|
Objection 1: It would seem that holy men, even those who are not
priests, have the use of the keys. For loosing and binding, which
are the effects of the keys, derive their efficacy from the merit of
Christ's Passion. Now those are most conformed to Christ's
Passion, who follow Christ, suffering by patience and other
virtues. Therefore it seems that even if they have not the priestly
order, they can bind and loose.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Heb. 7:7): "Without
all contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the greater ."
Now "in spiritual matters," according to Augustine (De Trin.
vi, 8), "to be better is to be greater." Therefore those who are
better, i.e. who have more charity, can bless others by absolving
them. Hence the same conclusion follows.
On the contrary, "Action belongs to that which has the power," as
the Philosopher says (De Somno et Vigil. i). But the key which
is a spiritual power belongs to priests alone. Therefore priests alone
are competent to have the use of the keys.
I answer that, There is this difference between a principal and an
instrumental agent, that the latter does not produce, in the effect,
its own likeness, but the likeness of the principal agent, whereas the
principal agent produces its own likeness. Consequently a thing
becomes a principal agent through having a form, which it can reproduce
in another, whereas an instrumental agent is not constituted thus, but
through being applied by the principal agent in order to produce a
certain effect. Since therefore in the act of the keys the principal
agent by authority is Christ as God, and by merit is Christ as man,
it follows that on account of the very fulness of Divine goodness in
Him, and of the perfection of His grace, He is competent to
exercise the act of the keys. But another man is not competent to
exercise this act as principal agent, since neither can he give another
man grace whereby sins are remitted, nor can he merit sufficiently, so
that he is nothing more than an instrumental agent. Consequently the
recipient of the effect of the keys, is likened, not to the one who
uses the keys, but to Christ. Therefore, no matter how much grace a
man may have, he cannot produce the effect of the keys, unless he be
appointed to that purpose by receiving orders.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as between instrument and effect there
is need or likeness, not of a similar form, but of aptitude in the
instrument for the effect, so is it as regards the instrument and the
principal agent. The former is the likeness between holy men and the
suffering Christ, nor does it bestow on them the use of the keys.
Reply to Objection 2: Although a mere man cannot merit grace for
another man condignly, yet the merit of one man can co-operate in the
salvation of another. Hence there is a twofold blessing. One
proceeds from a mere man, as meriting by his own act: this blessing
can be conferred by any holy person in whom Christ dwells by His
grace, in so far as he excels in goodness the person whom he blesses.
The other blessing is when a man blesses, as applying a blessing
instrumentally through the merit of Christ, and this requires
excellence of order and not of virtue.
|
|