Dist. 20, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 20
Quaestio III. A quo possit relaxatio satisfactionis fieri.
Tertio quaeritur, a quo possit relaxatio fieri. Et videtur, quod a quolibet sacerdote1:
1. Quia relaxationes fiunt ex vi clavium; et omnis sacerdos claves habet2: ergo videtur, quod omnis sacerdos possit relaxationes facere. Si tu dicas quod non est ex vi clavium, sed ex thesauro Ecclesiae; sed quilibet sacerdos habet thesaurum suae parochiae, sicut episcopus suae provinciae: ergo etc.
2. Item, qui praesunt collegiis habent claves ad solvendum et ligandum in utroque foro et habent thesaurum supererogationum, sicut praelati religionum: ergo videtur, quod ipsi possint.
3. Item, videtur, quod quilibet homo: quia quilibet liberae conditionis est dominus bonorum et meritorum suorum3: ergo potest merita sua alteri concedere; et dum illi concedit, eius poenitentia minuitur et relaxatur: ergo videtur, quod quilibet hoc possit.
4. Item, bona spiritualia sunt maioris communicationis quam temporalia; sed si aliquid datur alicui, ex quo plene datur, ille potest illud concedere alii: ergo videtur pari ratione, immo fortiori, quod cui datae sunt relaxationes, ille potest eas dare alteri.
Contra: 1. Plus est facere indulgentias quam imponere poenitentias; sed poenitentias imponere non potest nisi solus sacerdos: ergo indulgentias dare non potest, nisi sit sacerdos.
2. Item, nemo scit, utrum plura habeat merita, quam sibi sufficiant, immo nescit, se habere merita sufficientia: ergo nullus de proprio potest relaxare aliquid de poena, conferendo aliquam ex eis indulgentiam: ergo non spectat indulgentias facere nisi ad praelatos Ecclesiae.
3. Item, maius est indulgentias concedere quam excommunicare, vel Ecclesiae reconciliare; sed primum est praelatorum tantum, sicut prius4 probatum est: ergo multo fortius indulgentias facere.
Quaeritur igitur: cum unus episcopus non possit alienos subditos absolvere nec ligare, nec in foro poenitentiali nec in foro iudiciali; unde est, quod potest indulgentias in aliena dioecesi facere, sicut videmus tota die fieri?
Conclusio. Relaxationes sive indulgentias dispensare ad solos episcopos et Summum Pontificem pertinet.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut in praecedenti problemate tactum est, relaxationes sive indulgentiae fiunt de meritis supererogationis, quae sunt in Ecclesia, quae quidem sunt sicut thesaurus spiritualis eius. Haec autem merita supererogationis non omnium est dispensare, sed episcoporum tantum; et ideo relaxationes facere ad solos episcopos pertinet.
Ratio autem, quare thesaurus Ecclesiae solis episcopis committitur dispensandus, est, quia Ecclesia thesaurum istum habet ex desponsatione sui cum Christo, qui est vir et eius sponsus, et cui generat filios et filias, id est perfectos et imperfectos, ad quorum educationem Christus vult servari haec bona. Et quoniam in Lege tactum est, quod qui recipit uxorem fratris sui, ut suscitet fratri suo defuncto semen, debet succedere in bonis, quae pertinent ad filiorum educationem, secundum quod innuitur Ruth quarto5; illis solis competit iste thesaurus dispensandus, qui sunt sponsi Ecclesiae. Tales autem sunt episcopi, qui sponsi sunt6 et habent vim generandi filios et filias, id est perfectos et imperfectos, et inter hos Summus Pontifex, qui est totius universalis Ecclesiae sponsus et rector. Ideo omnes episcopi, qui habent prolem, possunt facere indulgentias, et Summus Pontifex praecipue inter omnes, quia ipsi competit totius spiritualis thesauri dispensatio, secundum quod curam habet de tota Ecclesia et omnibus eius filiis. Unde omnes sunt eius filii, et ipse est pater omnium.
Concedendum igitur est, quod indulgentias facere non tantum non conceditur laicis, sed nec etiam sacerdotibus nec praelatis inferioribus, ut abbatibus vel prioribus7.
Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium, iam patet responsio: quia non est tota ratio virtutis indulgentias faciendi, scilicet clavis, sed requiritur potestas clavis cum iurisdictione et thesauri dispensandi auctoritate, quae ordinarie solis competit episcopis. Nam per commissionem quilibet sacerdos potest dare indulgentiam ex parte episcopi, sicut patet in simplicibus praedicatoribus.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illis qui praesunt collegiis; dicendum, quod tales, qui praesunt subditis, aliquam auctoritatem habent bonorum sui collegii, non tamen respectu meriti Christi, quod dedit dispensandum Ecclesiae et eius sponsis; ideo non habent auctoritatem plenariam respectu thesauri Ecclesiae, et ideo solum bona sui collegii possunt communicare; non tamen possunt relaxare, quia nesciunt, utrum superabundent, quia potestatem plenam super hoc non habent. Et voco largo modo plenam potestatem, prout dicit plenitudinem sufficientiae, per quem modum est in episcopis ad hunc actum, non prout dicit plenitudinem superexcellentiae; sic enim est in solo Summo Pontifice, plenitudo scilicet potestatis et auctoritatis8.
Ad 3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quilibet homo potest bona sua alteri concedere; dicendum, quod relaxatio plus dicit quam communicatio; dicit enim quandam auctoritatem, ratione cuius dicitur isti indulgentiam praestare; et ideo, quamvis quilibet habens caritatem bona sua possit communicare, non tamen omnis potest relaxare, sed qui habet ad hoc concessam sibi auctoritatem. — Item, differt communicatio a relaxatione, quoniam relaxatio fit de praeteritis malis per merita Christi vel Ecclesiae, quae praecesserunt; communicatio autem proprie respicit futurum bonum, non solum praeteritum. Et quamvis possit dare alicui quod iam non est datum nec determinatum alicui, sicut unam Missam, quam cantat pro aliquo mortuo; tamen, si cantavit eam pro suis peccatis, vel dedit alii, non potest sua auctoritate commutare[^9]. Hinc est, quod qui recipit relaxationes pro se non potest dare alteri; quia, si Ecclesia solvit debitum suum apud Deum, non propter hoc dedit potestatem, quod solveret ipse pro alio; et si Deus dimisit isti debitum, non propter hoc potest iste dimittere alii quod Deo debetur. — Nec valet illud argumentum de communicatione materiali; quia aliquis omnino liber est in possidendo temporalia, quicumque est liberae conditionis et si libere possidet, libere potest alteri dare; qui autem servus est, non potest sine auctoritate domini; omnia autem nostra sunt Christi et omnia merita spiritualia, et nos sumus eius servi10: et ideo non possumus in alterum transferre vel dare, nisi sit data auctoritas a Christo. Et sic patet sequens.
Ad illud quod quaeritur ultimo, utrum episcopus possit indulgentias facere in aliena dioecesi; dicunt aliqui, quod sicut potest ligare et solvere in aliena dioecesi ex consensu dioecesani, ita et relaxationem facere; et ita duae virtutes concurrunt in unam; et tantum possunt, si sunt multi, quantum si unus solus. — Sed tunc non videtur esse aliud quam deceptio, si hoc esset. Ideo dicendum, quod quia relaxatio dicit thesauri communicationem et ulterius auctoritatem, quod episcopus in aliena dioecesi potest communicare bona sua subditis alienis, bona, inquam, suae dioecesis; propriis autem subditis relaxare sive indulgere. Unde istae relaxationes propriis subditis verae sunt relaxationes, si contingat, subditos pergere ad obtinendam indulgentiam, quam ibi facit episcopus; alienis vero potius11 sunt communicationes quam relaxationes — per quem modum abbates, priores, ministri communicant bona sui collegii — nisi forte hoc sit ex consensu et voluntate proprii episcopi. Et hoc dicitur de Poenitentiis et remissionibus: « Quod autem consuluisti », et infra: « Cum a non suo iudice ligari nullus valeat vel absolvi, remissiones illis prodesse tantummodo arbitramur, quibus proprii iudices indulserunt ».
Scholion ad articulum unicum penes quaestionem primam — vide bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q1.
---
Question III. From whom the relaxation of satisfaction can be made.
Thirdly it is asked, from whom the relaxation can be made. And it seems that it can be made by any priest whatever1:
1. Because relaxations are made by the power of the keys; and every priest has the keys2: therefore it seems that every priest can make relaxations. If you say that it is not by the power of the keys, but from the treasury of the Church; yet every priest has the treasury of his own parish, just as a bishop has that of his own province: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, those who preside over colleges have the keys for loosing and binding in both forums and have the treasury of supererogation, like the prelates of religious orders: therefore it seems that they can.
3. Likewise, it seems that any man whatever can: because anyone of free condition is master of his own goods and merits3: therefore he can grant his own merits to another; and while he grants them to him, his own penance is diminished and relaxed: therefore it seems that anyone can do this.
4. Likewise, spiritual goods are of greater communicability than temporal ones; but if something is given to someone, from the fact that it is fully given, he can grant it to another: therefore it seems by equal reasoning, indeed by stronger, that he to whom relaxations have been given can give them to another.
On the contrary: 1. It is more to make indulgences than to impose penances; but to impose penances belongs to no one but a priest alone: therefore he cannot give indulgences, unless he be a priest.
2. Likewise, no one knows whether he has more merits than suffice for himself, indeed he does not know whether he has sufficient merits: therefore no one can relax anything of the penalty from his own resources by conferring some indulgence from them: therefore it does not belong to anyone to make indulgences except to the prelates of the Church.
3. Likewise, it is greater to grant indulgences than to excommunicate or to reconcile to the Church; but the first belongs to prelates alone, as was proved earlier4: therefore much more strongly to make indulgences.
It is asked therefore: since one bishop cannot absolve nor bind the subjects of another, neither in the penitential forum nor in the judicial forum; how is it that he can make indulgences in another's diocese, as we see done daily?
Conclusion. To dispense relaxations or indulgences belongs to bishops and the Supreme Pontiff alone.
I respond: It must be said that, as was touched upon in the preceding problem, relaxations or indulgences are made from the merits of supererogation, which are in the Church, which indeed are like her spiritual treasury. But it does not belong to everyone to dispense these merits of supererogation, but to bishops only; and therefore to make relaxations belongs to bishops alone.
But the reason why the treasury of the Church is committed to bishops alone to be dispensed is that the Church has this treasury from her espousal with Christ, who is her husband and spouse, and to whom she generates sons and daughters, that is, the perfect and the imperfect, for whose education Christ wills these goods to be preserved. And since in the Law it was touched upon that he who takes the wife of his brother, in order to raise up seed to his dead brother, ought to succeed to the goods that pertain to the education of the children, according to what is indicated in the fourth chapter of Ruth5; to those alone belongs this treasury to be dispensed, who are spouses of the Church. But such are the bishops, who are spouses6 and have the power of generating sons and daughters, that is, the perfect and the imperfect, and among these the Supreme Pontiff, who is the spouse and rector of the whole universal Church. Therefore all bishops who have offspring can make indulgences, and the Supreme Pontiff especially among all, because to him belongs the dispensation of the whole spiritual treasury, inasmuch as he has the care of the whole Church and all her sons. Hence all are his sons, and he is the father of all.
It must therefore be granted that to make indulgences is not only not conceded to the laity, but not even to priests nor to lesser prelates, such as abbots or priors7.
To 1. To that which is objected on the contrary, the response is already clear: because the whole ground of the power of making indulgences is not the key, but there is required the power of the key with jurisdiction and the authority of dispensing the treasury, which ordinarily belongs to bishops alone. For by commission any priest can give an indulgence on behalf of the bishop, as is clear in the case of simple preachers.
To 2. To that which is objected concerning those who preside over colleges; it must be said that such, who preside over subjects, have some authority over the goods of their college, yet not with respect to the merit of Christ, which he gave to the Church and her spouses to be dispensed; therefore they do not have plenary authority with respect to the treasury of the Church, and therefore they can only communicate the goods of their college; yet they cannot relax, because they do not know whether they superabound, since they do not have full power over this. And I call "full power" in a broad sense, insofar as it signifies a fullness of sufficiency, in which manner it is in the bishops for this act, not insofar as it signifies a fullness of superexcellence; for thus it is in the Supreme Pontiff alone, namely the fullness of power and authority8.
To 3 and 4. To that which is objected, that any man can grant his own goods to another; it must be said that relaxation signifies more than communication; for it signifies a certain authority, by reason of which one is said to bestow an indulgence on this person; and therefore, although anyone having charity can communicate his own goods, yet not everyone can relax, but only he who has authority granted to him for this. — Likewise, communication differs from relaxation, because relaxation is made concerning past evils through the merits of Christ or of the Church, which have preceded; but communication properly regards a future good, not only a past one. And although one can give to someone what is not yet given nor determined to anyone, such as one Mass which he sings for some dead person; yet, if he has sung it for his own sins, or has given it to another, he cannot by his own authority commute it[^9]. Hence it is that he who receives relaxations for himself cannot give to another; because, if the Church pays his debt before God, it does not on that account give power that he should pay for another; and if God has remitted his debt, he cannot on that account remit to another what is owed to God. — Nor is that argument valid concerning material communication; because someone is entirely free in possessing temporal things, whoever is of free condition, and if he possesses freely, he can freely give to another; but he who is a servant cannot without the authority of his master; but all our things are Christ's and all spiritual merits, and we are his servants10: and therefore we cannot transfer or give to another, unless authority be given by Christ. And thus what follows is clear.
To that which is asked lastly, whether a bishop can make indulgences in another's diocese; some say that just as he can bind and loose in another's diocese by the consent of the diocesan, so also make a relaxation; and thus two powers concur into one; and they can do as much, if they are many, as if one alone. — But then it would seem to be nothing other than a deception, if this were so. Therefore it must be said that, since relaxation signifies a communication of the treasury and further an authority, a bishop can in another's diocese communicate his own goods to the subjects of another, the goods, I say, of his own diocese; but to his own subjects he can relax or grant indulgence. Hence these relaxations to one's own subjects are true relaxations, if it happens that subjects go to obtain the indulgence which the bishop makes there; but with respect to others they are rather11 communications than relaxations — in the manner in which abbots, priors, and ministers communicate the goods of their college — unless perhaps this be by the consent and will of their own bishop. And this is said in the [title] On Penances and Remissions: « As to what you have consulted », and below: « Since no one can be bound or absolved by a judge not his own, we judge remissions to profit only those to whom their own judges have granted them ».
Scholion to the single article is placed with the first question — see bon-sent-IV-d20-p2-a1-q1.
---
- 1Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion on the preceding question.
- 2De quo supra d. 19. a. 2. q. 1. seq. — In fine arg. pro provinciae cod. Y dioecesis.On which see above, d. 19, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — At the end of the argument, for provinciae codex Y reads dioecesis.
- 3Cfr. tom. II. pag. 592, nota 2.Cf. tome II, p. 592, note 2.
- 4Dist. 18. p. II. q. 3. — Pro primum (i. e. excommunicare) Vat. secundum.Dist. 18, p. II, q. 3. — For primum (that is, to excommunicate) the Vatican edition reads secundum.
- 5Vers. 5. seqq. Verbis paulo superius positis respicitur Matth. 22, 24: Dicentes [Sadducaei]: Magister, Moyses [Deut. 25, 6.] dixit: Si quis mortuus fuerit, non habens filium, ut ducat frater eius uxorem illius, et suscitet semen fratri suo. — Superius pro tactum cod. G statutum, cod. H dictum.Verses 5 and following. By the words placed a little above, reference is made to Matt. 22:24: Saying [the Sadducees]: Master, Moses [Deut. 25:6] said: If any man die, not having a son, that his brother should take his wife and raise up seed to his brother. — Above, for tactum codex G reads statutum, codex H dictum.
- 6In consecratione episcopi secundum pontificale Romanum consecrator, immittens anulum in digitum anularem dextrae manus consecrati, ait: Accipe anulum fidei, scilicet signaculum, quatenus sponsam Dei, sanctam videlicet Ecclesiam, intemerata fide ornatus, illibate custodias. — Inferius post et inter hos edd. cum uno alteroque cod. addunt maxime.In the consecration of a bishop according to the Roman Pontifical the consecrator, placing the ring on the ring-finger of the right hand of the one consecrated, says: Receive the ring of faith, namely the seal, so that, adorned with inviolate faith, you may guard unsullied the spouse of God, that is, the holy Church. — Below, after et inter hos the editions, with one codex or another, add maxime.
- 7Cfr. C. Accedentibus ad nos (12.), X. de Excessibus praelatorum (lib. V. tit. 31.).Cf. the chapter Accedentibus ad nos (12), in the Decretals, On the Excesses of Prelates (bk. V, tit. 31).
- 8Bernard., II. de Considerat. c. 8. n. 16: Alii [episcopi] in partem sollicitudinis, tu in plenitudinem potestatis vocatus es. Aliorum potestas certis arctatur limitibus, tua extenditur et in ipsos, qui potestatem super alios acceperunt etc.Bernard, On Consideration II, c. 8, n. 16: Others [bishops] are called to a share of the solicitude, you to the fullness of power. The power of others is restricted within fixed limits, yours extends even over those who have received power over others, etc.
- 9Codd. A H communicare.Codices A and H read communicare.
- 10Epist. I. Cor. 3, 22. seq.: Omnia enim vestra sunt; vos autem Christi; Christus autem Dei. — Voci spiritualia edd. praemittunt sunt. Superius ante libere possidet supplevimus ex cod. A si, cod. G ponit et ante quicumque.The Epistle, 1 Cor. 3:22 f.: For all things are yours; but you are Christ's; and Christ is God's. — Before the word spiritualia the editions prefix sunt. Above, before libere possidet we have supplied from codex A si, and codex G places et before quicumque.
- 11Edd., superius post si addito autem, hic, mutata etiam interpunctione, legunt: episcopus alienus, potius, et inferius post collegii addunt sed non relaxant quidquam. — Extra lib. V. tit. 38. c. 4. Finem exhibet textus originalis sic: quibus ut prosint, proprii iudices specialiter indulserunt.The editions, above after si adding autem, here, the punctuation also changed, read: episcopus alienus, potius, and below after collegii add sed non relaxant quidquam. — In the Decretals, bk. V, tit. 38, c. 4. The original text gives the ending thus: quibus ut prosint, proprii iudices specialiter indulserunt ("that they may profit those to whom their own judges have specially granted them").