Question II: Concerning the Power of Jurisdiction

St. Thomas, q. 8, a. 4; q. 19, a. 5-6; q. 20.

I. Opinions to be avoided. - Some older theologians, such as Durandus, held that jurisdiction is given by ordination itself, although they acknowledged that its use is bound by the prohibition of the Church: this opinion is commonly rejected. - Certain Jansenists, in the Synod of Pistoia, going further, asserted that it is fitting, but not necessary for the validity of absolution, that the confessor possess jurisdiction. This was condemned by Pius VI in the bull Auctorem fidei, n. 37, as false, rash, pernicious, erroneous.

II. Thesis. For valid absolution, besides the power of order, by divine law, there is required the power of jurisdiction, which is not received by force of ordination alone, but by concession of ecclesiastical superiors.

This is certain from the Council of Trent explicitly declaring it, sess. 14, c. 7; which manifestly teaches three things: a) that a priest (who has the power of order) can lack jurisdiction over some faithful; b) that in such a case absolution imparted to the same is invalid; c) that jurisdiction over penitents is twofold: ordinary and subdelegated, by which it is confirmed that it is diverse from the power of order, which is the same in all, conferred through the sacrament of order.

The thesis is proved: 1) From the very nature of the sacrament of Penance, which was instituted to be exercised by way of judgment. For judgment cannot be validly exercised except upon a subject, who has been subjected to the authority or jurisdiction of the judge by a legitimate superior; otherwise the judge could not oblige nor urge the execution of judgment. But a priest does not have subjects except through jurisdiction legitimately conferred. Therefore from the very nature of the sacrament, and therefore by divine law, the power of jurisdiction is required for validity itself.

Thus juridical knowledge and aptitude for judging do not suffice in a human judge, but for use jurisdiction is required, or deputation to determinate matter, determinate subjects, determinate persons; indeed not every judge can know every cause, but each one knows those causes which explicitly or implicitly are assigned to him by a legitimate superior, and only for determinate subjects.

2. From the practice of the Church, by which the power of the keys is exercised in a judicial mode, and from the beginning bishops absolved their own subjects; later, however, when the number of penitents was increasing, priests also did so, but designated by the bishop. This is confirmed from the Fourth Lateran Council; Florence, decree for the Armenians; Trent, sess. 14, c. 3 and 7; and from the bull Auct. Fidei, n. 37.

3. By reason, from St. Thomas, q. 8, a. 4: The minister of Penance imposes conditions for obtaining remission; whence he ought to impose on the penitent something to be done, and he does not absolve except by binding the penitent to doing something. But command does not belong to someone over another unless he have power over him, namely authority and jurisdiction. Therefore a priest cannot absolve unless he has jurisdiction over the penitent.

III. They object that a complete power of absolving, and therefore jurisdiction, was conferred by Christ upon the Apostles in these words: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall remit, etc.; but the same words are repeated to newly ordained priests; therefore they also receive the same power of absolving by force of ordination. - Resp.: The Apostles did not receive jurisdiction through the aforesaid words, but by force of the intention of Christ, which is manifested through the words: As the Father has sent Me, so I send you. Whence, although the words: Receive... are said to newly ordained priests, they do not thereby receive the power of jurisdiction, which, moreover, the Church does not intend to concede by these words.

IV. Corollaries. - 1) Jurisdiction, while in the other sacraments it is required only for licit administration, is required for valid absolution: for the other sacraments are not conferred by way of judgment, nor are they a judicial act upon subjects, whence of themselves they do not demand jurisdiction (St. Thomas, q. 8, a. 4).

2. Jurisdiction, since it is conferred with the mission of a superior, can be limited in various ways as regards time, place, persons, or causes, as is established from the whole history and practice of the Church, and as the Council of Trent sanctioned, sess. 14, can. 11. From this comes the use of reserving sins.

3. Jurisdiction is also required for absolving from venial sins, whatever some once said. This is now altogether certain from can. 872 together with can. 874.

4. A superior, e.g., the Roman Pontiff, can be absolved, because as a sinner he is inferior before God; whence although someone cannot have jurisdiction over him as superior, nevertheless he can have it over him as a private person, by the authority of God, in whose name judgment and absolution are given, and who alone is the principal cause of remission.

And nevertheless the Pontiff cannot absolve himself, because for judgment two distinct persons are required: a subject guilty party, and a judge; but someone cannot be subject to himself. But the Pontiff can designate someone in the name of God to be superior and judge over himself as a private person sinning. This indeed is impossible in the external forum, because there all things are done in the name of the superior who is the principal judge and legislator, and therefore a superior cannot designate someone to act in his own name and authority against himself, just as he cannot excommunicate or judge himself (q. 20, a. 3).

It can also be added that absolution is principally from the power of order and only consequently regards jurisdiction; moreover, as regards the power of order, all priests are equal, not as regards jurisdiction.