolvere superiorem, ipso volente.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum inferior possit absolvere superiorem, ipso volente. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia ad Hebraeos quinto1 dicitur, quod pontifex non tantum pro se, sed etiam pro populo debet orare, eo quod ipse sit circumdatus infirmitate: ergo si peccat mortaliter, indiget confiteri, quemadmodum unus de populo; sed non habet superiorem ordinarium: ergo potest confiteri et absolvi ab inferiori.
2. Item, ad hoc, quod de peccato mortali fiat reconciliatio, necesse est, intervenire mediationem sacerdotis; sed possibile est, supremum praelatorum peccare: ergo indiget sacerdote reconciliante; sed non superiori: ergo inferiori.
3. Item, quamvis Summus Pontifex sit constitutus, ut offerat dona et sacrificia pro peccatis2, tamen ipse per alium sacerdotem potest facere hostiam offerri, et alius potest offerre pro eo: ergo quamvis claves habeat ad solvendum, tamen alius potest absolvere eum; sed non nisi inferior: ergo pari ratione in omnibus aliis.
4. Item, potestas absolvendi data est ad utilitatem eius qui absolvitur; sed ille cui data est potestas haec, non est peioris conditionis quam alii: ergo et ille potest absolvi; sed non a se, nec a superiori, quia frequenter non habet copiam eius, aut non habet superiorem, ut Papa: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Relationis non est relatio, « nec motus est motus3 », nec mediationis est mediatio, nec mediatoris est mediator; sed supremus sacerdos et omnis praelatus mediator est inter inferiores et Deum: ergo non potest esse nec debet e converso.
2. Item, ad hoc, quod aliquis absolvat aliquem, necesse est, quod habeat iurisdictionem super eum, sicut in praecedentibus4 visum est; sed inferior non habet iurisdictionem super superiorem: ergo etc. Si dicas mihi, quod superior dat ei iurisdictionem absolvendi; contra: « nemo dat quod non habet »; sed praelatus non habet iurisdictionem absolvendi se, quia non habet potestatem supra se: ergo etc.
3. Item, praelatus inferior non potest alium excommunicare5, nec ipse potest dare alii iurisdictionem excommunicandi se: ergo similiter videtur, quod nec absolvendi.
4. Item, in hierarchia angelica non recipiunt Angeli superiores illuminationem ab inferioribus6: ergo similiter videtur, quod in Ecclesia superior ab inferiore non absolvatur.
5. Item, probatum est per canones et rationes7, quod sacerdos non potest absolvere alienum parochianum: ergo nec suum praelatum, per locum a maiori; magis enim videtur, quod possit supra minorem quam supra maiorem. Si tu dicas, quod praelatus dat ei potestatem in se; quaeritur, quomodo hoc possit esse.
Conclusio
Sacerdos subditus potest absolvere praelatum, qui in foro poenitentiae ipsi se subiicit.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod inferior superiorem potest absolvere, si superior velit se ei subiicere. — Et hoc patet sic. Virtus clavium, quantum est de se, ad omnes se extendit, nisi ex ordinatione8 superiorum manus arctaretur propter servandum ordinem ecclesiasticum. Sacerdos enim ex sua ordinatione institutus est mediator inter Deum iudicem et hominem peccatorem, et quantum est ex parte Dei, non est differentia — quilibet enim suum sacerdotem reputat mediatorem, et cuilibet impressit9 mediatoris characterem — sed differentia est ex parte hominum: quia, si quilibet esset mediator cuiuslibet, esset in Ecclesia confusio; et ideo alii aliis subiecti sunt, et qui subiiciuntur uni non possunt dare alteri auctoritatem in se; sed si libera esset persona, quae posset se subiicere, tunc absque dubio posset eum10 absolvere. Quoniam ergo supremus praelatus, qui merae libertatis est et nulli subiectus, potest se cui vult subiicere, et alii exempti etiam suis subditis: concedo, quod ipsi possunt eos absolvere.
Quod autem supremus praelatus possit se ei subiicere, ius divinum concordat, quia, cum ipse sit circumdatus infirmitate, debet subiici Sacramentis; et sicut medicus infirmatus quaerit medicum et medicinam, non in quantum medicus, sed in quantum aegrotus; sic Ecclesiae praelatus et mediator quaerit sacerdotem, in quantum Dei inimicus factus est per culpam et in quantum peccator. — Ius etiam canonum concordat, quod unusquisque possit auctoritatem suam communicare pro se et pro utilitate sua sine praeiudicio facto propriae auctoritati et potestati; et ita Summus Pontifex potest se cuilibet sacerdoti subiicere et absolutionem petere; possunt etiam et alii praelati de permissione Papae, sicut dicitur in illa decretali de Poenitentiis et remissionibus, quae est Gregorii: « Ne pro dilatione poenitentiae periculum immineat animarum, permittimus episcopis et aliis superioribus nec non minoribus praelatis exemptis, ut praeter praelati sui licentiam providum et discretum sibi possint eligere confessorem ». — Et sic patet, quod subditus potest superiorem absolvere, ipso volente et eligente ac per hoc se eidem in foro poenitentiali subiiciente.
Ad argumenta:
Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod relationis non est relatio etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, secundum quod huiusmodi; nec medici medicus, secundum quod huiusmodi, nec sacerdotis sacerdos in quantum talis, sed in quantum peccatoris.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de iurisdictione, dicendum, quod praelatus dat ei iurisdictionem in se, seipsum subiiciendo. Et si obiiciat tunc, quod non potest dare quod non habet in se; dicendum, quod iurisdictio et subiectio est ad alterum; et ideo, quamvis non possit quis sibi ipsi esse subiectus, nihil prohibet, ipsum subiici posse alii, maxime si est liberae potestatis.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non potest dare auctoritatem excommunicandi se; dicendum, quod argumentum istud deficit dupliciter. Primum quidem, quia excommunicatio est contra hominem, sed absolutio pro homine; et homo non potest auctoritate sua uti contra se, quamvis possit pro se. — Amplius deficit, quia alius modus iurisdictionis requiritur ad excommunicationem quam ad absolutionem. Excommunicatio namque, quae respicit hominem, communem dicit iurisdictionem super hominem, sed absolutio mediationem inter Deum et hominem, quo scilicet homo semper inferior est. Et quoniam necesse est, hominem, quantumcumque sit magnus, iudicari cum Deo et in iudicio esse inferiorem; quantum ad hoc iudicium quilibet potest, quantumcumque sit magnus, dare alii propter se iurisdictionem. Sed quia praelatus talis super omnes est, talis iurisdictio, quae attenditur quantum ad praelationem super homines, in eum haberi non potest, nec ipse alteri dare, salvo iure suae dignitatis, ratione cuius potest dicere Deo: Tibi soli peccavi. Et ideo non potest alteri dare potestatem excommunicandi se ipsum.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Angelis, quod non descendunt ad inferiores: dicendum, quod non est simile: quia Angeli semper in sua dignitate persistunt, nec cadit in eis obscuratio peccati; et ideo non oportet, eos ad inferiores descendere. Sed in ecclesiastica hierarchia secus est, quia peccant praelati et subditi; et ideo oportet, quod etiam ipsi subiiciantur inferioribus, quia et ipsi per culpam quodam modo inferiores facti sunt.
Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo de subdito alterius, patet responsio: quia non habet iurisdictionem in talem, nec talis potest ei dare, cum alteri subiectus sit. Unde sicut non valet: iste qui est servus Petri, non potest se facere servum Martini, ergo nec iste qui liber est; sic nec in proposito.
---
Question II. Whether an inferior can absolve a superior, with the superior himself willing it.
Secondly it is asked whether an inferior can absolve a superior, with the superior himself willing it. And that he can, is shown:
1. Because in Hebrews chapter five1 it is said that the high priest ought to pray not only for himself but also for the people, since he is compassed with infirmity: therefore if he sins mortally, he needs to confess, just as one of the people; but he has no ordinary superior: therefore he can confess and be absolved by an inferior.
2. Likewise, in order that reconciliation be made for a mortal sin, it is necessary that the mediation of a priest intervene; but it is possible that the supreme prelate should sin: therefore he needs a priest to reconcile him; but not a superior: therefore an inferior.
3. Likewise, although the Supreme Pontiff is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins2, yet he can have the victim offered through another priest, and another can offer for him: therefore although he has the keys for loosing, nevertheless another can absolve him; but only an inferior: therefore by the same reasoning in all other cases.
4. Likewise, the power of absolving is given for the benefit of the one who is absolved; but he to whom this power is given is not of worse condition than others: therefore he too can be absolved; but not by himself, nor by a superior, since often he does not have access to him, or has no superior, as the Pope: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. Of a relation there is no relation, « nor is there a motion of a motion3 », nor a mediation of a mediation, nor a mediator of a mediator; but the supreme priest and every prelate is a mediator between inferiors and God: therefore there cannot be, nor ought there be, the converse.
2. Likewise, in order that someone absolve another, it is necessary that he have jurisdiction over him, as was seen in the preceding4; but an inferior has no jurisdiction over a superior: therefore etc. If you say to me that the superior gives him jurisdiction to absolve; on the contrary: « no one gives what he does not have »; but a prelate does not have jurisdiction to absolve himself, since he has no power over himself: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, an inferior prelate cannot excommunicate another5, nor can he give to another jurisdiction to excommunicate himself: therefore it seems likewise that neither [can he give jurisdiction] of absolving.
4. Likewise, in the angelic hierarchy the superior Angels do not receive illumination from inferiors6: therefore it seems likewise that in the Church a superior is not absolved by an inferior.
5. Likewise, it has been proved by canons and reasons7 that a priest cannot absolve another's parishioner: therefore neither his own prelate, by argument from the greater; for it seems rather that he could [act] over a lesser than over a greater. If you say that the prelate gives him power over himself; it is asked how this can be.
Conclusion
A subject priest can absolve a prelate who in the forum of penance subjects himself to him.
I respond: It must be said that an inferior can absolve a superior, if the superior is willing to subject himself to him. — And this is clear thus. The power of the keys, so far as concerns itself, extends to all, unless by the ordinance8 of superiors its hand were restricted for the sake of preserving ecclesiastical order. For a priest by his ordination is appointed a mediator between God the judge and sinful man, and so far as concerns the part of God, there is no difference — for everyone regards his own priest as mediator, and on everyone he has stamped9 the character of a mediator — but the difference is on the part of men: because, if everyone were the mediator of everyone, there would be confusion in the Church; and therefore some are subject to others, and those who are subjected to one cannot give to another authority over themselves; but if there were a free person who could subject himself, then without doubt one could absolve him10. Since therefore the supreme prelate, who is of pure freedom and subject to none, can subject himself to whom he wills, and others exempt even from their own subjects: I concede that they can absolve them.
That the supreme prelate can subject himself to him, divine law agrees, because, since he is compassed with infirmity, he ought to be subject to the Sacraments; and just as a sick physician seeks a physician and medicine, not insofar as he is a physician, but insofar as he is sick; so the prelate and mediator of the Church seeks a priest, insofar as he has been made an enemy of God through fault and insofar as he is a sinner. — The law of the canons too agrees, that each one can communicate his authority for himself and for his own benefit without prejudice done to his own authority and power; and so the Supreme Pontiff can subject himself to any priest and seek absolution; and other prelates also can do so by the permission of the Pope, as is said in that decretal On Penances and Remissions, which is Gregory's: « Lest through the delay of penance peril threaten souls, we permit bishops and other superiors as well as the lesser exempt prelates that, apart from the license of their own prelate, they may be able to choose for themselves a provident and discreet confessor ». — And so it is clear that a subject can absolve a superior, with the superior himself willing and choosing it and thereby subjecting himself to him in the penitential forum.
Replies to the arguments:
To 1. To that which is objected first, that of a relation there is no relation etc.; it must be said that it is true, according as it is of this kind; nor is the physician of a physician, according as he is of this kind, nor the priest of a priest insofar as such, but insofar as a sinner.
To 2. To that which is objected concerning jurisdiction, it must be said that the prelate gives him jurisdiction over himself, by subjecting himself. And if he then objects that he cannot give what he does not have in himself; it must be said that jurisdiction and subjection are toward another; and therefore, although one cannot be subject to himself, nothing prevents that he can be subject to another, especially if he is of free power.
To 3. To that which is objected, that he cannot give the authority to excommunicate himself; it must be said that this argument fails in two ways. First indeed, because excommunication is against a man, but absolution for a man; and a man cannot use his authority against himself, although he can for himself. — Further it fails, because another mode of jurisdiction is required for excommunication than for absolution. For excommunication, which regards a man, bespeaks a common jurisdiction over a man, but absolution a mediation between God and man, in respect of which a man is always inferior. And since it is necessary that a man, however great, be judged together with God and be inferior in the judgment; as to this judgment anyone can, however great he be, give to another jurisdiction over himself. But because such a prelate is above all, such jurisdiction, which is regarded with respect to prelacy over men, cannot be had over him, nor can he give it to another, saving the right of his dignity, by reason of which he can say to God: Against thee only have I sinned. And therefore he cannot give to another the power of excommunicating himself.
To 4. To that which is objected concerning the Angels, that they do not descend to inferiors: it must be said that it is not similar: because the Angels always persist in their dignity, nor does the darkening of sin fall upon them; and therefore it is not needful that they descend to inferiors. But in the ecclesiastical hierarchy it is otherwise, because prelates and subjects sin; and therefore it is needful that they too be subjected to inferiors, since they too through fault have in a certain way been made inferiors.
To 5. To that which is objected last concerning another's subject, the response is clear: because he does not have jurisdiction over such a one, nor can such a one give it to him, since he is subject to another. Hence just as it does not hold: this man who is the servant of Peter cannot make himself the servant of Martin, therefore neither can this man who is free; so neither does it hold in the matter proposed.
---
- 1Vers. 2. seq.Verses 2 ff.
- 2Hebr. 5, 1.Hebrews 5:1.
- 3Aristot., locc. supra pag. 180, nota 3. allegatis, in quibus etiam hanc rationem addit, quod secus statuendus esset processus in infinitum.Aristotle, in the passages cited above on page 180, note 3, in which he also adds this reason, that otherwise a process to infinity would have to be posited.
- 4Art. 2. q. 2. — Axioma: Nemo [ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. Nihil] dat quod non habet, est secundum Aristot., II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.).Article 2, question 2. — The axiom: No one [ed. 1, with several codices, Nothing] gives what he does not have, is according to Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations II, c. 3 (c. 22).
- 5Cfr. C. Inferior sedes (4.), seqq., d. 21. — Pro alium secunda manus in cod. E substituit superiorem. Subinde pro nec ipse cod. K nec maior potest.Compare the canon Inferior sedes (4) and following, dist. 21. — For another a second hand in codex E substituted a superior. Then for nor can he himself codex K [reads] nor can a greater.
- 6Secundum Dionys., de Caelesti Hierarch. c. 3. § 3, c. 8. § 2. et c. 12. § 2. — Pro Ecclesia cod. U ecclesiastica.According to Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 3 § 3, c. 8 § 2, and c. 12 § 2. — For Church codex U [reads] ecclesiastical.
- 7Quaest. praeced. — De loco a maiori cfr. tom. I. pag. 833, nota 5.The preceding question. — On the argument from the greater, compare tome I, page 833, note 5.
- 8Ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. ordine.Edition 1, with several codices, [reads] order.
- 9In edd. additur episcopus; sed potius supplendum: Deus.In the editions bishop is added; but rather it should be supplied: God.
- 10Edd. eam. Post pauca pro merae codd. I K verae.The editions [read] her (eam). A little after, for pure (merae) codices I and K [read] true (verae).