Question I: What dominion is

DOMINIUM must first be understood, that we may recognize theft and rapine, which assault dominion.

Now DOMINION is defined in many ways. The best is this: Dominion is the faculty which anyone has of using a thing independently of the will of another, and for his own advantage, in any use permitted by law. It is defined in almost this way by Soto l. IV. de Iust. quaest. 1. art. 1. Gregorio de Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 10. p. 1. and others. It is drawn from D. Bonaventure on cap. 6. of our Rule, there: Fratres nihil sibi approprient, where he says dominion signifies the same as ownership of a thing; as ownership is usually distinguished from the bare possession of things. All Theologians and Jurists adhere to this. He examines and expounds this definition in this manner in the Opusculo ad Magistrum innominatum.

He explains THE VERY SAME definition in fact, while handing it on in other places, in the Apologia pauperum, cap. 1. tertia responsionis. See also Soto l. IV. quaest. 1. art. 1. Couar. l. I. var. cap. 15. Valentia quaest. 10. puncto 1. Molina disp. 6. Vasquez p. 2. disp. 169. num. 32. Tanner disputatione 4. quaest. 1. dubio 2.

It is called a Faculty, or proper power, as Soto says. It is said: which anyone has of using a thing for his own advantage, so that the rights of superiors toward inferiors may be excluded, which are not dominions, since they do not regard the advantage of those superiors themselves, but of the inferiors; for superiors do not do those things they establish toward subjects for their own sake, but for those subjects, and on account of the public good.

EXCEPT the dominion of God, which is proper, ordering all things to himself, as to the ultimate end, as the Saintly Doctor discusses in 1. dist. 30. art. unico, quaest. 1. in resol. It is said: in any use permitted by law, so that certain particular dominions may be excluded, which do not extend to all things, for instance to alienating, selling, etc. In almost the same way it is defined by Gerson tract. de potestate Ecclesiae, consider. 13. and tract. de vita spirituali, lect. 3. Conrad quaest. 1. de contract.

HENCE you have also that the description of dominium given by D. Thom. quaest. 67. art. 1. signifies the same, where he says that Dominion consists in the power of using exterior things, as made for man.

From this definition the Saintly Doctor gathers in the aforesaid places that the Friars Minors have no dominion over things, even consumptibles in their use, such as bread, wine, money, etc., which are conferred on them in alms; but only the bare use, as Nicholas III defines in cap. exiit de verb. significatione, in 6. for they cannot use those things independently of their owners; even if they have the use unto consumption, and although those things would not be given to the Friars absolutely by the will of the giver, yet they receive them with a continual dependence on him, until the things be consumed. And in this sense the Friars understood it, and the Pontiff Nicholas declared it, and the Saintly Doctor expounds it, as Valentia notes loc. cit. Sotus de Iust. l. IV. quaest. 1. art. 1. Bannes de dominio, quaest. 1. Bellarminus Tom. 1. l. IV. de summo Pontifice, cap. 14. Azorius lib. XII. cap. ult. Sayrus l. IX. cap. 7. dub. 9. Sanctes on cap. 6. regulae, cum Politio ibi, Suarez Tom. 2. disp. 28. sect. 2. Lessius, l. II. cap. 3. disp. 8. Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 1. dub. 2.

From which the dispute with others is easily settled — those who obstinately maintain that the dominion of these things is in the hands of the Friars, because in things consumed by use, use does not seem capable of being distinguished from dominion. For he who grants the faculty of using bread and wine — what dominion over them does he reserve to himself? So think D. Thom. quaest. 78. art. 1. D. Antonius 4. p. tit. 12. cap. 4. § 4. Caietanus ad loc. cit. D. Thom. Sylvester v. Dominium, quaest. 2. Turrecremata l. II. de potestate Ecclesiae, cap. 122. in fine, where the definition of John XXII is relied upon, in Extrauag. Ad Conditorem, and in Extrauag. Cum inter nonnullos, and in Extrauag. Quia quorundam, where he declares (short of a definition of faith, however) and proves this opinion. He, then, is to be understood thus: that on the part of the givers, the things are given to the Friars entirely; yet he does not on that account want the Friars to be compelled to receive and hold those things independently of their owners, and so he does not attack our state; as Sanctes malignly murmurs at the place cited; for John did not intend to prove in that sense that our opinion is false, as Valentia warns loc. cit. Tannerus disp. 4. quaest. 1. dub. 2. Bellarm. l. IV. de Pontifice, cap. 14.

NEITHER indeed does use suffice for dominion, but independence is required, and the power of using at will in all things, so that things can be sold, alienated, etc. Just as if someone invite some persons to dinner: those things are exhibited under the dominion of the inviter, as long as they last, until they are consumed. So the Saintly Doctor answers to the Rule of the Minors, and I shall say more in question 2.

But if use in these things does not differ from dominion, since Monks, by the chapter ad Monasterium, de statu Monachorum, have no proper particular property, they could not have use of consumptible things, for thus they would be proprietaries; as the saintly man discusses at the place cited.

They have, therefore, use of fact as regards these things, not use of right, as D. Bonav. teaches, and with him Salonius de Iustitia, quaest. 1. art. 2.

Yet although those giving alms intended to transfer dominion, nevertheless since for dominion the will of the receiver is also necessary, and the Friars Minors do not receive them as owners, it follows that they have no dominion; and in this sense neither does D. Thom. nor the rest protest; nor does John XXII declare the opposite. Moreover this is the apparent controversy of those Pontiffs, which is reduced to concord; whence one would wrongly infer that they declared the opposite; but indeed they agree in our sense, nor had they disputed a matter of faith in the whole Church, but declared a practice for one family only of the Friars.

That dominion is further distinct from use in things consumed by use, S. Bonav. proves on cap. 6. of the Rule, because, as he says with the Lex, ff. de pecul. The garment which the slave uses belongs to the peculium of the Master. And elsewhere he says that what is acquired for the slave is acquired for the master.

In the little work, however, against the Unnamed one, he notes that although those giving alms materially intend to give absolutely to the Friars, yet implicitly they intend to give in such a way that they may licitly receive; for they do not will their perdition, and accordingly, since they themselves can have no dominion independently; neither do the givers intend thus to dispense alms.

As to the use of certain things which are not consumed at first, such as Books, and the utensils of the Sacristy: thus the Saintly Doctor expounds in the little work cited. The Rule does not forbid us to have nothing; for those wishing to preach must have books; those wishing to celebrate, Missals, etc. But the ownership of these things is not ours, but the Pope's, and the Most Eminent Protector ought to have the care of them; the sign of which is that the Friars can neither sell, nor in any other way alienate all these things. But if you obstinately maintain that these things are not the Church's, at last S. Bonav. says: whosever the ownership of these things be, it is not mine, as I declare, and my protector's; But who would be so destitute of mind as to say that I can, against my will, retain possession of a thing, while others yearn with full will for the possessions?