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), 56-59
The Power of the Keys.
Although there is little direct
reflection on the papacy among theologians in this period, there are some
points to be noticed. These occur especially with reference to the power of the
keys and the use of this power in the Church for the sacrament of Penance, for
excommunications, and for indulgences and dispensations. Within the extensive
studies of the sacrament of Penance by Paul Anciaux and of the power of the
keys by Ludwig Hôdi, the bulk of the material deals with ordinary priests and
only occasionally, indeed rather rarely, with the pope. [43] The text of
Matthew 16:19 is quite regularly broadened from Peter to include all priests.
Anciaux gives texts from Bandinus, Peter Manducator, Gandulph of Bologna, Peter
Cantor, Peter of Capua, and Stephen Langton that do this without remarking it
in any way. [44] In a few cases authors do mention that the keys or the power
of binding and loosing were first given to Peter or given to him in a special
way and then to others. Thus Udo says: “Where are those keys, which the Lord
handed over to Peter and his successors, saying: I will give you the keys
etc.?” [45] Odo of Ourscamp speaks of Peter’s passing on the powers to his
successor personally, and Peter of Capua remarks that the text about binding
and loosing was said “to Peter and his followers.” [46]
In a homily Radulphus Ardens,
quoting Matthew 16:19, first shows the relation of Peter (and all the apostles)
to Christ as pastor and foundation of the Church: although Christ alone is
pastor and alone the real foundation of the Church (substantialiter ...
fundamentum), Peter is called pastor by denomination from Christ, and Peter and
the other apostles are called the foundations of the Church (undoubtedly
denominatively from Christ as well); so, too, he continues, although only
Christ is the rock, yet Peter is called rock by denomination from him.[47] This
is really an adaptation of the text of Augustine seen in the Lombard. Radulphus
continues by saying that although all the apostles received the keys equally,
Peter was addressed alone to show that anyone who rejects unity with the church
is deprived of the powers of binding and loosing. [48]
Magister Martinus reports an
argument saying that the authority of prelates is as much their own as the
pope’s authority is his. He replies that the authority of prelates is a lesser
one constituted under the other and greater authority of the pope. [49] This is
one argument in a whole series about the keys and excommunication, but in both
question and reply it is taken for granted that the pope has a greater power.
This is usually the case in such discussions; it may explain why there is a
lack of extensive examination of the papacy’s power or roles in many questions.
Excommunication and obedience are
related by Peter Cantor to the power of the keys. Comparing the powers of
primates and metropolitans with that of the pope, he says: “As for the supreme
pontiff, it is certain that he has the fullness of power.” [50] As for
obedience, he gives the case of a command by the pope. Some people, he says,
think they would not be guilty of disobedience if they were to refuse to obey a
written mandate of the pope in cases where the mandate did not command
expressly in virtue of obedience. Peter finds this hard to believe (“mirum
est”).[51] He comments that in both the Old and New Testaments commands were
given without such a formula and yet those receiving them were bound to obey.
He gives as one example the case of Saul’s receiving a simple command and being
punished by God for not obeying it. [52] Another practical case discussed by
Peter Cantor is whether a deacon or subdeacon delegated by the pope has the
power of the keys. Peter maintains that such a delegate has “the mandate of the
lord pope in this matter and the use of the keys of the lord pope for a time,
and so he can bind by the authority of the lord pope.” [53] Thus even without
the order of priesthood such a person could for a time have the use of the
power of the keys by reason of papal delegation.
Notes for the Above:
[43] See Paul Anciaux, La Théologie du Sacrement de Pénitence au xif siècle
(Louvain: Nauwelaerts; Gembloux: Duculot, 1949), and Ludwig Hédl, Die
Geschichte der scholastischen Literatur und der Theologie der Schliisselgewalt,
1. Teil: Die scholastische Literatur und die Theologie der Schliisselgewalt von
ihren Anfängen an bis zur Summa Aurea des Wilhelm von Auxerre, Beitrage zur
Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 38/4 (Minster
Westfalen: Aschendorff, 1960).
[44] See pp. 493, n. 2
(Bandinus), 495-496, n. 5 (Peter Manducator), 479-480, nn. 2-3 (Gandulph), 504
(Peter Cantor), 515-516 (Peter of Capua), 518 (Langton). Praepositinus,
however, speaking of the powers of a bishop concerning indulgences, which he
calls absolutio-nes, affirms the bishops’ power to grant them “quia Dominus
dicit, quodcumque solveritis super terram erit solutum et in celis. Sed hanc absolutionem facit episcopus
iuste et sine errore. Ergo iste dans absolutus est.” Text from his Summa IV: De
satisfactione, ed. Daniel Edward Pilarczyk, Praepositini Cancellarii de
Sacramentis et de Novissimis [Summae Theologicae Pars Quarta]: A Critical Text
and Introduction (Rome: Editiones Urbanianae, 1964) p. 73. In this case
the text addressed to all the apostles supports the authority of the bishop as
successor of the apostles.
[45] “(bi sunt claues ille, quas Dominus tradidit Petro et successoribus
eius dicens, Tibi dabo claues etc.?” Quoted in Anciaux, p. 492. Cf. the
statement of the Vatican Summa “Ne transgrediaris” (Ms Vat. lat. 10754): “De
potestate vero sacerdotum dicens Petro, et in eo omnibus sacerdotibus ait (Mt.
16:19): Quodcumque ligaveris ....” Quoted in Hddl, p. 299.
[46] Odo says: “Hanc potestatem
Petrus Clementi commisit, dicente auctoritate: potestatem mihi a Domino Jesu
traditam tibi trado ligandi et solvendi” (quoted by Anciaux, p. 495, n. 1).
Peter of Capua remarks: “Item, dictum est Petro et sequacibus suis: Quodcumque
ligaveris super terram, etc.” (quoted ibid., p. 519).
[47] « Et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Sicut enim, quamvis solus Christus sit pastor, tamen
ab eo denominative Petrus dicitur pastor, et quamvis solus Christus sit
substantialiter ecclesiae fundamentum, tamen Petrus ceterique apostoli ecclesiae
fundamenta dicuntur: ita quamvis solus Christus sit petra, tamen denominative
ab eo Petrus dicitur petra.” Quoted by Hédl, p. 295, n. 11; from Homil. 23, in
festo Petri apostoli (PL 155: 1391).
[48] “Porro duae claves omnibus aequaliter apostolis dantur. Unde et post resurrectionem suam Dominus
eis inspirans ait: Accipite spiritum sanctum. ... Hic tamen ad solum Petrum
sermo dirigitur ut ostendatur quia qui unitatem ecclesiae non sequitur, a
clavibus ligandi atque solvendi privatur.” Quoted ibid.
[49] “Item, papa in sacris oraculis suis auctoritate apostolica interdicit
aliquid. Quam auctoritatem habuit Petrus in ecclesia, habet omnis praelatus vel
apostolicus. Ergo auctoritate sua ligat vel solvit praelatus. Responsio:
Quandam auctoritatem minorem habet praelatus, quia ligat vel solvit; et illa
minor auctoritas constituta est sub quadam alia maiore auctoritate.” Quoted in
Hôdi, p. 249.
[50] Summa de sacramentis et animae consiliis, ta pars, no. 154, ed.
Jean-Albert Dugau-quier, Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 7 (Louvain:
Nauwelaerts; Lille: Giard, 1957), p. 379: “De summo pontifice certum est quod
habeat plenitudinem potestatis.”
[51] Ibid., no. 155; pp. 380-381:
“Officio clauium annexa est obedientia .... Item, melior est obedientia quam
uictima {1 Sam. 15:22; Eccl. 4:17]: Sed mirum est cum scribit summus pontifex
ita: ‘Mandamus ut hoc facias,’ si non obeditur tali mandato, ut dicunt quidam,
non incurrunt ex hoc reatum inobedientie, nec ex aliquo mandato nisi sic
scribatur: ‘Mandamus et mandando precipimus in uirtute obedientie’.”
[52] Ibid., p. 381: “Hec enim
forma precipiendi non inuenitur in ueteri testamento, et tamen ligabat. Vnde
quia Saul pepercit Agag regi pinguissimo non parcitum est ei a Samuele quin
mordaciter argueret eum, sed nec a Domino. Simplicem tamen preceptionem accepit
Saul. Simile preceptum habes in actibus [sic] et in aliis locis.” Vide Act
10:13 et 15:28.
[53] Ibid., De excommunicatione,
no. 7; Dugauquier, p. 440: “Item. Queritur
utrum diaconus aut subdiaconus qui habet curam animarum possit ligare et
soluere. ... Dicendum quod
non. Possunt tamen aliis precipere ut hoc faciant. Sed nunquid idem dicendum de
iudice diacono uel subdiacono a domino papa delegato? Forte non, cum habeat mandatum domini pape super
hoc et ipse habet ad tempus usum clauium domini pape, et ita potest ligare
auctoritate domini pape.”
