The following comes from:
Walter H. Principe, “The School Theologians’ Views of the
Papacy, 1150-1300,” in The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and
Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan (Papers in Mediaeval Studies 8;
Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1989), 65-68
The Power of the Keys.
The Petrine text of Matthew 16:18
found no uniform interpretation among theologians of the early thirteenth
century. Both Stephen Langton and Godfrey of Poitiers quote earlier
interpretations referring the petra of the text to Christ and seeing Peter receiving
his name from Christ, the rock (petra). [74] Each, however, prefers to view
Petrus and petra as referring to constant, firm faith: the promise to Peter is
that he will receive help lest he err, a helpful gift he received, however,
only at Pentecost. [75]
Within this context one finds
statements about the pope having the highest power of absolving from sin.
Stephen Langton sees the power of the keys as more and more extensive,
beginning with monks without prelacy, and moving up to parish priests, bishops,
and the pope. [76] Godfrey of Poitiers again seems to depend on Langton for a
similar statement. [77] For both authors the possession of the keys comes from
ordination, but their use depends on another authority: these authors are
moving towards the distinction between order and jurisdiction that will become
clearer in the near future. [78]
Robert Courson calls this added
element of authority a licentia coming to an ordained person from his abbot or
bishop or the pope. In ordination the person receives a key that gives him
authority to bind and loose; the license from the superior authority gives him
the key habitually, which passes into act when he actually binds or looses [79]
A more difficult case is faced by Courson: What of the power of excommunication
in someone delegated by the pope? If the delegate is an ordained priest, there
is no problem. But what, it is asked, if such a delegate is not an ordained
priest, e.g., a subdeacon or acolyte? Robert Courson replies that such a
delegate’s mandate does not include the use of the keys since he does not have
the keys if he is not an ordained priest. His delegation gives him “the use and
the office of a spiritual privilege that derives from the general use of the
keys, which the pope extends to all.” This last phrase is suggestive of the
pope’s universal power. Courson continues: “By this privilege he can interdict
land, suspend others, forbid entry to the church or reception of the sacraments
to some. But he must not absolve penitents or impose penances himself but only
through his chaplain,” who would be ordained. [80]
Godfrey of Poitiers repeats this
teaching, saying that the delegates “have from the authority of the lord pope a
certain sub-authority by which they can excommunicate ....” [81]
In a question de relaxationibus
Godfrey of Poitiers summarizes two arguments that begin with the pope’s
fullness of power in the matter of absolution, especially in the matter of
indulgences freeing a person from the penalty owing to sin. Quoting the Petrine
promise, the argument says that the pope, like Peter, has the fullness of power
and so can absolve a person from all sin.[82] So too, a text from Paul shows
that “if the pope condones a penalty, his condonation is of as great value as
if Christ were to condone it.” [83] Another detailed argument again refers to
the pope’s power of granting indulgences. [84]
Although in his solution and
responses Godfrey does not seem to reply directly to these arguments, he does
indicate that the relaxatio or indulgence granted by the pope must be related
only to sins that have been confessed; this is clearly his view because he says
the indulgence does not apply to sins that have been forgotten (and not
confessed).[85] Further on, Godfrey indicates the power of the pope to relate
the merits of any person to the burden or obligation of any other person, as
well as his power to associate the merits of evil persons with the merits of
the Church: the point of this is that if the merits of the church do not help
to save the evil, at least they lessen the penalties they receive. [86]
As questions about indulgences
grew more complicated during the succeeding decades of the thirteenth century,
theologians began to recognize certain limits to the pope’s power of granting
indulgences. The total remission of all sins and immediate entry into heaven
promised by preachers to those who took the cross on the crusades was one
subject of controversy. William of Auxerre gives arguments opposed to these
promises and then a counter-argument saying that “the lord pope has the
fullness of power; therefore he can make so great a relaxation.” [87] In his
own solution William says that the pope’s fullness of power extends to the
crusaders’ sharing all the suffrages of the Church, but it does not empower the
pope to grant that a person owing a penalty should go to heaven at once without
paying the penalty: the person must bring forth fruits of penance, which can be
done either by himself or by the Church for him. William gives the example of a
usurer: the pope cannot make his pilgrimage useful if the usurer fails to make
restitution. [88]
Notes for the Above:
[74] “Ad sequentes dicimus quod
illud Matthei: Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram, id est, super meipsum petram,
cuius nominis tu es particeps quia a me petra diceris Petrus, edificabo
Ecclesiam meam.” Quoted by Anciaux (see above, n. 45), p. 520. For a similar
text from Godfrey see ibid., p. 581. Cf. also the citation of this text in
Lombard’s scriptural commentary; see above, pp. 55-56.
[75] “Alio modo sic exponitur:
super hanc petram, id est, super firmitatem fidei tue edificabo Ecclesiam meam.
Et ad hanc expositionem pertinet predicta auctoritas, in qua debet fieri uis in
hoc quod dicitur: edificabo. Edificium enim firmitatem et constantiam notat.
Vnde bene concedimus quod si illa glosa, scilicet edificabo ... regni celorum,
statim dedisset, non inueniret error postea in eo locum, sed illud, super
firmitatem fidei tue edificabo Ecclesiam meam, non est ei datum usque quando
indutus est uirtute ex alto, scilicet in Pentecoste. Vnde remotio erroris non
est referenda tantum ad clauium collationem, sed potius ad confirmationem per
uerbum edificandi notatam.” Quoted in Anciaux, p. 520; cf. Godfrey, quoted
ibid., pp. 581- 582.
[76] “Quidam sacerdotes, ut
simplices monachi, qui non habent praelationem, habent claves sine executione
sive sine usu. Quidam vero, ut parrochiales, habent minorem executionem,
episcopi maiorem, summus pontifex maximam.” Quoted in Hédl (see above, n. 43)
p. 352, n. 16.
[77] “Dicimus quod quidam habent
claues, sed non executionem clauium, ut simplices monachi. Alii habent paruam
executionem ut simplices sacerdotes. Alii magnam ut episcopi. Dominus papa
maximam.” Quoted in Anciaux, p. 580.
[78] See below, pp. 83-87.
[79] “Solutio. Sicut dicimus in
secularibus litteris quod aliud est habere naturaliter, aliud in habitu, aliud
in usu ..., ita est de fatuo uel claustrali ordinato in sacerdotem, qui in
receptione ordinis recipit clauem et ita recipit sacramentaliter auctoritatem
ligandi et soluendi. Cum uero fatuus
discretior efficitur et claustralis licentiam habet a suo abbate uel episcopo
uel domino papa clauem habet in habitu, quia promptus est ad ligandum et
soluendum. Cum uero actualiter ligat uel soluit iam habet actum sive usum
ligandi et soluendi.” Quoted in Anciaux, p. 570.
[80] “De legato (Delegato ed.) misso a domino papa dicimus quod si non est
sacerdos, sicut non habet claues, ita non recipit de mandato delegationis usum
clauium. Sed recipit ex auctoritate legationis et legantis usum et officium
spiritualis priuilegii deriuati a generali usu clauium, quem extendit dominus
papa ad omnes. Et de illo priuilegio potest terram interdi-cere, istos
suspendere, illos ab ingressu ecclesie et perceptione sacramentorum arcere. Sed
non debet, cum non habeat claues, penitentes absoluere uel penitentias
iniungere per se sed potius per suum capellanum.” Quoted ibid., p. 573.
[81] “Dicimus quod ab auctoritate domini pape habent quamdam
subauctoritatem, qua possunt facere excommunicare et qua possunt interdicere
ingressum ecclesiae et suspendere.” Quoted ibid., p. 583.
[82] “Item, guaecumque solveris super terram erunt soluta etc. Sicut habuit Petrus plenitudi-nem
potestatis, ita et papa habet. Ergo si papa absolvit me ab omni peccato, absolutus sum.” Quoted in Hödi, p. 356.
[83] “Item: Ad Corinthios Apostolus (2 Cor 2:10): Cui vos donatis et ego,
cui autem donavi propter vos feci in persona Christi, et subiungit glossa, ac
si Christus donaret. Sed constat, quod loquitur de condonatione poenae.
Ergo si papa condonat de poena, tantum valet, quantum si Christus condonaret.”
Quoted ibid. The text goes on to say that a text of the Glossa supports this
position about the pope: “Pro Domino papa facit glossa in Marco super illum
locum (6. 28): caput Johannis datum
est puellae, dicit ibi glossa: caput Johannis etc. puellae de gentibus id est
Romanae ecclesiae. Romanae ergo ecclesiae datum est caput gratiae Dei, quia
Johannes interpretatur gratia Dei.” Quoted ibid.
[84] “Cum ergo dicit Dominus papa, quod quicumque obtulerit huic ecclesiae
etc. non dicit qui obtulerit nummum vel obulum sed qui obtulerit!” Quoted
ibid., p. 358.
[85] “Item pono, quod papa faciat sic relaxationem sicut dictum est: aut
intelligit rectam relaxationem pro peccatis quae confessus est aut supra rectam
pro istis vel pro illis; si tantum rectam, ergo non valet relaxatio ad peccata
oblita; si supra rectam, non videtur quod debito modo fiat, immo quia sic
intelligit, ut de illis remittatur, cum ea confessus fuerit secundum partem
oblationis quae facta est pro illis.” Quoted ibid.
[86] “Unde mihi videtur quod cum omnia beneficia ecclesiae referantur ad
portandum peccata huius ab illo qui potest referre, videtur, inquam, quod
statim liberatus, si decedit evolat. Cuiuslibet enim merita refert papa ad
portandum cuiuslibet onera, et merita malorum, quae per se non prosunt ad
salutem, sociata meritis ecclesiae multum valent ad delendum poenas malorum
....” Quoted ibid., p. 360.
[87] Summa aurea IV, tr. 14, c.
3; ed. Jean Ribaillier, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 19 (Grottaferrata:
Collegium S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1985), p. 358: “Sed contra. Dominus
papa habet plenitudinem potestatis; ergo facere potest tantam relaxationem.”
[88] Ibid., p. 359: “Ad illud
ergo quod obicitur, quod dominus papa habet plenitudinem potestatis, dicimus
quod habet hanc potestatem, ut faciat cruce signatos participes omnium
suffragiorum ecclesie; sed non habet hanc potestatem, ut istum qui est debitor
pene faciat evolare sine solutione, immo necesse est quod suscipiat de manu
Domini duplicia et quod faciat dignos fructus penitentie. Sed intelligitur
facere penitentiam, si vel ipse vel ecclesia faciat pro eo, sicut dominus papa
non potest facere quin usurarius cruce signatus restituat quod habet de usura,
ad hoc ut peregrinatio sit ei utilis.”
