|
Objection 1: It would seem that the key is not the power of binding
and loosing, whereby "the ecclesiastical judge has to admit the worthy
to the kingdom and exclude the unworthy" therefrom, as stated in the
text (Sent. iv, D, 16). For the spiritual power conferred in
a sacrament is the same as the character. But the key and the
character do not seem to be the same, since by the character man is
referred to God, whereas by the key he is referred to his subjects.
Therefore the key is not a power.
Objection 2: Further, an ecclesiastical judge is only one who has
jurisdiction, which is not given at the same time as orders. But the
keys are given in the conferring of orders. Therefore there should
have been no mention of the ecclesiastical judge in the definition of
the keys.
Objection 3: Further, when a man has something of himself, he
needs not to be reduced to act by some active power. Now a man is
admitted to the kingdom from the very fact that he is worthy.
Therefore it does not concern the power of the keys to admit the worthy
to the kingdom.
Objection 4: Further, sinners are unworthy of the kingdom. But
the Church prays for sinners, that they may go to heaven. Therefore
she does not exclude the unworthy, but admits them, so far as she is
concerned.
Objection 5: Further, in every ordered series of agents, the last
end belongs to the principal and not to the instrumental agent. But
the principal agent in view of man's salvation is God. Therefore
admission to the kingdom, which is the last end, belongs to Him, and
not to those who have the keys, who are as instrumental or ministerial
agents.
I answer that, According to the Philosopher (De Anima ii, text.
33), "powers are defined from their acts." Wherefore, since the
key is a kind of power, it should be defined from its act or use, and
reference to the act should include its object from which it takes its
species, and the mode of acting whereby the power is shown to be
well-ordered. Now the act of the spiritual power is to open heaven,
not absolutely, since it is already open, as stated above (Article
1, ad 1), but for this or that man; and this cannot be done in an
orderly manner without due consideration of the worthiness of the one to
be admitted to heaven. Hence the aforesaid definition of the key gives
the genus, viz. "power," the subject of the power, viz. the
"ecclesiastical judge," and the act, viz. "of excluding or
admitting," corresponding to the two acts of a material key which are
to open and shut; the object of which act is referred to in the words
"from the kingdom," and the mode, in the words, "worthy" and
"unworthy," because account is taken of the worthiness or
unworthiness of those on whom the act is exercised.
Reply to Objection 1: The same power is directed to two things, of
which one is the cause of the other, as heat, in fire, is directed to
make a thing hot and to melt it. And since every grace and remission
in a mystical body comes to it from its head, it seems that it is
essentially the same power whereby a priest can consecrate, and whereby
he can loose and bind, if he has jurisdiction, and that there is only
a logical difference, according as it is referred to different
effects, even as fire in one respect is said to have the power of
heating, and in another, the power of melting. And because the
character of the priestly order is nothing else than the power of
exercising that act to which the priestly order is chiefly ordained (if
we maintain that it is the same as a spiritual power), therefore the
character, the power of consecrating, and the power of the keys are
one and the same essentially, but differ logically.
Reply to Objection 2: All spiritual power is conferred by some kind
of consecration. Therefore the key is given together with the order:
yet the use of the key requires due matter, i.e. a people subject
through jurisdiction, so that until he has jurisdiction, the priest
has the keys, but he cannot exercise the act of the keys. And since
the key is defined from its act, its definition contains a reference to
jurisdiction.
Reply to Objection 3: A person may be worthy to have something in
two ways, either so as to have a right to possess it, and thus whoever
is worthy has heaven already opened to him---or so that it is meet
that he should receive it, and thus the power of the keys admits those
who are worthy, but to whom heaven is not yet altogether opened.
Reply to Objection 4: Even as God hardens not by imparting
malice, but by withholding grace, so a priest is said to exclude, not
as though he placed an obstacle to entrance, but because he does not
remove an obstacle which is there, since he cannot remove it unless
God has already removed it. Hence God is prayed that He may
absolve, so that there may be room for the priest's absolution.
Reply to Objection 5: The priest's act does not bear immediately
on the kingdom, but on the sacraments, by means of which man wins to
the kingdom.
|
|