Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

If all those reborn had such gratitude toward God (to use the most excellent words of the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 1), that they steadfastly guarded the righteousness received in baptism through His benefit and grace, there would have been no need for another sacrament, distinct from baptism itself, to be instituted for the remission of sins. But since God, rich in mercy, knew our frailty, He also provided a remedy of life for those who afterward had surrendered themselves to slavery to sin and the power of the devil: namely, the sacrament of penance, through which the benefit of Christ’s death is applied to them after baptism. Hence, rightly, sess. VI, ch. 14.

It calls this sacrament the second plank after the shipwreck of lost grace. The holy Fathers too praise this appellation, especially St. Jerome, Epistle 9, addressed to Salvina, where he says: Nor should the remedies of penance immediately flatter us: we must beware of a wound that is cured by pain. It is one thing to enter the harbor of salvation in an intact ship with its cargo safe; another to cling naked to a plank and, amid the repeated assaults of the waves, be dashed against the roughest rocks. It is no wonder, then, if the devil, the adversary of our salvation, has exerted every art of his malice to take this divine remedy away from men or obscure it with the darkness of errors. First there arose the Montanists, who taught that in the Church there is no remedy or help by which those who sin after baptism can be reconciled to God, as St. Jerome testifies in Epistle 54 to Marcella, where he speaks of the Montanists as follows: They, for every debt of punishment, keep watch at the doors of the Church! We read every day: “I prefer the penance of the sinner to his death”; “Shall he who falls not rise again?” says the Lord. And: “Turn back to me, you rebellious children, and I will heal your backslidings.” Yet they are rigid, not because they themselves commit no worse sins, but because this is the difference between us and them: they are ashamed to confess their sins, as though they were righteous; while we, when we do penance, more readily merit pardon. This pestilential doctrine, once spread through the Church, so weakened the faithful who emulated a stricter discipline that it infected even Tertullian, otherwise a vigorous defender of Catholic truth. Hence St. Jerome, in his Letter to Ctesiphon, ch. 2, reports these words: Montanus is proclaimed a man of unclean spirit; through Priscilla and Maximilla, noble and wealthy women, he corrupts many churches with gold, then pollutes them with heresy. It is astonishing that not only the unlearned and ignorant were deceived by him, but even those who seemed endowed with great holiness and learning; among them we grieve to number Tertullian himself. — The Novatians succeeded them in this wicked doctrine about the year of Christ 254. They were so called from Novatus, a presbyter of the Church of Carthage, and later, more particularly, from Novatian, the Roman pseudo-pontiff. Reviving the error of the Montanists after it had been extinguished, they taught that penance and the remission of sins were not to be granted to those who had sacrificed to idols, as Socrates reports, bk. IV of his History, ch. 30. — The Lutherans and Calvinists subscribe to them. Although, against the Montanists and Novatians, they admit that some remedy instituted by Christ exists in the Church for remitting the sins of the baptized, they nevertheless deny that priests have true and judicial authority to remit sins. They teach that this remedy is nothing other than remembrance of the baptism already received, together with faith in the remission of sins; consequently, they hold either that penance is not properly a sacrament of the New Law or that it is not distinct from baptism. So Luther in On the Babylonian Captivity, who, though at first he seems to assert that there are three sacraments—baptism, penance, and the Eucharist—at the end reduces penance to baptism. Kemnitz teaches the same in his Examination of Canon 10, On Baptism, and Canon 1, On Penance. — Calvin also supports this view, Institutes, bk. IV, ch. 19, nn. 55 and following. Having attacked the teaching of the Roman Church about the sacrament of penance, he writes in n. 17: Lest this therefore raise their spirits, whatever part they assign to it as a sacrament, I deny that it can rightly be regarded as a sacrament: first, because no special promise of God exists for this purpose, and that is the sole foundation of a sacrament. Next, because whatever ceremony is brought forward here is a mere human invention, since it has already been established that the ceremonies of the sacraments can be instituted only by God. Therefore what they devised about the sacrament of penance was a lie and an imposture, etc. Since all these errors have drawn their poison from the Novatians, it is worthwhile here to recount the origin, progress, and condemnation of the Novatian heresy under three distinct paragraphs.

§ I. — ON THE ORIGIN OF THE NOVATIAN HERESY. — This heresy flowed from Novatus, the source of every evil. Some hold that Novatus was a bishop in Africa, and this seems inferable from St. Cyprian’s Epistle 49, in which he writes that Felicissimus had been ordained deacon by Novatus: He, he says, who there had made a deacon against the Church made a bishop there at Rome—namely, the pseudo-pontiff Novatian. They do not indicate, however, of which Church he was bishop. St. Cyprian admirably describes what sort of man Novatus was in that same letter, in these words: “There was no need to report anything to us about Novatus from there, since Novatus ought rather to be shown to you by us: always eager for novelties, frantic with the insatiable greed of avarice, puffed up with the arrogance and stupor of a swollen pride, always held in ill repute there by the bishops; as a heretic and traitor, condemned always by the voice of all the priests; ever inquisitive so as to betray, a flatterer so as to deceive, never faithful so as to love; a torch and firebrand for kindling the flames of sedition, a whirlwind and storm for making shipwreck of the faith, an enemy of quiet, an adversary of peace and tranquility, a foe of concord.” After much else, he adds: “The orphans plundered by him, the widows defrauded, and even the Church’s money withheld, exact from him the penalties we see in his fury. His father too died of hunger in the village and was afterward not even buried by him in death; his pregnant wife’s womb was struck by his heel, and, as the birth came on, the child was forced out into parricide.” He then immediately explains why Novatus had defected from the Church: “He had long been conscious of these crimes. For that reason he was certain that he would not only be removed from the presbyterate but also barred from communion; and, as the brethren pressed him, the day of the inquiry was approaching, when his case would be heard before us, had persecution not intervened. Seizing this as an opportunity, with a certain eagerness to escape and forestall his condemnation, he committed and contrived all these things so that the man who was to be expelled from the Church and excluded might anticipate the judgment of the priests by voluntarily withdrawing, as though he had escaped punishment by anticipating the sentence.” And, concerning what he had said earlier in the same letter about Novatus’s arrival in the city from Africa, he says: “This is the same Novatus who first sowed among us the fire of discord and schism; who separated some of the brethren there from the bishop; who, during the very persecution, was another persecution for us, seeking to overthrow the minds of the brethren. He is the one who, without my permission or knowledge, appointed his henchman Felicissimus deacon through his faction and ambition; and, sailing to Rome in the storm he had raised, to overthrow the Church there too, he attempted similar and equal things, tearing away from the clergy a portion of the people and rending the concord of a well-united and mutually loving brotherhood.” These are Cyprian’s words. From them it is clear that Novatus, guilty of many crimes, would have been condemned by St. Cyprian, had the trial not been interrupted when persecution pressed upon them and he fled to Rome. After hiding there for some time, unknown, he finally found the Roman presbyter Novatian, stirred by jealousy over Cornelius’s election and hostile in spirit. Novatus began to act with him against Cornelius and to draw away from Cornelius’s communion as many others as he could, spreading many falsehoods about him, including among the Confessors still detained in prison. He tried to speak against him and, under a false pretense of piety, to make even upright men hostile to him. Novatus and Novatian plotted these things together. Because their names were similar, some earlier writers used them as if they were one and the same person, especially Eusebius, bk. VI of his History, ch. 35, and Socrates, bk. IV of his History, ch. 13, who writes that Novatus usurped the Roman see against Cornelius. Hence Gildas, surnamed the Wise, lamenting Britain’s ruin, uses Novatus for Novatian when he writes: Novatus at Rome, trampler of the Lord’s pearl, black swine, violently lays hands upon his country, less worthy of venerable altars than of the avenging flames of hell. This rebuke certainly applies above all to Novatian, the Roman pseudo-pontiff, not merely to Novatus, the African presbyter. Hence I judge it to have happened through the error of copyists or scribes that Greek authors wrote Novatus for Novatian and vice versa: for although in Eusebius’s History Novatian is confused with Novatus, in his Chronicle you will find them precisely distinguished. He says: Novatus, presbyter of Cyprian, coming to Rome, joins Novatian and the other Confessors to himself, because Cornelius had received repentant apostates.

YOU WILL ASK: Was Novatus really only a presbyter, or was he a bishop? — I answer: Baronius, for the year 254, n. 59, asserts that he was a bishop, on the strength of the cited words of St. Cyprian, Epistle 49: He who there had made Felicissimus a deacon against the Church made Novatian a bishop there (at Rome). Only a bishop, however, may ordain a deacon and a bishop. But this foundation and argument of Baronius does not seem sufficiently effective or strong for us to adopt his view. For if Novatus appointed Felicissimus deacon, he did so at Carthage, just as he procured Novatian’s appointment as bishop at Rome. Yet he did not consecrate Novatian bishop at Rome; rather, by his tricks and schemes he arranged for Novatian to be ordained bishop by three bishops brought from a remote corner of Italy, rustic and unlearned men, overcome by drunkenness and excess. Therefore this does not furnish clear evidence that Novatus was a bishop.

Moreover, our view can be confirmed from the words of that same letter. We read there that they were considering expelling him as a presbyter of Carthage; that he would have been judged by the priests together with Cyprian, had the pressure of persecution not caused him to flee to Rome and evade the trial. But if he had been a bishop, he would not have been expelled by Cyprian alone together with the Carthaginian clergy; rather, he would have been judged by the bishops of the whole province together with St. Cyprian, their primate. This is also clear from St. Pacian, Epistle 8, where he writes as follows: Cornelius, already Roman bishop, chosen by sixteen bishops, had taken the place of the vacant see and, endowed with virginal chastity, was enduring frequent persecutions of the angry emperor. Then, as it happened, a certain presbyter Novatus from Africa—after defrauding widows in the Church of Carthage, plundering orphans, withholding Church money, casting his father out of the house, and leaving him to die of hunger and unburied, and after striking his pregnant wife’s womb with his heel and causing her child to be expelled—came to Rome. Since the brethren in the Church were pressing him at Carthage and the day of his inquiry was near, he hid here. Here he expressly calls him only a presbyter. The same is stated by the Eusebius just cited, and also by St. Jerome in On Illustrious Men, under Novatian: Novatus, presbyter of Cyprian, was the founder of the heresy of the Novatians, etc.

St. Pacian reports what sort of man Novatian himself was in Epistle 3, addressed to Sympronian the Novatian, where he writes: You thrust Novatian upon me. I hear that he was a philosopher of this world, and I am hardly surprised that, though a citizen of God’s Church, he degenerated: I recognize in him a root that abandoned the law and the fountain of the ancient people. Envious of Cornelius, he lent himself to Novatus’s madness; without lawful consecration he became a bishop, and so was not made one through the letter of those who pretended to be Confessors and who tore apart the members of one mother, etc. He also observes there how highly his followers regarded him, adding: Is Novatian better than these—Moses and Paul? The corrector of the Prophets? The teacher of the Apostles? Does he now seem to be with Christ as another Moses? Is he now, like Paul, raised aloft to the third heaven? Is he now the only one heard, with all others disregarded? It may be inferred from what St. Cyprian writes in Epistle 52 to Antonian that Novatian belonged to the Stoic school. Speaking of the haughtiness Novatian had acquired through philosophy and eloquence, Cyprian says: Let him boast of his philosophy and proclaim his eloquence in lofty words: he who has kept neither brotherly charity nor ecclesiastical unity has even lost what he formerly possessed. Thus, since it seemed that this eminent philosopher had submitted himself to Christ after renouncing philosophy, the Roman pontiff wished to enroll him among the Church’s presbyters, lest he be held without distinction in the Church after winning great renown among the pagans.

Eusebius, bk. VI, ch. 35, and Cornelius in his Letter to Fabius of Antioch report how Novatian was received into the Church. They relate that Novatian, after being tormented for a long time by Satan, was freed from that evil spirit with the aid of exorcists; and that, shortly afterward, when he fell gravely ill, he was baptized in the bed where he lay: But, Cornelius says, when he had at last recovered from the illness, he did not receive the other rites with which, according to the Church’s canons, he ought to have been imbued after baptism, nor was he sealed with the Lord’s seal by a bishop. How, then, I ask, did he in any way receive the Holy Spirit? St. Cornelius adds: Weakened by fear of persecution and driven by an excessive desire for life, this man denied that he was a presbyter. For when the deacons asked and entreated him to leave the house in which he had shut himself away and was hiding, and to help the brethren in danger, who needed aid and assistance, insofar as a presbyter might and as much as lay within his power in those circumstances, he was so far from obeying the deacons who pleaded with him that he left them and went away in anger and resentment. For he declared that he no longer wished to be a presbyter, but would devote himself to another way of life. It is not clear who ordained him presbyter, whether Fabian, Cornelius’s predecessor, or some other Roman pontiff before him.

Meanwhile Novatian, who had once been driven in the world by the goads of ambition because of his philosophy and skill in speaking, was unhappily led to aspire to the pontifical dignity, which he could not lawfully claim. For when Fabian had died, the Roman see remained vacant for two years; at last Cornelius was elected in accordance with the wishes of all the Roman clergy and people. Novatian took this badly and, relying on Novatus’s support and malice, sought to spread slanders against Cornelius, by which he might invalidate and nullify his elevation and separate the people from his communion. St. Cyprian recounts these slanders in Epistle 52, where he writes of Cornelius: “As for the shameful and malicious things spread about him, do not be surprised. You know that this has always been the devil’s work: to attack God’s servants with lies and defame a glorious name with false reports, so that those who shine with the light of their own conscience may be stained by others’ rumors. You should know that our colleagues investigated and found with complete certainty that he was stained by no mark of a certificate, as some claim; nor did he enter into sacrilegious communion with the bishops who had sacrificed, but joined us only to those whose cases had been heard and whose innocence had been established.” These are St. Cyprian’s words. By them he indicates that the schismatics had accused Cornelius of escaping martyrdom by accepting a certificate from the pagans and paying money, and of admitting into his communion and restoring to office and ministry bishops who had sacrificed to idols during the persecution under the emperor Decius.

Although these accusations were utterly false, Novatus and Novatian nevertheless publicized and spread them with such skill and cunning that they even won over the Confessors confined in prison, as St. Cyprian reports in Epistle 51, addressed to those Confessors who adhered to Novatian. Among other things, he says: After you came out of prison, schismatic and heretical error received you. The situation was as though your glory had remained in prison: there, it seemed, the dignity of your name had stayed, since the soldiers of Christ did not return from prison to the Church, into which they had first entered with the Church’s praise and rejoicing. Thus encouraged by the support and votes of these Confessors who had joined their party, Novatus and Novatian began openly to rebel against Cornelius, the supreme pontiff, bringing into the open the defection they had previously plotted in secret. St. Cornelius recounts this in his Letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, in these words: “To make you understand that this remarkable man (Novatian, that is) had long been inflamed with ambition for the episcopate and had hidden within himself that rash and unbridled desire, I wish to show you plainly how, under the guise of pretense by which he covered his arrogance from the outset, he had won over the Confessors of Christ, men indeed of upright character. Maximus and Urbanus, presbyters from among us, had twice won the highest measure of glory through their steadfast confession of the faith. Sidonius and Celerinus likewise—the latter a man who, aided by God’s mercy, had endured every kind of torture with the greatest fortitude and, though his body was weak, had been strengthened by the force and vigor of his faith and had bravely and manfully won victory over the adversary—examined Novatian more closely and recognized his cunning fraud, craftiness, perjuries, lies, uncivilized inhumanity, alienation from all fellowship in life, and finally his friendship, like that of a crafty wolf. They left him and returned to the holy Church. Before many present—bishops, presbyters, and very many laymen—they began openly to disclose all his deceptions and evil practices, which he had concealed deep in his heart for a long time; and with tears and complaint, grief and penance, they began to lament their own part in it, because, led by the counsel of that cunning and savage beast, they had defected from the Church, even if only for a short time.”

After he had once seduced the Confessors, Cornelius next relates what Novatian presumed to do, saying: “It is scarcely credible, dearest brother, what a change in his behavior, what a transformation, we saw take place in him in a brief moment. For this most illustrious man, who had bound himself to his followers with an unheard-of and dreadful oath that he would never seek the episcopate, suddenly appeared as bishop, as though conjured into the midst of us by some deceptive trick of illusion. This inventor of a new sect and defender of ecclesiastical doctrine, when he was trying to seize by force the episcopate, which certainly had not been granted to him by God, and in a manner wrest it from human hands, enlisted two companions who had nearly despaired of their own salvation, so that he could send them to some remote region, to a tiny corner of Italy, and from there lead away three bishops—rustic, unlearned, and simple men—deceived by a certain crafty pretense. He asserted and firmly maintained that they had to come to Rome as quickly as possible, supposedly so that every dispute and discord might be settled by their judgment and that of the other bishops.”

The bishops therefore came to Rome, being simple men, as we have said, and not very perceptive in discerning the deceptions and tricks of desperate men. Novatian arranged, through certain people like himself who had been prepared for the task, to shut them up together in one place. When he saw them drunk and overcome with excess at about the tenth hour, he forced them to confer the episcopate upon him by a certain imagined and empty imposition of hands. In this way, by fraud and cunning, he acquired an office whose dignity was ill suited to him. Not long afterward, one of those bishops returned to the Church, bitterly lamenting and openly confessing his sin. At the request of the whole people, we eventually received him into communion as a layman, and appointed others to succeed the remaining two bishops who had created Novatian.

Novatian, that charming champion of the Gospel, altogether overlooked the principle that there ought to be only one bishop in this Catholic Church. Yet he was not unaware (how could he be?) that it had forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists, lectors, and doorkeepers, and fifteen hundred widows and others afflicted by illness and poverty, all of whom God’s grace and goodness abundantly sustained. Yet no one among so great a multitude of ministers, so necessary to the Church; no one among so many needy people, enriched by God’s providence and surrounded by abundance; in short, no one among that vast and innumerable crowd of people could turn this Novatian, as I call him, from his desperate blindness and obstinacy of mind and bring him back to the Church. He then again relates Novatian’s stratagems for shoring up his schism: “After he had made the offerings, distributed and handed to each a portion of the sacrament, he forced the wretched and unhappy men to take an oath in place of a blessing and thanksgiving. Taking the recipient’s hands in both his own, he did not let him go until he had bound him by this oath (I shall use his own words): ‘Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you will never abandon me or return to Cornelius.’ And the poor man did not taste it until he had thus devoted himself to him; and, instead of saying ‘Amen,’ as he ought, he said: ‘I will not return to Cornelius hereafter.’” By these and similar stratagems Novatian increased his sect day by day, as will become clear from

§ II. — ON THE PROGRESS OF THE NOVATIAN HERESY. — Having thus become a pseudo-pontiff, Novatian immediately sent letters from his election to various Churches, in which the crimes against Pope Cornelius recounted above were set down. These caused the Church of God a very great disturbance, since the calumnies against Cornelius were spread throughout the world not only in letters written by their authors, Novatian and Novatus, but also confirmed by letters from illustrious Confessors, whose glory among all Christ’s faithful was renowned because of their long imprisonment. Cornelius himself testifies to this in Epistle 46, cited by St. Cyprian, writing: “When letters full of calumnies and insults, and repeatedly sent for the same purpose, were dispatched in their name to all the Churches, nearly all the Churches were disturbed for this reason, he says, and many were deceived by error, thinking they could not be mistaken if they followed in the footsteps of men who had confessed Christ so often and so gloriously.”

In these letters Novatian chiefly claimed that he had been made bishop unwillingly and against his will. He used this claim as a pretext to excuse the crime of schism and cunningly steal the communion of the Churches to which he wrote, as can be gathered from the letter of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, which St. Jerome reports in his On Illustrious Men. Writing back to Novatian, Dionysius says: Whether you were unwillingly brought to the priesthood will be shown only when you willingly yield it; for you ought to have endured anything for this very reason, so that the Church of God might not be torn apart. No less glorious a testimony would have resulted from your not wishing to introduce dissension than is usually gained when someone refuses to sacrifice to idols—and, in my judgment, an even more glorious one, since in the latter case one person’s soul is protected, whereas here the matter of the whole Church is at stake. Even now, however, if you persuade your brothers and bring them together in concord, you will have done more through your office than you have sinned through your error.

Just as Novatian sent letters to the Alexandrian and Eastern Churches, so too did he do the same among the Western and African Churches. For St. Cyprian testifies in Epistle 55 that Novatian sent envoys to the Church of Carthage with letters at the time when the Carthaginian synod was being held. The African bishops who had been delegated to Rome to learn and ascertain whether the calumnies circulated against Cornelius were true had by then returned and reported that Cornelius was entirely innocent and had been elected Roman pontiff legitimately and canonically. When this was communicated not only to St. Cyprian (to whom Pope Cornelius had written through those bishops on their return to Africa) but also to the other prelates whom St. Cyprian had selected from the various African Churches to attend the synod at Carthage, all agreed with Cornelius and rejected Novatian, as St. Cyprian declares in Epistle 42, in these words: Mindful also of our common honor, of the dignity of the priesthood, and of its sanctity, we rejected with indignation the criminal accusations gathered from the opposing party and sent to us in a book. We considered and weighed this as well: while the priests of God were seated at so great and religious an assembly of brethren, with the altar set before us, such things ought neither to be read nor heard.

After the synod concluded, the Fathers wrote a synodal letter to Pope Cornelius to inform him of the condemnation of Felicissimus and his associates, who wanted forgiveness to be granted immediately to those who had fallen during the persecution. Those letters, however, are lost. St. Cyprian also wrote to him and added a letter to the fallen Confessors who agreed with Novatian. He first wanted Pope Cornelius to inspect it, taking care lest the schismatics falsely boast that Cyprian was in communion with them because he had written to them.

When Novatian learned of this, in the year 254, he was so roused that he sent Novatus, together with other followers, to Africa to turn that Church aside. St. Cornelius informed St. Cyprian of this mission; and when Cyprian learned from a letter Cornelius had written that the envoys accompanying Novatus were guilty of many crimes, he immediately warned the other African bishops and all the faithful to beware of these sacrilegious men. He also wanted their crimes made publicly known through circular letters, as is clear from St. Cyprian’s Epistle 58. The departure of Novatus and his associates from the city was of great benefit: when he left, those whom he had kept in error immediately returned to the Church, especially the illustrious Confessors who had adhered to Novatian. They submitted a petition, asking pardon for their error, and with the greatest longing and groaning begged to be received into Cornelius’s communion, as St. Cornelius recounts in Epistle 46, cited by St. Cyprian: When their wish became known, he says, a great gathering of the brotherhood took place. One voice rose from all, giving thanks to God; they relieved their hearts’ joy with tears, embracing them as though they had that very day been released from the punishment of prison. He also reports there the Confessors’ recantation of their error and their profession, expressed in these words: We know that Cornelius was chosen by Almighty God and Christ our Lord as bishop of the holy Catholic Church. We confess our error; we were deceived, ensnared by treachery and cunning speech. For although we seemed to have had a certain communion with a schismatic and heretical man, our sincere mind was always in the Church. For we do not fail to know that there is one true God, that Christ is one Lord, whom we have confessed, and that there ought to be one Holy Spirit and one bishop in the Catholic Church.

When the letters of Pope Cornelius about the recantation of the fallen Confessors were carried into Africa and the other provinces, those in Africa who had likewise been deceived by the cunning of Novatus and his associates were also relieved. St. Cyprian writes to Cornelius about them in Epistle 47 as follows: Here error had led some of our brethren to think that they seemed to follow the communion of the Confessors. When that error was removed, light was poured into every heart, and it was shown that the Catholic Church is one and cannot be split or divided. No one will now easily be deceived by the loquacious words of a raging schismatic, since it has been proved that Christ’s good and glorious soldiers could not long be kept outside the Church by another’s deceit and treachery. This report especially strengthened Antonian, bishop in Numidia, who had first taken Cornelius’s side but later began to waver, moved by Novatian’s letter. Putting aside his hesitation, he renounced Novatian completely. Yet despite these very happy outcomes, the Novatian plague could not be extinguished altogether. It was therefore necessary to convene various councils in different provinces, to decide how and to which of the lapsed forgiveness of sins should be granted.

§ III. — IN WHICH COUNCILS THE ERRORS OF THE NOVATIANS WERE CONDEMNED. — This was done especially at the Roman synod in the year 255. Eusebius writes of that council in bk. V of his History, ch. 35¹: “For this reason (namely, Novatian’s exclusion of the lapsed from penance), a great council was convened at Rome, in which sixty bishops, as many and more presbyters, together with deacons, assembled. Pastors in each province of each region held separate discussions about what ought to be done in this matter. They finally decreed that Novatian, his supporters, who were so swollen with pride, and all who agreed with his most inhuman opinion, so alien to brotherly charity, should be counted among those excluded from the Church; but that brethren who had fallen through an unhappy accident should be healed with the remedies of penance and restored to health.”

At this time, two opposing factions of schismatics were conspiring with equal effort against the Catholic Church. One was led by Novatian; the other by Felicissimus, an African deacon formerly ordained by Novatus. The former said that none of the lapsed should be received into the Church, while the latter said that all the lapsed should be received immediately, without penance. This had also been Novatus’s earlier position, though later he turned to the opposite view. Between these two extremes the Catholic Church followed a middle course: it granted peace to the lapsed, but only in such a way that they first opened the way for themselves through penance.

This was decreed not only at that Roman council but also at many others, especially the African, or Carthaginian, council held in the year 255, attended by forty-two bishops. This is clear from the synodal letter sent to Cornelius, Roman pontiff, numbered 54 among St. Cyprian’s letters. In it they explain why, with persecution approaching, they judged that forgiveness should be granted to the lapsed who asked for pardon and did penance: “For we must obey, they say, the just indications and admonitions, so that the sheep are not abandoned by their shepherds in danger, but the whole flock is gathered together and the Lord’s army armed for the contest of heavenly warfare. The penance of those who grieved had rightly been prolonged, so that help might be given to the weak at the point of death: while peace and tranquility lasted, it was possible to defer for a long time the tears of those who mourned and to assist only late those dying in sickness. But now peace is necessary for the weak, so that they may be strong; communion must be given not to the dying but to the living, so that those whom we rouse and urge to battle are not left unarmed and naked, but are protected by the Body and Blood of Christ. Since the Eucharist is celebrated so that it may be a safeguard for those who receive it, let us arm with the protection of the Lord’s nourishment those whom we wish to be safe against the adversary. For how can we teach or urge them to shed their blood in confessing the Name if we deny the Blood of Christ to those about to fight? Or how can we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom if we do not first admit them, by right of communion, to drink the Lord’s cup in the Church? … Let no one say that he who has endured martyrdom is baptized in blood and therefore does not need peace from the bishop, since he has received peace by the privilege of his grace and will receive a greater reward through the Lord’s favor. First, he cannot be fit for martyrdom who is not armed by the Church for battle; and the mind fails when the Eucharist it has not received does not strengthen and enkindle it.” After much else, they add: “Lest the Lord demand from us the sheep entrusted to us, because with our mouths we deny peace and oppose the harshness of human cruelty rather than the sweetness of divine and paternal compassion, it has seemed good to us—at the prompting of the Holy Spirit and with the Lord admonishing us through many clear visions, since it has been foretold and shown that the enemy is threatening us—to gather Christ’s soldiers within the camp; and, after examining each person’s case, to grant peace to the lapsed, or rather, at my suggestion, to those about to fight. We believe this will also please you, in view of your fatherly mercy.”

While St. Cyprian was exerting every effort to drive the Novatians from Africa and eliminate their pestilential doctrine, the devil, the adversary of salvation and evangelical truth, offered him a new occasion for war diametrically opposed to the former one. A certain heretical rogue, acting as a private person, came with his followers to the aforementioned synod of Carthage, as though to plead his case; but since he had already been condemned several times, he was rejected by that synod. Thereupon, enraged like a thief, he gathered associates and at Carthage itself set up Fortunatus as a pseudo-bishop against St. Cyprian, as St. Cyprian recounts in Epistle 55 to Cornelius. Fortunatus and his associates sent the heresiarch Felicissimus to Rome to Pope Cornelius, hoping to steal his communion if possible and to speak many slanders against Cyprian. St. Cyprian reports this there, writing: “You rejected that enemy of Christ, Felicissimus, who was no new offender but had long ago been suspended for his many and most serious crimes and condemned not only by my judgment but by that of many fellow bishops; and when he came surrounded by a crowd and a faction of desperate men, you drove him from the Church with the full vigor with which bishops ought to act. He had long ago been driven from that Church, together with his associates, by the majesty of God and the severity of Christ our Lord and Judge, lest, as the author of schism and discord, a fraudster of the money entrusted to him, a violator of virgins, and a destroyer and corrupter of many marriages, he continue to defile Christ’s undefiled, holy, and chaste bride by the disgrace of his presence and his shameless and incestuous contagion.”

St. Cyprian also reports there that Cornelius twice rejected Felicissimus when he sought to have the letters he had brought from Africa accepted. Cornelius did not yield even when they threatened him. Nevertheless, he was somewhat shaken and rebuked Cyprian more sharply for not having written to him about so important a matter. Cyprian excuses himself, explaining that he had been greatly harassed by the troubles caused by his accusers, as can be gathered from that same letter of Cyprian to Cornelius, in which he writes: “I was much surprised, dearest brother, by another joyful letter of yours, which you added to your first, when I noticed that you had been somewhat moved by the threats and terrors of those who came. As you wrote, they confronted you in utter desperation, threatening that if you did not accept the letters they had brought, they would read them publicly and utter many shameful and disgraceful things, worthy of their own mouths. If matters are so, dearest brother, that the audacity of the most wicked is feared, and that what evil men cannot achieve by right and equity they accomplish through recklessness and desperation, then the vigor of the episcopate and the lofty, divine power of governing the Church are finished. We can no longer endure or even be Christians if we have come to fear the threats and traps of the lost.”

He indicates there as well what steadfastness a priest and bishop ought to have in removing and driving the unworthy away from participation in the sacraments, when he says: “I embrace with ready and full affection those who return with penance, confessing their sin through humble and simple satisfaction. But if there are any who think they can return to the Church by threats rather than prayers, or imagine that they can make an entrance for themselves through intimidation rather than lamentation and satisfaction, let them be certain that the Lord’s Church stands closed against such men, and that Christ’s invincible and strong camp, fortified under the Lord’s protection, does not yield to threats. A priest of God, holding the Gospel and keeping Christ’s commandments, can be killed but cannot be conquered.”

Meanwhile, while persecution against Christians raged under the emperors Gallus and Volusianus, St. Cornelius was driven by them into exile together with many other Roman clerics. St. Cyprian consoled him there in Epistle 57, in which he wonderfully extols Cornelius’s steadfastness and also reproaches Novatian for fleeing persecution without giving up his error, thereby wounding himself and his followers all the more grievously. “With his tongue clamoring for the destruction of the brethren”, he says, “and hurling the darts of his poisonous eloquence, he is harsher in the perversity of worldly philosophy than he is peaceful through the gentleness of the Lord’s philosophy; a deserter of the Church, an enemy of mercy, a destroyer of penance, a teacher of pride, a corrector of truth, a betrayer of charity. Does he now recognize who is God’s priest, what is the Church and the house of Christ? Who are God’s servants, whom the devil attacks? Who are Christians, whom Antichrist assails? For he does not seek those he has already subdued, nor try to overthrow those he has already made his own. The hostile enemy of the Church despises and destroys those he has alienated from the Church, led outside as captives, and bound; he continues to attack those in whom he believes Christ dwells. Yet even if one of such men is seized, no one should flatter himself over confessing the Name, since it is established that if such men are killed outside the Church, theirs is not the crown of faith but rather of betrayal; nor will those dwell in the house of God among the united whom we see to have left the peaceful and divine house in a fury of discord.”

After Cornelius was crowned by martyrdom, Lucius was appointed in his place; he too was crowned by martyrdom in the same persecution. As Catholics celebrated the admirable steadfastness of these holy pontiffs, Novatian’s followers likewise boasted of their own leader. Socrates, himself a Novatian, writes in bk. IV, ch. 23, that Novatian, whom he calls Novatus, died a martyr under Valerian; indeed, the Novatians proclaimed that the founder of their sect had completed his martyrdom before St. Cyprian. “But”, says St. Pacian in Epistle 2, written to Sympronian the Novatian, “Novatian never endured martyrdom.… Further, even if Novatian suffered something, he was not killed; and even if he was killed, he was not crowned. Why? Because he was outside the peace of the Church, outside concord, outside that mother of whom the martyr must be a part.… Cyprian, however, suffered in concord with all and in common peace, in the company of the Confessors; he confessed often during repeated persecutions, was afflicted with many wounds, and at last was offered the saving cup. This was to be crowned.”

YOU WILL ASK 1. What was the doctrine of the Novatians? — I answer: Eusebius discloses it in bk. VI, ch. 43, when he writes: Novatus—he should have written Novatian—a presbyter of the Roman Church, driven by a certain arrogance and contempt for those who had fallen during the persecution, asserted that no hope of salvation was to be left to them, even if they performed everything that seemed to pertain to true penance, conversion of heart, and rigorous confession. Thus he became the founder and leader of a sect of his own and of the error of those who, puffed up by insolence of mind, called themselves Κίττικος, that is, pure and free of every stain of sin. St. Pacian adds in Epistle 1 that, following Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, they stirred up many controversies about the day of Easter, the Paraclete, the Apostles, the Prophets, and many other things, as well as this controversy, under the Catholic name, about pardon and penance, etc.

Moreover, since they called themselves pure and clean, they condemned second marriages, as St. Augustine testifies in On Christian Combat, ch. 31, where he says of the Novatians: These are the people who condemn widows as adulteresses if they marry, and preach that they are purer than apostolic teaching; if they wished to acknowledge their own name, they would call themselves worldly rather than pure.

YOU WILL ASK 2. Did the Novatians really assert that all who fell into sin after receiving baptism were excluded from every hope of salvation? — I answer: It is more likely that this was not their opinion, but only that those who fell into some mortal sin after receiving baptism were no longer to be retained in the Church and the communion of the faithful, and that the Church had no right or power to reconcile sinners. This can be gathered first from St. Pacian. In Epistle 1, after writing in the name of the Church, God would never threaten a sinner unless He forgave the penitent, he introduces a Novatian objecting, God alone will be able; Pacian answers him: That is true, but what He does through priests is His own power. These words show that Novatian did not exclude hope of salvation, but only thought that sinners could not be reconciled to God through the ministry of the Church. Likewise, in Epistle 3 Pacian introduces a Novatian saying: I do not know whether sin can be remitted by bishops. And below: But sins are forgiven to the penitent; for it is granted to you to release sin only in baptism. Pacian answers: Not precisely by me, but by God alone, who both grants forgiveness in baptism and does not reject the tears of the penitent. (What I do eternally, I do not by my own right, but by the Lord’s). Below he says: Whether we administer baptism, call people to penance, or grant pardon to the penitent, we do this by Christ’s authority; you must consider whether Christ can do this and whether Christ has done it. These words show that the Church’s dispute with the Novatians concerned only the power Christ had left to it. The middle premise St. Pacian uses to establish the affirmative side is that Christ can do this and that the Church, when it grants sinners pardon, acts not by its own power but by the power of Christ the Lord.

YOU WILL ASK 3. When the Novatians denied that the Church had the right and authority to remit sins, were they speaking of every kind of sin? — I answer: Novatus did indeed hold this concerning every kind of sin; his disciples, however, qualified his view, wishing the Church to have the right to remit lesser sins but not graver ones. St. Ambrose plainly testifies to this in bk. I of On Penance, ch. 2, where he writes about the Novatians: But they say that, except for graver crimes, they grant pardon for lesser ones. This was not the view of Novatus, the author of your error, who thought penance should be given to no one, on the ground that he should not bind what he himself could not loose, lest by binding he separate those whom he could not release. Therefore you condemn your father by your own judgment, since you distinguish sins, deciding which you think you can loose and which you judge to be without remedy. But God makes no such distinction: He promised His mercy to all and granted His priests the power to release without any exception. If He has made guilt greater, let Him also make penance greater; for graver crimes are washed away by greater tears. Thus neither is Novatus vindicated, since he excluded everyone from pardon, nor are you, his imitators and condemners, who diminish the work of penance precisely where it ought to be increased; for Christ’s mercy taught that graver sins must be supported by greater props. What perversity is this, to claim for yourselves what can be granted, while reserving for God (as you say) what is impossible? This is to choose for oneself the grounds for forgiving and leave God the occasion for striking.

YOU WILL ASK FINALLY: Although the Novatians did not think they could grant pardon to penitents, did they nevertheless impose penance on sinners? — St. Cyprian affirms that they did, in Epistle 52, where he rebukes the Novatians’ mad doctrine: they imposed penance on sinners and urged them to it, yet took away the remission of sins granted through absolution. Hence he cries out there: “O fleeting deception of wretched mourners! O ineffective and empty tradition of heretical teaching! To urge penance for satisfaction, yet withdraw the remedy from satisfaction; to say to our brethren: ‘Weep and pour out tears, groan day and night, and work abundantly and often to wash and cleanse your offense; but after all this you will die outside the Church. You will do everything that pertains to peace, yet receive none of the peace you seek.’ Who would not perish at once? Who would not fail from sheer despair? Who would not turn his mind away from the purpose of mourning? Do you think a farmer can work if you tell him: ‘Cultivate the field with all the skill of farming; diligently persist in tilling it, but you will reap no harvest and press no vintage; you will gather no fruit from your olive grove and pluck no apples from the trees’? Or if you advise a shipowner to put his vessels to use, saying: ‘Buy timber from the finest forests, brother; construct a hull with sturdy and select timbers; work at fitting it with a keel, ropes, and sails so that the ship may be built and equipped; but when you have done this, you will see no return from its voyages and activity’? This is to block and cut off the path between sorrow and repentance, so that, while the Lord God in Scripture welcomes those who return to Him and do penance, our harshness and cruelty, by intercepting the fruit of penance, abolish penance itself. But if we find that no one ought to be prevented from doing penance, and that those who beseech and implore the Lord’s mercy can be granted peace through His priests, in keeping with His mercy and compassion, then the groans of those who mourn must be admitted, and the fruit of penance must not be denied to those who grieve.” These are the words of St. Cyprian. St. Ambrose says the same in bk. I of On Penance, ch. 2: The Church, he says, preserves obedience in both respects, both binding sin and loosing it; heresy is harsh in one respect and disobedient in the other: it wishes to bind what it will not loose and will not loose what it has bound, etc.

Novatian, moreover, since he was a man of considerable learning, wrote several books. St. Jerome records that he left books on Easter, the Sabbath, circumcision, the priest, prayer, Jewish foods, perseverance, Attalus, and a substantial volume on the Trinity, which many, not knowing its author, attribute to St. Cyprian, while others attribute it to Tertullian. For this reason Pamelius added it to the end of Tertullian’s works.

With these points set out in advance, five matters arise for determination in this article. First, whether there is in the Church some remedy distinct from the others by which sins committed after baptism are remitted, and whether it is a true sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; second, what the matter of this sacrament is; third, what its form is; fourth, what its minister must be like; fifth, what the effect of this sacrament is.

NOTE 1. The sacrament of penance receives various names among the holy Fathers. First, it is called the sacrament of penance, or of holding to punishment, because all its parts include punishment and labor. For contrition entails sorrow, confession shame, and satisfaction labor. — Second, from priestly absolution it is sometimes called the sacrament of absolution, since its form is absolution, that is, as the Doctor says, d. 14, q. 1, n. 3, a certain definitive sentence absolving the accused. — Third, from the works of satisfaction it is called a laborious baptism. The Council of Trent indeed recalls this name in sess. XIV, ch. 2, where it distinguishes the effect and fruit of penance from the effects of baptism, saying: The effect of baptism is one thing, and that of penance another; for through baptism, putting on Christ, we are made altogether a new creature in him, obtaining the full and complete remission of all sins. Yet we cannot attain this newness and integrity through the sacrament of penance without our great tears and labors, divine justice so requiring; hence penance was rightly called by the holy Fathers a kind of laborious baptism. — Fourth, on account of the remission of sins and the manner in which they are washed away, it is called a bath of tears and a second cleansing. So St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in his oration on holy baptism, calls it a baptism that may be repeated, in which it differs from the first baptism, which cannot be repeated. — Fifth, it is called the imposition of hands, taking its name from the external ceremony that has always been used in the Church up to the present: namely, that the priest, while absolving, laid his hands on the penitent as he sat. We are taught that it was so called from the Council of Carthage, can. 76: Let him be reconciled, it says, by the imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be put into his mouth; from St. Augustine, bk. III, On Baptism, ch. 16: The imposition of hands, like baptism, cannot be repeated; from St. Pacian, ep. 3: Now the hands of priests are to be offered to the pitiable brethren, etc.; and from St. Leo, ep. 62, ch. 17: Those who have used the sacrificial foods of their pagan fellow citizens can be cleansed by fasting and the imposition of hands. — Sixth, it is called a second plank after shipwreck. So the Council of Trent, sess. VI, ch. 14, and sess. XIV, can. 2. Tertullian too, bk. On Penance, ch. 14: You, a sinner like me, seize it, embrace it as a shipwrecked man embraces a place on some plank. So too St. Pacian, ep. 9: Who would take away the plank from a shipwrecked man lest he escape? Finally, St. Jerome, ep. 9: Let us not flatter ourselves about the state of penance as a support; these are remedies for the unfortunate. A wound that is cured by pain must be guarded against. It is one thing to enter the harbor of salvation with an intact ship and cargo safe; another to cling naked to a plank and be dashed by the backward surges of the fruit of one’s labors against the cruel rocks. — Seventh, it is called exomologesis, that is, confession or communion from the bread, because penitents who confess their sins are customarily granted ecclesiastical communion. Thus Tertullian, bk. On Penance, ch. 9: That act, which is more often expressed and practiced by the Greek word, is exomologesis, by which we confess our offense to the Lord, not as to one unaware, but insofar as satisfaction is remitted through confession, penance arises through confession, and God is appeased by penance. Accordingly, exomologesis is a discipline of prostrating and humbling a person, enjoining a way of life that allures mercy. St. Cyprian agrees, ep. 51. He says: When sinners do penance for lesser sins at the proper time, according to the order of discipline, let them come to exomologesis, so that by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy they may receive the right of communion. At present, while the time is still harsh and persecution continues, before the Church’s peace has been restored, they are admitted to communion: penance has not yet been done, exomologesis has not yet been made, nor has the hand been imposed by bishop and clergy; the Eucharist is given to them. It also receives other similar names. But since the Councils of Florence and Trent, the Doctors now agree that it should be called the sacrament of penance.

NOTE 2. Penance is understood in three ways: sometimes as an act, at other times as a habit, and often as an outward sign. As an act, it is displeasure at a sin committed; in this respect it pertains to the will, which determines itself to avenge the sin, detest it, accept the punishment inflicted, and patiently endure the punishment of the sin. As a habit, it is the habit acquired through such vengeance for sin, detestation, acceptance, and endurance of punishment, inclining one to elicit acts like those from which it arose. As an outward sign, it is not just any sign, but the penitent’s display, as one confessing his sin, that the sin displeases him; for this reason he submits himself to the authority of a priest who has the power to absolve him. Consequently, this sensible sign on the penitent’s part also implies the sensible absolution on the priest’s part, which is a sign of the penitent’s own interior, passive absolution. I mean a sign not natural, but arbitrary and instituted at will. In this sense penance is called a sacrament. Whether it truly has the nature and dignity of a sacrament, and from what time it acquired both, must be determined in this Question.

NOTE 3. It is certain that the sacrament of penance, as it is used and practiced in the Church, was not instituted under the Law of nature or the Mosaic Law, since the power of the keys had not yet been instituted. That power derives from Christ’s Passion and was granted by him to the Apostles before his Ascension into heaven. Consequently, it had not then been instituted that someone should be sorry for sin with the purpose of submitting himself through confession and satisfaction to the keys of the Church, in the hope of obtaining pardon through the regard and power of the Passion of Christ the Lord. Hence, although under the Law of nature and the Mosaic Law some sacrament may have been instituted as a remedy for actual sin committed after the first justification, so that a remedy for daily sickness would not be lacking, it was nevertheless not of the same nature and species as the sacrament of the Law of grace. Theologians now teach this unanimously against certain ancients who contended that the true sacrament of penance existed under the Old Law. They explain in this way the Apostle’s statement in Hebrews 9, that the high priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year, not without the shedding of blood, which he offered for his own ignorance and that of the people. But this is refuted by the same Apostle’s statement there that the blood of bulls and calves … sanctifies the defiled for the cleansing of the flesh; the Apostle therefore does not consider that blood to have had power to sanctify for the cleansing of the spirit. Add that it would follow that this sacrifice was more excellent and efficacious than the sacrifice of the Mass, which by the work performed does not erase sins in the person for whom it is offered, even if he has attrition; indeed, it would also be more excellent than the sacrament of penance of the New Law, since one and the same sacrifice in number would sanctify at once both the one offering it and those for whom it is offered, and that without any obligation to confess individually every kind and number of sins. Yet this is certainly necessary for a sacrament of the New Law to be valid.

It remains, therefore, to determine: first, whether penance expressed by outward signs, to which the word of priestly absolution has been added, is a true and properly so-called sacrament of the New Law; second, whether it is distinct from baptism; third, whether it was instituted by Christ the Lord, and at what time.

First conclusion. — ✱ “A TRUE AND PROPERLY SO-CALLED SACRAMENT OF PENANCE EXISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BY WHICH THE PRIESTS OF THE NEW LAW HAVE THE POWER TO REMIT AND RETAIN WHATEVER SINS ARE SUBJECT TO THEM.” This is of faith against the Novatians and the more recent heretics, and was defined in various Councils, especially at Florence in the decree of Eugenius, and at Trent, sess. XIV, can. 1, in these words: If anyone says that penance is not truly and properly a sacrament in the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ our Lord for the faithful, as often as they fall into sins after baptism, to be reconciled to God himself, let him be anathema. Even the Calvinist and Lutheran heretics themselves confess that this doctrine has been most widely received in the Church for five hundred years and more. It was taught not only by the Master of the Sentences, as all the theological schools after him have taught, but also by authors of his own standing, among the very best. In truth, this sacrament was asserted and practiced by the Church not only from that time onward, but in every age

It is proved from Sacred Scripture, which states in explicit words that Christ the Lord conferred the authority to remit sins and absolve from them. For he promises this authority to his disciples in Matthew 16 and 18, and conferred it in John 20, as the Council of Trent teaches excellently, sess. XIV, ch. 1, in these words: “The Lord instituted the sacrament of penance especially then, when, having risen from the dead, he breathed upon his disciples, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained. By this remarkable deed and such clear words, the universal consensus of the Fathers has always understood that the power to remit and retain sins, for reconciling the faithful who have fallen after baptism, was communicated to the Apostles and their legitimate successors.” A little later it concludes: “Therefore, the holy Synod, approving and receiving this most true sense of those words of the Lord, condemns the contrived interpretations of those who falsely twist those words, against the institution of this sacrament, to refer to the power of preaching the word of God and announcing the Gospel of Christ.” And canon 3 of the same session defines: If anyone says that those words of the Lord and Savior, Receive the Holy Spirit, etc., are not to be understood of the power to remit and retain sins in the sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood them from the beginning, but twists them, against the institution of this sacrament, to mean the authority to preach the Gospel, let him be anathema.

The Fathers of the Council of Carthage also acknowledge this in the Synodical Letter to Cornelius, the supreme pontiff, in St. Cyprian, n. 54. To prove that those who had fallen must be absolved and admitted to peace only after a long penance, unless the danger of illness or persecution pressed upon them, they use that same authority to remit and retain sins. We had decided, they say, after taking counsel together, that those who had been overcome by the enemy’s assault during the persecution and had fallen, defiling themselves with unlawful sacrifice, should perform a full penance for a long time; and if the danger of illness pressed upon them, they should receive peace at the point of death. For it was neither right, nor permitted by fatherly compassion and divine clemency, to deny the aid of saving hope to those who knocked at the Church, lame, sorrowing, and praying, and to send them from this world to the Lord without communion and peace, when he himself who gave the law had allowed that what was bound on earth should also be bound in heaven, and that what was loosed there could be loosed after first being loosed here in the Church.

The same truth is likewise established by the Church’s constant tradition and teaching. For the ancient Fathers call penance a sacrament and count it among the sacraments of the New Law. Thus first Tertullian, before his fall into the heresy of Montanus, speaking in bk. On Penance, ch. 7, about sins committed after the baptism that cannot be repeated, says: Foreseeing these poisons, God, once the gate of immersion had been shut, allowed something still to remain open. In the vestibule he placed a second penance, to open to those who knock. And again, ch. 12: Since, then, you know that against hell, after those first memorials of the Lord’s baptism, there is still a second remedy in exomologesis, why do you abandon your salvation? Why do you hesitate to undertake what you know can heal you? Although he does not explicitly call penance a sacrament here, he sufficiently indicates as much by comparing its power with the efficacy of baptism. — St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches this expressly in The Life of Moses, where he says: Moses made the wilderness overflow with water through the rock; this teaches what sort of thing, and how great, the sacrament of penance is.

✳ “Proof from St. Epiphanius, Heresy 59: “For this reason,” he says, “both the divine word and the holy Church of God perpetually approve penance, not because it is more lenient and more lax, or makes those who run in that stadium more sluggish, but so that it may not reject God’s grace and kindness, and may consider the measure and reason of each case. For just as one who has lost virginity cannot restore it with respect to the body, since nature by no means permits this, so one who after baptism has fallen into certain greater crimes has, like one who has fallen from virginity, a second degree of commendation in continence. Thus he who after baptism is bound by a graver crime has a second kind of healing. Although this is not joined to as great a virtue as before, it is nevertheless not alien to the hope of attaining life and salvation; therefore the divine word does not reject the fruit and reward of those who labor in undertaking penance.” — From St. Jerome, who claims for priests the power of the keys and the authority of judging before the final day of judgment, namely in the tribunal of penance. For thus he writes in his Letter to Heliodorus: “Far be it from me to speak anything sinister about those who succeed to the apostolic rank, who consecrate the Body of Christ with their holy mouth, through whom we too are Christians; who, having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, judge in a certain manner before the day of judgment, and preserve the Bride of the Lord in sober chastity.” And in bk. 7 Against the Pelagians, ch. 10: “He who cuts wood,” he says, “if a man is killed by the axe slipping from the iron and flying from the wood, is ordered to flee to the city of refuge and remain there until the high priest arises, that is, until he is redeemed by the blood of the Savior; or in the house of baptism, or in penance which imitates the grace of baptism, through the ineffable eminence of the Savior, who wills no one to perish and takes no delight in the death of sinners, but rather that they be converted and live.” — From St. Augustine, Letter 4 to Vincent the Donatist: “If,” he says, “peace was rightly granted to adulterers who did penance, as truth holds and the Church rightly maintains, then those who shut the whole place of penance against adulterers were certainly acting impiously: they denied healing to the members of Christ, withheld the keys of the Church from those who knocked, and with hard cruelty opposed the most merciful patience of God, which allowed them to live for this very reason, that by doing penance they might be healed, after offering the sacrifice of a contrite spirit and a broken heart.” And in Letter 180 to Honoratus, speaking “of the distresses of persecution,” he says: “Do we not consider, when the extremity of these dangers is reached and there is no power to flee, how great a gathering there is usually in the Church, from both sexes and every age: some asking for baptism, others for reconciliation, and others also for that ancient consolation of penance itself, common to all, and for the consecration and distribution of the sacraments? If ministers are lacking there, what destruction follows for those who depart this age either unregenerated or bound?” And in On the Christian Contest, ch. 31, where he rebukes the Novatians in these words: “Nor should we listen to those who deny that the Church of God can forgive all sins. Thus, wretches, because they do not understand the Rock in Peter, and refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to the Church, they have themselves lost those keys from their hands. These are the people who condemn widows as adulteresses if they marry, and claim to be purer than apostolic teaching. If they wished to recognize their own name, they would call themselves worldly rather than pure. For, unwilling to be corrected if they sin, they have chosen nothing else than to be condemned with this world. Those to whom they deny pardon for sins they do not preserve in any health; rather, they take medicine away from the sick, and force their own widows to burn, whom they do not permit to marry.” And in Homily 27 he explains in what sense sins are forgiven through priests: “The Lord,” he says, “was going to give the Holy Spirit to human beings, and through the Holy Spirit himself sins are forgiven to his faithful. For what are you, man, except a sick person in need of healing? Do you wish to be my physician? Seek the physician with me. For, to show clearly that sins are forgiven by the Holy Spirit whom he gave to the faithful, not by the merits of men, the Lord in one place, rising from the dead, said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ and immediately added: ‘If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven him’; that is, the Spirit forgives, not you. The Spirit is God; therefore God forgives, not you. But hear the Spirit: what are you? Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” Yet again: “Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?” God, then, dwells in his temple, that is, in his holy faithful ones and in his Church through them.” — From Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Greek edition, Rouen, p. 279: “See,” he says, “with what power the rock prevails, upon which the Church is built by Christ, and whoever says, ‘You are Christ, the Son of the living God,’ so that his judgments remain firm, as though God were judging in him, and so that, in rendering judgment in him, the gates of hell may not prevail against him. Therefore he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, opening for those who have been loosed on earth, so that they too may be loosed and free in heaven, and closing for those who by his just judgment have been bound on earth, so that they too may be bound and condemned in heaven. Since those who claim the episcopal office appropriate this saying, as Peter did, and, having received from the Savior the keys of the kingdom of heaven, teach that what they have bound—that is, condemned—is bound in heaven, and what they have loosed is loosed in heaven, it must be declared that they speak rightly, if they have also done the deed on account of which it was said to Peter, ‘You are Peter,’ and if they are such that the Church is built upon them by Christ.” — From St. Cyprian, Letter 13 to Jubaianus, where, after the scriptural testimonies cited above, he concludes: “Hence we understand that it is permitted to baptize and grant remission of sins only to those set over the Church and established in the evangelical law and the Lord’s ordinance; but outside it nothing can be bound or loosed, where there is no one who can bind or loose anything. Nor do we propose this, dearest brother, without the authority of divine Scripture, when we say that all things have been arranged by a definite law and proper ordinance, and that no one may usurp against bishops and priests anything that is not within his right and power.” But he proves the truth of this doctrine expressly against the Novatians in Letter 52 to Antonianus: “I marvel,” he says, “that some are so obstinate as to think penance should not be given to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon should be denied to those who do penance, when it is written: ‘Remember from where you have fallen, and do penance, and do the former works.’ This is surely said to one who is known to have fallen, whom the Lord urges to rise again through works, since it is written: ‘Almsgiving frees from death’; not, of course, from that death which Christ’s blood once extinguished and from which the grace of saving baptism and our Redeemer freed us, but from the death that afterward creeps in through transgressions. Elsewhere, too, a time for penance is granted, while the Lord threatens one who does not do penance. ‘I have,’ he says, ‘many things against you: you allow your wife Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants, to commit fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols; and I gave her time to do penance, but she does not wish to repent of her fornication. Behold, I will cast her onto a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds.’ The Lord would not exhort them to penance unless he promised indulgence to those who repent. And in the Gospel: ‘I tell you, there will be joy in heaven over one sinner doing penance.’ For since it is written, ‘God did not make death, nor does he delight in the destruction of the living,’ he who wills no one to perish certainly desires sinners to do penance and through penance return again to life. Therefore through the prophet Joel he cries out and says: ‘And now, says my Lord, return to me with all your heart … and return to the Lord your God, for he is merciful and gracious and patient and of great compassion.’ The Lord, too, showing in the Gospel the goodness of God the Father, says: ‘Which of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you, then, though wicked, know how to give good things to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him?’ Here the Lord compares an earthly father with the eternal and generous goodness of God the Father. If this wicked father on earth, gravely offended by a sinful and wicked son, nevertheless later sees him reformed, having laid aside the sins of his former life and, corrected through the grief of penance, returned to sober and good conduct and the discipline of innocence, rejoices and is glad, and embraces with the wish of paternal exultation the son whom he had earlier cast out: how much more does that one true and good Father, merciful and gracious—indeed, goodness, mercy, and graciousness itself—rejoice in the penance of his sons? He does not threaten anger to those repenting, weeping, or lamenting their punishment, but rather promises pardon and indulgence.” And below: “We think no one should be barred from the fruit of satisfaction and the hope of peace, since we know, in accord with the faith of the divine Scriptures, that by God himself as author and exhorter sinners are brought to do penance, and that pardon and indulgence are not denied to the penitent.” And below, after adducing examples of a farmer and a sailor to show it is mockery to urge sinners to penance and then take from them the remedy of satisfaction, he concludes: “But if we find that no one ought to be prevented from doing penance, and that those who beseech and implore the Lord’s mercy can be granted peace through his priests, in keeping with his being merciful and gracious, then the groaning of those who weep must be admitted, and the fruit of penance must not be denied to those who grieve.” Finally, throughout On the Lapsed, St. Cyprian supplies invincible weapons against the Novatians. — From St. Ambrose, On Penance, ch. 2, where he writes thus against the Novatians: “But they say they show reverence to the Lord, reserving for him alone the power of forgiving sins. On the contrary, they do the greatest injury to the one whose commands they wish to rescind and whose lesser commission they return. For when the Lord Jesus himself said in his Gospel, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose you retain, they are retained,’ who honors him more: the one who obeys his commands or the one who resists? In both matters the Church preserves obedience, both binding and loosing sin. Heresy is harsh in one matter and disobedient in the other: it wishes to bind what it will not loose, and does not wish to loose what it has bound; in this it condemns itself by its own judgment. For the Lord wished the right of loosing and binding to be equal, permitting both on equal terms. He who has no right to loose has none to bind either. For according to the Lord’s judgment, he who has the right to bind also has the right to loose; this assertion of theirs strangles itself, since those who deny that they have the right to loose must also deny that they have the right to bind.” And there: “It is written,” he says, “‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them’; therefore he who cannot loose sin does not have the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is the gift of the Holy Spirit; the right of the Holy Spirit lies in loosing and binding transgressions. How, then, do they claim his gift, when they distrust his right and power?” And again there: “What of the fact that they are more insolent? For since the Spirit of God is readier to mercy than to security¹, they do what he says he does not wish, and do not do what he wishes: to exact punishment belongs to a judge, to forgive to one who shows mercy. It would therefore be more tolerable, Novatian, for you to forgive than to bind … Those for whom Christ intercedes, Novatian accuses. Those whom Christ redeemed for salvation, Novatian condemns to death. To those to whom Christ says, ‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek,’ Novatian says, ‘I am harsh.’ To those to whom Christ says, ‘You will find rest for your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden light,’ Novatian imposes a heavy burden and a harsh yoke.” And in ch. 6 he addresses Christ thus: “You say to Peter, who refused to have his feet washed by you: ‘Unless I wash your feet, you will have no part with me.’ How, then, can these people have fellowship with you, when they do not receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, denying that they ought to forgive sins? They rightly confess this about themselves: they do not have Peter’s inheritance, since they do not have Peter’s faith, which they tear apart by their impious division. And although the chosen vessel of the Lord himself says, ‘If I forgave anything to anyone, I did so for your sake in the person of Christ,’ why do they read Paul, if they think he erred so impiously as to claim the right of his Lord? But he claimed what had been given, not what was not due.” And in ch. 7: “Why do you baptize, if it is not permitted for sins to be forgiven through a human being? In baptism there is surely remission of all sins. What difference does it make whether priests claim this right was given to them through penance or through washing? The mystery is one in both. Therefore, just as the power to forgive sins through baptism truly belongs to the Church, so too the power to forgive them through penance belongs to the same Church; and, just as baptism, penance is a sacrament entrusted to the Church’s administration.” — From St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona, in Letter 1 to Sympronianus the Novatian: “Did not,” he says, “the Prophet answer David, after the debt of murder and adultery, when he sinned concerning Bersabee: ‘The Lord has taken away your sin’? Did not exomologesis free the king of Babylon, condemned after so many deeds of idolatry? And what is the meaning of the Lord’s saying, ‘Will not he who has fallen rise again, and he who has turned away return’? What do all those arguments from the Lord’s parables answer? The woman finds a drachma and rejoices that it is found; the shepherd brings back the wandering sheep; to the returning son, after he had squandered all his goods and consorted with harlots and fornicators, the kind father runs to meet him and rebukes the envious brother for his resentment, saying, ‘This son of mine was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’ What about the man wounded on the road, passed by by the Levite and priest? Is he not healed by name? Review what the Spirit says to the Churches: he accuses the Ephesians of abandoning their love; he charges the Thyatirans with adultery; he rebukes the Sardians for ceasing from good works, the Pergamenes for teaching different doctrines, and burns the riches of the Laodiceans; yet he invites them all to the satisfaction of penance. What of the Apostle’s words to the Corinthians: ‘Lest, when I come, I mourn for many who sinned before and have not done penance for the fornication and uncleanness they formerly practiced’ …? No one commands labor without fruit. God never threatens one who does not repent unless he would forgive the one who repents.” Then he takes up the Novatians’ reply, that God can forgive sins but priests cannot, and refutes it: “‘God alone,’ you will say, ‘can do this.’ It is true; but what he does through his priests is also his own power. For what is the meaning of his saying to the Apostles, ‘Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’? Why say this, if it was not permitted for human beings to bind and loose? Is this permitted only to the Apostles? Then it is permitted only to them to baptize, to give the Holy Spirit, and to cleanse the sins of the Gentiles, since all this was commanded to no others than the Apostles. But if in one place both the loosing of bonds and the power of the sacrament are given, then either all this has been handed down to us from the Apostles’ model and authority, or that other power too was not released by decrees … If, then, the power of the washing and anointing, especially the greater anointing, descends from the elders to bishops, the right of binding and loosing has also been handed down.” From Letter 3 to the same heretic he proves the falsehood of the Novatian doctrine from its novelty. “Novatian taught this. But when, brother, and at what time? Immediately after the Lord’s Passion? After God’s reign, that is, nearly three hundred years after the Lord’s Passion? What, then, did he do? Did he follow prophets, like the Caelaphrygians? Or some Philumene, as you might call her? Or did he alone receive such authority? Did he speak in tongues? Prophesy? Raise the dead? For he ought to have had some one of these things in order to introduce the Gospel of a new law.” After this, Pacian fights Novatian by an argument against him drawn from Novatian’s earlier position, in which he acknowledged that the Church had the power to forgive sins before Cornelius’s pontificate: “‘I do not know,’ you say, ‘whether sin can be forgiven by bishops, since the Lord said: “Whoever denies me before men, I will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”’ Why, then, did your Novatian, though not yet a priest even under a false episcopate, long before Cornelius became bishop at Rome, before he entered his episcopate, urge this? You have Cyprian’s testimony, whom you have never been able to weaken. For in one place he wrote to Antonianus in this way: ‘It was added that Novatian was then writing, and reciting in his own voice what he had written; and that Moses, then a confessor and now a martyr, subscribed: that peace should be given to the weak who had fallen and were at the point of death. These letters were sent throughout the whole world and carried throughout the Church to everyone’s knowledge.’ What do you say, brother Sympronianus? Novatian wrote these things and, to add the service of his good will, also recited his writings. His right hand is a witness, the hand that wrote is a witness, the tongue that read them is a witness. Cornelius, against whom all your envy broke out, was not yet bishop. Later, with many fellow bishops and then many confessors, and soon martyrs, he agreed with the council of the elders that peace could be granted, as Cyprian himself writes. If access to penance must be denied, Novatian is guilty, who wrote, urged, and read these things. Where then was that impatient vigor? Where that fierce censorship? If no one had preferred Cornelius to you, the authority of the one writing would have remained. Now that opinion displeases, now the weapons are hurled at us by those very people who supply the authority by which the case for those weapons grew strong.” Next, the Novatians contended that Christ’s words, “Whatever you loose,” etc., were to be referred to fraternal correction, because of the preceding words, “If your brother sins against you,” etc. St. Pacian shows that these must be understood of the power of the keys granted, or of the power to absolve from sins in the sacrament of penance. “He commanded that to one person; this he granted to many. That he himself loosed in the one admitted; this, however, the Church does. That is done without a priest, without the brethren; this is obtained by all. ‘Whatever you loose,’ he says; he makes no exception at all: ‘whatever,’ he says, whether great or small. Notice that he says below to Peter that what is sinned against a human being must be forgiven seventy-seven times, to show that otherwise it can be forgiven even once. Yet he who sins against Peter injures the Lord, as he himself indicates to Samuel: ‘They have not rejected you as insignificant, but me.’ Therefore what is commanded to us so many times is granted once to the Church.” Finally, he shows that the Novatians have departed from Christ’s teaching by the evident marks of heresy and a heretical sect. “Now consider whether this sect above all is built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. Did it begin before you? Did it believe before you? Did it not depart from the earlier foundations? Did it not migrate, separate itself from the rest of the body, set up its own teachers and its own instruments? Did it argue anything unusual, discover any new right, or judge it a small matter to reject its own body? Surely then it seems to have departed from Christ, and then to have stood outside the Prophets and Apostles.” ✳

Similarly, Victor of Cartenna, a bishop who flourished around the year 160, in bk. On Penance, ch. 20, says: “Hear the Lord in the Gospel, by what torches he strikes the sinner, so that you may understand how highly he esteems the sacrament of penance.”

They wish it to be a sacrament not only improperly, but properly, because they compare it with the Eucharist and with baptism, which two sacraments the Innovators admit are properly so called. From Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, bk. 3: “Not only do priests have the power of forgiving sins when they regenerate, but afterward as well.” From the Council of Alexandria, On John, bk. 12, chs. 22 and 23: “In two ways people filled or inspired by the Spirit of God forgive and retain sins: either when they admit the worthy to baptism and exclude the unworthy, or when they rebuke the sinning children of the Church and forgive those who do penance.” — From St. Leo, Letter 91 to Theodore: “God’s manifold mercy so comes to the aid of human falls that the hope of eternal life is restored not only through the grace of baptism but also through the remedy of penance.”

The Subtle Doctor proves this truth in In IV Sent., d. 14, q. 4, n. 3: first, because it is possible for a sacrament to be instituted by which sins are remitted by way of washing, or of a definitive sentence; second, because this is fitting; third, because it has happened. “The first,” he says, “is shown by this: it is possible for God to absolve a soul from sin, in accord with the words of the Creed, ‘the remission of sins’; consequently it is possible to institute some sign of that absolution, and this sign is efficacious, as was explained above in the matter of the sacraments in general; and by equal reasoning, any words at all, uttered by any minister whatsoever. Thus the broad possibility of this account is clear. As for fittingness, this is proved as follows. First,” says the Doctor, “it is fitting that there be some sensible sign of this absolution, for the same reasons for which the fittingness of a sacrament in general was stated in d. 1. For the same reasons, it is fitting that this be a sign instituted by God, because it will move more, lead the intellect to certainty, and incline the affections more toward readiness to receive that sign. It is also fitting in this case that this sign of interior absolution be instituted in words signifying absolution, so that the sign may present what is signified. It is also fitting that this exterior absolution be made by a priest, because it is fitting that extremes be brought back to the extreme through a middle term, and thus, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, that those at the extreme, namely sinners, be brought back to God through the hierarchy, that is, through the priest, just as occurs in the Church triumphant. It is also fitting that it be done by one who has jurisdiction, because a sentence pronounced by a judge who is not their judge is null. It is also fitting that due intention be required, as was explained above concerning the other sacraments. It is also fitting on the part of the recipient that he be penitent, that is, have some displeasure at the sin committed. We see the same thing among temporal judges: they condemn the insolent by sentence, but in their own way absolve the penitent, that is, pronounce him not guilty or not to be punished.” Thus far the Doctor, who clearly demonstrates the possibility and fittingness of this sacrament. That it was in fact instituted, he teaches in the same place, n. 5, in these words: “Third, I say that this has happened. The basis for this,” he continues, “is taken from the authorities adduced for the opposing position”—namely, the authorities of Sacred Scripture that we set out above.

Confirmed: A perpetual sensible sign instituted by Christ the Lord and effective of sanctifying grace is properly called a sacrament of the New Law. But external penance, together with the priest’s absolution received, has all these characteristics. First, it is a sensible sign, both on the penitent’s part, in confessing his sins and being sensibly grieved over them, and on the priest’s part, in absolving. For the priest has authority granted by Christ to remit sins, not indeed through purely interior acts; that mode is not proper to a human being, who knows interior things through exterior things, spiritual things through bodily things. For Christ the Lord conferred this authority on the Apostles so that they might exercise it over penitents as judges over the accused, after the pattern of an external court. Hence St. Jerome, in his Letter to Heliodorus: “Far be it from me to speak anything sinister about those who succeed to the apostolic rank, who consecrate the Body of Christ with their holy mouth, through whom we too are Christians; who, having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, judge whatever they judge before the day of judgment.” But judges cannot judge a case they do not know; and consequently there must be some sensible sign by which the penitent manifests his sins to the priest, and in turn the priest signifies to the penitent that he remits them in God’s stead and by God’s authority. — Second, it is a perpetual sign, because that power was granted by Christ the Lord to the Apostles and their successors without limitation of time or duration, so that they might exercise it over all sinners whatsoever who have recourse to them. Therefore, just as there will never be a time in the Church when there are no people who sin after baptism, so this power to absolve from such sins will always be necessary in the Church. — Third, this sign was instituted by Christ the Lord. For in Matthew 16, addressing the disciples in the person of Peter, he says: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on earth,” etc. Hence in Matthew 17², addressing all the Apostles, he says: “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” etc. — Likewise in John 20, addressing all the disciples gathered together, he declares distinctly: “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them.” By these words Christ the Lord granted the Apostles authority to bind and loose, to retain and remit sins; this authority did not exist under the Old Law, and consequently it is a new institution. — Finally, this sign is effective of grace, for in the ordinary course the remission of sins occurs only through the infusion of grace, as we said when treating of justifying grace. Therefore the power to remit sins includes a promise of grace and a supernatural effect.

THE NOVATIANS REPLIED that, according to St. Pacian, Letter 3, the aforesaid words of Christ the Lord in John 20 refer only to catechumens, of whom he speaks in Matthew 28, saying to the Apostles, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc., so that what Matthew had not completed John completed, namely by indicating that the power to remit sin, promised to the Apostles, ought to be exercised only through the conferral of baptism. — Against this, first: the Evangelists’ manner of speaking (as St. Pacian answers very well) gives a complete and perfect sense, not a half and imperfect one. Second, what Christ the Lord granted in John 20, he had promised in Matthew 18; but there he did not promise to give this power to be exercised only with respect to Gentiles who were to be baptized, since he speaks indefinitely and says, “Whatever you bind on earth,” etc. Third, what Christ the Lord granted in John 20, he had promised to Peter in Matthew 16, saying, “Upon this Rock I will build my Church: whatever you bind on earth,” etc. But there he promises Peter the power to bind the Faithful and absolve them: for the power Christ promised to Peter concerns the Church and the sheep, and the Church is made up only of the faithful. Therefore, etc.

THEY REPLIED 2. The words in Matthew 18 were spoken there only about forgiving offenses committed against people, not against God; for immediately before the aforesaid words Christ the Lord was saying, “If your brother sins against you, go and correct him,” etc. — Against this: the preceding words are spoken to Peter alone as a particular person; hence they concern absolutely all the faithful, who are bound to offer fraternal correction and are also obliged to release offenses and forgive injuries done to them. But the following words were spoken to all the Apostles. Second, the particle “whatever” includes absolutely all sins, even those committed against God. Therefore the Novatians’ reply is useless and empty.

THEY REPLIED 3. In St. Ambrose, bk. 1 On Penance, ch. 2, the aforesaid words of Christ the Lord mean that the Apostles were granted by Christ the power to remit lesser sins, but not graver ones. — Against this, first: Christ the Lord speaks without any exception, saying, “Whatever.” Hence St. Ambrose, in the same place: “God makes no distinction: he promised his mercy to all, and granted his priests permission to forgive without any exception.” Second, no one doubts that a sin committed in the heat of passion is very grave; but St. Paul had power to bind and loose that sin. For he bound the incestuous Corinthian when he excommunicated him and handed him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit might be saved; and he absolved him when he writes in 2 Corinthians 2: “If I forgave anything to anyone, I did so too; for what I forgave, if I forgave anything, I did for your sake in the person of Christ”—that is, by the authority granted to me by Christ. Hence St. Ambrose there, ch. 6, concludes: “Why, then, do they read Paul, if they thought he had erred so impiously as to claim the right of his Lord? But he claimed what had been given, not what was not due.”

THE CALVINISTS REPLY 4 that the authority to remit sins is nothing other than the ability to preach the Gospel and awaken faith, by which the sinner is converted to God and believes that God’s divine mercy helps him. Therefore by that authority no judicial power to absolve from sins is understood. — Against this: In John 20 Christ gives the Apostles a power he had not given them before his Passion. But before the Passion he had given them the power to announce the Gospel to the Jews, not to the Gentiles and Samaritans, Matthew 10: “Do not go on the road of the Gentiles, and do not enter the cities of the Samaritans, but go rather to the sheep of the house of Israel that have perished.” Likewise, the power he gives them in Matthew 28 and Mark 16 to announce the Gospel to all the Gentiles is far different from that which he confers in John 20 to absolve from sins. “For,” says St. Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, bk. 3, “by these words Christ gave human beings a power which he did not wish to be given to angels or archangels. For it was not said to angels: ‘Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’; rather, he gave angels the power to announce the Gospel. For in Luke 2 the Angel said to the shepherds, ‘Behold, I bring you good news of great joy.’” Therefore the power to loose from sins is not the same as the power to preach the Gospel. Moreover, a preacher of the Gospel announces absolution and remission but does not effect it; Christ, however, expressly asserts that sins are remitted through his ministers, for he says, “Whatever you loose,” etc. For he did not say, “Whatever you declare to have been loosed or bound,” but “whatever you loose and bind.” Again, when the Savior promises this power while addressing Peter, he says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” But keys are not merely signs and images of opening; they are also its true instruments when applied by someone. They do not merely signify, but actively and efficaciously contribute to closing and opening. Therefore the power granted to blessed Peter and his successors does not concern only preaching, or declaration and signification, but truly contributes, at least instrumentally and morally, to the remission of sins. Finally, the preaching of the Gospel can rightly be done before pagans so that they may be converted to the faith; but pagan unbelievers cannot be absolved of their sins through the keys of the Church and sacramental absolution, since this absolution is an act of jurisdiction, and the Church has no authority over pagans and those not yet baptized, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3: “What have I to do with judging those who are outside? God will judge those who are outside.”

THEY REPLY 5. Others say that by those words in John 20 the Apostles are given power to remit sins only insofar as they are given the ability to announce that the sins have been remitted. — Against this: Christ the Lord did not say, “Whose sins you declare remitted,” but “whose sins you remit,” etc. Next, keys are not needed to declare sins remitted, but only a voice and a trumpet, as kings and princes sometimes announce by a herald’s voice that they forgive an offense to subjects who were formerly traitors. Again, Christ the Lord gave the Apostles a similar authority to remit sins in John 20 to the authority he himself possessed, for he says, “As the living Father sent me, so I send you.” Hence St. Chrysostom, Homily 85 on John: “He was about to leave them his own ministry there.” And in On the Priesthood, bk. 3: “Therefore the Father has all power in every respect, and handed this power to the Son, and the Son to the Apostles,” through these words: “Whose sins you remit,” etc. Hence the Apostle says in 2 Corinthians 5: “He gave us the ministry of reconciliation … therefore we act as ambassadors for Christ.” But Christ reconciled not only by exhorting, but also by actually remitting, as he himself indicates in Matthew 9: “So that you may know that the Son of Man has the power to remit sins,” etc. Therefore, etc. Finally, the holy Fathers teach that the priests of the New Law have the power to forgive sins after baptism, and truly to purge and cleanse us from sins, not merely to prove and declare that we have been cleansed by them. For St. Chrysostom says, On the Priesthood, bk. 3: “To cleanse the leprosy of the body—or, more truly, I should say, not to cleanse it, but to prove that it has been cleansed—was permitted only to the priests of the Jews. But our priests have been granted not to prove that the stains of the soul have been cleansed, but to cleanse them entirely.”

They object 3. A word and an element applied by some minister are required for every sacrament; for St. Augustine says, Tractate 80 on John: “The word comes to the element and a sacrament is made.” And blessed Isidore, Etymologies, bk. 6, ch. 19: “Baptism, chrism, the Body and Blood of Christ are called sacraments for this reason: under the covering of bodily things, divine power secretly works.” But in penance there is no element, and no bodily things are applied under which divine power might work salvation. Therefore, etc. — I ANSWER, I distinguish the major premise: no bodily things or element properly so called are applied, as happens in baptism, about which alone St. Augustine speaks there, I grant; an element improperly so called, I deny. For the signs by which the penitent declares his sins and shows his grief conceived over them, as well as the words of priestly absolution, are sensible—not to touch or sight, but to hearing—and signify a true removal from sin. That St. Augustine does not mean an element properly so called is apparent; otherwise it would follow that the Eucharist is not a true sacrament, since it is not made from an element properly so called.

They object 4. No penance other than that in the Old Law is preached in the New Law, as St. Paul indicates in Acts 26, saying nothing beyond what the Prophets and Moses spoke as future events. But penance was not a sacrament in the Old Law; therefore neither is it in the New. — I DISTINGUISH THE MAJOR PREMISE: no other penance is preached insofar as it is a virtue, let it pass; insofar as it is a sacrament, I deny it. For in the Old Law it was not said as it was in the New: “Whose sins you remit,” etc. Add that heretics twist the Apostle’s words into a perverse sense: for the Apostle does not say that he preaches no other penance than that preached by Moses and the Prophets, but that he announces nothing except what the Prophets had foretold about Christ the Lord and declared would happen.

The Novatians objected, as St. Ambrose reports, Sermon 8 on Psalm 118: “Ease of pardon provides an incentive to the sinner.” But God cannot institute an incentive to sin; he would have done so if he had given human beings the power to absolve from sins. Therefore, etc. — I ANSWER, I distinguish the major premise: ease of pardon arising solely from the indulgence and forgiveness of the one offended provides an incentive to sin when no penalty and laborious satisfaction are required of the offender, I grant; when they are required, I deny it. But through sacramental penance sins are not remitted without a penalty on the offender’s part, since satisfaction is one of the parts of penance. Add that the major premise can be denied: for, as Augustine teaches splendidly in Homily 27 from the Fifty, where he resolves this objection: “If the entrance to penance were closed, would not that sinner add still another sin all the more, the more he despaired of being forgiven? For he would say to himself: ‘Behold, I have sinned; behold, I have committed a crime; now there is no place for pardon for me; penance is fruitless. I am condemned; why should I no longer live as I wish? Since I do not find love there, at least here let me feed my desire … Therefore, if you remove the yoke of penance, sins will increase,” etc.

THE NOVATIANS ALSO OBJECTED, in St. Ambrose, bk. 1 On Penance, ch. 7, that saying in 1 Samuel, ch. 2: “If a man sins against a man, they will pray for him to the Lord; but if a man sins against the Lord, who will pray for him?” — I ANSWER, FIRST, that oracle concerns the Old Testament, not the Law of the Gospel, in which the Church’s priests have been granted authority to loose from sins. I ANSWER, SECOND, that if those words were used in the Novatians’ sense, it would follow that no human being could pray for another sinner. Third, I say with St. Ambrose in the same place that it is not written, “No one will pray for him,” but “Who will pray?” That is, the question is who is the person able to pray in such a case; he is not excluded. Finally, you have in Psalm 15: “Lord, who will dwell in your tabernacle, or who will rest on your holy mountain?” For it does not mean no one will dwell there, but that the proven person will dwell there. Nor does it say that no one will rest there, but that the chosen one will rest there. To show that this is true, not much later in Psalm 23 it says: “Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord, or who will stand in his holy place?” That is, not just anyone from the crowd, nor someone of ordinary truth among the common people, but one of outstanding life and singular merit. And to show that when it says “who,” it does not mean “no one,” but signifies “someone,” after saying, “Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord?” it adds: “The innocent of hands and pure of heart, who has not received his soul in vain.” And elsewhere: “Who is wise, and will understand these things?” Does it mean that no one will understand them? And in the Gospel: “Who is the faithful and prudent steward whom the Lord will set over his household, to give them their measure of wheat in due season?” And to make clear that he spoke of one who truly exists, not one who does not exist, he added: “Blessed is that servant whom the Lord, when he comes, will find doing so.” I think that saying was also spoken in this way: “God, who is like you?” Certainly not “no one,” because the Son is the image of the Father. In the same way, therefore, “Who will pray for him?” must be understood to mean that someone of singular life ought to pray for one who has sinned against the Lord, because the greater the guilt, the greater the intercessions that must be sought. It was not just anyone from the crowd who prayed for the people of the Jews, but Moses, when they worshiped the head of a calf, forgetful of the faith. Did Moses err? Certainly not: because he did not err in praying, he both merited and obtained what he sought. For what could such affection not obtain, when he offered himself for the people, saying, “And now, if you forgive their sin, forgive it; but if not, blot me out of the book of life”? You see that he did not consult for himself like an indulgent intercessor, full of disdain, for fear of incurring offense, as the Novatian says he fears; rather, mindful of everyone and forgetful of himself, he did not fear to incur offense himself in order to rescue and free the people from the danger of offense. Therefore it was rightly written, “Who will pray for him?” That is, let someone such as Moses offer himself for sinners; someone such as Jeremiah, to whom, although it had been said by the Lord our God, “Do not pray for this people,” nevertheless prayed and obtained pardon.” So says St. Ambrose.

Second conclusion. — PENANCE IS A SACRAMENT DISTINCT FROM BAPTISM; AND THEREFORE THE REMISSION OF SINS THAT TAKES PLACE THROUGH PENANCE DOES NOT TAKE PLACE THROUGH THE MERE REMEMBRANCE OF BAPTISM ONCE RECEIVED. This is of faith, defined by the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, can. 2: “If anyone, confusing the sacraments, says that baptism itself is the sacrament of penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct, and therefore that penance is not rightly called a second plank after shipwreck, let him be anathema.”

The Council proves this authority by five reasons drawn from the essence, minister, subject, effect, and name of each sacrament: “Moreover, this sacrament (penance) is known to differ from baptism in many respects. For, besides the fact that the matter and form by which the essence of each sacrament is effected differ (for the matter and form of baptism are ablution together with words signifying that it is performed in the power of the most holy Trinity, whereas the acts of the penitent are, as it were, the matter of penance, and its form is priestly absolution expressed in words), it is certain that the minister of baptism ought not to be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment over no one who has not first entered it through the gate of baptism. For what have I,” says the Apostle, “to do with judging those who are outside?” It is otherwise “with those within the household of faith, whom Christ the Lord once made members of his body by the washing of his baptism. For if they later defile themselves with some crime, he willed that they should no longer be cleansed by a repeated baptism, since this is in no way permitted in the Catholic Church, but should be brought before this tribunal as defendants, so that by the sentence of priests they might be freed, not once only, but whenever, repenting of the sins they have committed, they have fled to it.” By these words the Council plainly declares that the difference between penance and baptism is manifest not only in the matter and form of each sacrament, but especially in their ministers: for in a case of necessity any person may be the minister of baptism, whereas only a priest may minister penance. Likewise, their subjects are distinct: baptism may be administered to anyone, even a pagan or gentile, whereas penance is for the faithful alone, because it is exercised in the manner of a judgment, which has force only over the children and subjects of the Church. Moreover, baptism can be conferred even on children and the insane, but the sacrament of penance only on adults who have the use of reason. — The difference between the two sacraments also appears from the diversity of their effects and application: “For,” says the Council, “the fruit of baptism differs from that of penance. For through baptism, putting on Christ, we are made altogether a new creature in him, obtaining the full and complete remission of all sins; yet we can by no means attain this newness and completeness through the sacrament of penance without great tears and labors of our own, divine justice so requiring, so that penance was rightly called by the holy Fathers a kind of laborious baptism”—namely, by Cyprian, in De Lapsis; by Nazianzen, in the Oration on the Holy Lights; and by Damascene, bk. I, On the Faith, ch. 10. — This is confirmed: Christ the Lord, in John 20, gave the Apostles power not only to remit sins, but also to retain them. But this power would be altogether pointless if the remission of sins that takes place through penance were merely remembrance of baptism once received: for priests cannot prohibit the faithful from remembering the baptism they received. Therefore the sacrament of penance is not a mere remembrance of baptism.

YOU WILL SAY 1: The penance of the New Law is no different from that preached by St. John. But Mark 1 says, “John was in the desert, baptizing and preaching a baptism of penance for the remission of sins.” Therefore the penance of the New Law is not distinct from baptism. — I DISTINGUISH THE MINOR: penance as a virtue is no different, I grant; the sacrament, I deny. For penance is twofold: one is indeed a virtue, which has always been necessary for all people who have stained themselves with some mortal sin, in order to attain grace—even for those who wished to be initiated by the sacrament of baptism, as we said. The other is that which Christ instituted as a sacrament, when he gave the Apostles the power to absolve from sins; the holy Fathers wholly distinguish it from baptism, as we have already said.

YOU WILL SAY 2: St. Augustine, bk. I, On Marriage and Concupiscence, ch. 11, explaining Ephesians 5, “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her with the washing of water in the word of life,” teaches that it is to be understood thus: “that by the same washing of regeneration and word of sanctification”—that is, baptism—“all the evils of regenerated human beings are entirely cleansed and healed; not only the sins which are all now remitted in baptism, but also those contracted later through human ignorance or weakness: not so that baptism is repeated as often as one sins, but because by that very baptism, which is given once, it comes about that the pardon of any sins whatsoever is obtained for the faithful, both before and afterward.” — I ANSWER that he means nothing other than that penance, both as a virtue and as a sacrament, cannot in any way obtain remission of sins without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it. For he continues: “For what would penance avail either before baptism, unless baptism followed, or afterward, unless it went before? In the Lord’s Prayer itself, which is our daily cleansing, with what fruit or effect would ‘Forgive us our debts’ be said, unless it were said by those who have been baptized? Likewise, how could the generosity and beneficence of almsgiving avail anyone to have his sins forgiven, if he had not been baptized? Finally, whose will be the very blessedness of the kingdom of heaven, where the Church will have no spot, or wrinkle, or anything of that kind, where there will be nothing blameworthy, nothing feigned, where not only will there be uprightness, but no concupiscence of sin at all—whose, unless of the baptized?” By these words St. Augustine signifies that penance is necessary for adults before baptism, but that for it to avail, the desire for baptism is necessarily required; and hence, unless baptism followed where and when it could conveniently follow, it would avail nothing. So too the sacrament of penance avails nothing unless the actual reception of baptism preceded it, since baptism is the gate of all the sacraments.

YOU WILL PRESS: St. Augustine’s opinion was no different from that of his disciple St. Fulgentius. But St. Fulgentius, bk. On the Faith to Peter, ch. 30, calls baptism “the sacrament of faith and penance,” in keeping with what is written in Luke 3, that John preached a baptism of penance for the remission of sins. — I ANSWER that he calls baptism “the sacrament of penance and faith” for this reason: in adults who have sinned mortally, baptism must necessarily presuppose faith and penance, as is gathered from these words of St. Peter, Acts 2: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized.” That this is St. Fulgentius’s meaning, and no other, is clear from his words, for he says: “Hold most firmly and doubt in no way that, except for those who are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no one will receive eternal life who here has not turned from his evils through penance and faith, and been freed through the sacrament of faith and penance, that is, through baptism.” Understand this not of penance of every kind, but of that which must be performed before baptism, that is, the virtue of penance. For he immediately adds: “For adults, indeed, it is necessary both to do penance for their evils, to hold the Catholic faith according to the rule of truth, and to receive the sacrament of baptism. But for infants, who can neither believe by their own will nor do penance for the sin they inherit by origin, the sacrament of faith, which is holy baptism, suffices for salvation so long as they cannot yet be capable of things at the age of reason.”

Third conclusion. — THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE WAS INSTITUTED IMMEDIATELY BY CHRIST THE LORD, AND THAT AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, NAMELY IN JOHN 20, WHEN HE SAID TO THE APOSTLES: “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT; WHOSE SINS YOU FORGIVE,” etc. This conclusion has two parts: namely, that the sacrament of penance was instituted by Christ the Lord, and that it was instituted only after the Resurrection of Christ the Lord.

The Council of Trent plainly teaches the first part, sess. XIV, can. 1, in these words: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for the faithful, to reconcile them to God himself whenever they fall into sins after baptism, let him be anathema.” Nor is it an objection that the Council does not assert this sacrament to have been instituted immediately by Christ the Lord. For although it does not add that word immediately, it is nevertheless clearly gathered from its teaching, since it recognizes no other author of the sacraments than Christ the Lord. Moreover, in canons 5 and 6 it teaches that confession, about which controversy could chiefly arise, is by Christ’s command, as we shall prove in the following article.

The same Council teaches both parts there, ch. 11, when it says: “The Lord, however, instituted the sacrament of penance especially then, when, raised from the dead, he breathed upon his disciples, saying: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive,’ etc.”

No reason a priori can be offered for this truth other than the will of Christ the Lord, who instituted the sacraments as he pleased, when and how he willed. Nevertheless, there are fitting reasons why he deferred the institution of this sacrament until after his Resurrection. First, it was not fitting that power over the mystical body of Christ be given before power over the true Body of Christ. The Apostles received the latter only at the Last Supper. Although perhaps at that time Christ taught the disciples the entire future state of the Church and consequently gave instruction about the sacrament of penance to be instituted later, it can in no way be inferred that this sacrament was instituted there: both because Scripture nowhere teaches this, and because the power to remit sins had not yet been conferred, without which this sacrament could have no efficacy at all. Moreover, the Resurrection of Christ is the exemplar of perfect justification and mystical resurrection, by which a person rises through penance from the death of sin. Hence St. Paul says in Romans 4: “He was handed over because of our transgressions, and rose again for our justification,” that is, to set before us the perfect exemplar of justification. Therefore Christ the Lord had to rise first before this sacrament was instituted, by which a sinner, recalled and restored to the life of grace, might not die again by the death of sin, just as the Apostle says there: “Christ the Lord, rising from the dead, dies no more; death shall no longer have dominion over him.”

YOU WILL SAY 1: The sacrament of penance was instituted when the power of the keys was conferred on the Apostles. But Christ the Lord handed that power to the Apostles before his Passion, namely in Matthew 18, when he said: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Therefore the sacrament of penance was then instituted by Christ the Lord. — I DENY THE MINOR: for in that passage the power of the keys for remitting or retaining sins was only promised to the Apostles; it was not actually conferred on them, because this power pertains only to priests, as we shall prove below. But when Christ said this in Matthew 18, the Apostles were not yet priests, since they obtained this dignity only on the night of the Supper. Hence what took place there was rather a promise of the power of the keys to be conferred than its true and actual bestowal.

YOU WILL INSIST: Catholics therefore wrongly adduce those words of Christ the Lord, spoken to Peter in Matthew 16, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,” and in Matthew 18, when he said to all the Apostles, “Whatever you loose,” etc., to assert the institution of this sacrament. — I DENY THE INFERENCE; for even if Christ the Lord exhibited the power to absolve only after the Resurrection, he had nevertheless expressly promised it already in the aforesaid passages. Since, therefore, he can neither lie nor deceive, those promises were like pledges and, as it were, the first tokens and beginnings of the institution to come after the Resurrection.

YOU WILL PRESS: If Christ the Lord gave the Apostles the power to absolve only in John 20, it follows that only those who were present when he spoke these words had this power, and therefore St. Thomas lacked it. For immediately after the aforesaid words, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” it is added: “But Thomas, one of the Twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.” But this consequence is absurd; otherwise St. Thomas would have had an altogether incomplete and imperfect apostolic authority. Therefore, etc. — I DENY THE MAJOR’S CONSEQUENCE: for, as St. Cyril of Alexandria says, bk. XII, On John, ch. 56: “We say that the power of the Spirit passed to all the disciples by the intention of Christ, the giver; for he gave it not to some, but to all the disciples. Therefore, by the generosity of the giver, not only the Apostles who were present but also those who were absent received the Holy Spirit. That this is not a forced but a secure and true account, we shall show by the authority of Holy Scripture. God once commanded Moses (Numbers 11) to choose seventy elders of the Jews. He said that he would take from the Spirit who was in Moses and place it upon them. But when Eldad and Medad remained in the camp, apart from the number of the seventy elders, and the Spirit had come upon all those seventy, those who were with Moses prophesied, and those two who were absent also prophesied, etc. Therefore Thomas was not deprived of participation in the Spirit by being absent, since he belonged to the number of those to whom the Spirit was owed, as they had been honored with the dignity of the Apostolate.”

YOU WILL SAY 2: Christ the Lord gave the Apostles in John 20 the same authority to remit sins that he himself had received from the Father, as we said above, p. 291. For he says: “As the living Father sent me, I also send you.” But he reconciled sinners without the ministry of any sacrament. Therefore by those words, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” etc., he is not considered to have instituted any sacrament which the Apostles and their successors would necessarily have to use to wash away sins committed after baptism. — I distinguish the major: that they had the same, that is, complete and identical, authority, I deny; that is, a similar and participated authority, I grant. For although Christ the Lord handed the Apostles a power to reconcile sinners similar to the one he himself had received from the Father, it does not follow that he handed them the same and altogether equal power. For Christ had the power of excellence, which was bound to no external signs, since he was true God and the true Son of God, who has the ability to pardon sins by plenary right and independently of every sensible sign. The Apostles, however, had only a participated power, bound to the external signs of baptism and penance. As for the authority of St. John, I say that this mission can be understood as that in which Christ sent the disciples to announce the Gospel amid the persecutions of men, just as he himself had been sent by the Father, as St. Gregory interprets it in hom. 26, On the Gospels. Explaining those words, he says: “The Father sent the Son, whom he appointed to become incarnate for the redemption of the human race, whom he willed to come into the world for the Passion; yet he loved the one whom he sent to the Passion. The Lord sends his chosen Apostles into the world not to its joys, but to sufferings, just as he himself was sent. Therefore, just as the Son is loved by the Father and yet sent to the Passion, so the disciples are loved by the Lord and yet sent into the world to the Passion. Thus it is rightly said, ‘As the living Father sent me, I also send you’: that is, I love you with the same love with which the Father loves me, when I send you amid the scandals of persecutors, as he sent me to endure the Passion.”

NOTE 1. All the sacraments of the New Law consist of matter and form, as the Council of Florence teaches in the decree of Eugenius. After listing the sacraments of the New Law, it says: All these sacraments are effected by three things: things as matter, words as form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. Moreover, in some sacraments this matter is twofold, namely, remote and proximate: thus, in baptism the proximate matter is the outward washing, while the remote matter is natural water. Further, each of these matters may be twofold: one is that out of which sacraments are made and composed; the other is that with respect to which the sacraments are concerned. The question, then, is what the remote and proximate matter of the sacrament of penance is.

NOTE 2. It is certain that the penitent’s acts, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, concur as matter for the sacrament of penance. The Council of Florence teaches this in the passage cited above, where it says: The fourth sacrament is penance, whose quasi-matter is the penitent’s acts, which are divided into three parts. The first is contrition of heart, to which it pertains that the person grieve for the sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning thereafter. The second is confession by the mouth, to which it pertains that the sinner confess integrally to his own priest all the sins of which he remembers. The third is satisfaction for sin, according to the judgment of the priest; this is chiefly performed through prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The Council of Trent states the same in sess. XI, ch. 3: The quasi-matter of this sacrament consists of the penitent’s own acts, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Since, by God’s institution, these are required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins, they are for this reason called the parts of penance. These councils pointedly call the penitent’s acts “quasi-matter” because the sacrament of penance is not constituted from them as matter out of which, but is concerned with them only as matter with respect to which.

NOTE 3. Even if several things are so necessarily involved in the making of a sacrament that without them the sacrament could neither be made nor exist, they do not all thereby have the character of the sacrament or count as its essential parts. This is clear in the Eucharist: the words of consecration are necessarily involved in its making, yet the consecrated species have the character of a sacrament even after the words of consecration no longer exist. Similarly, in baptism active washing is absolutely necessary for its making, yet its formal character consists chiefly in the passive washing. Thus, although things and words concur in making a sacrament, they do not both pertain equally to its essence. Rather, its formal character and principal power consist chiefly in one or the other, because one of them bears a greater likeness to the grace it signifies and effects. Thus in baptism, for example, since washing that removes bodily dirt is more like grace that washes the soul from sins, the signification of grace consists more in the washing itself than in the invocation of the Trinity, which takes place together with the actual washing.

Two points, then, must be determined here: first, whether and which sins are the remote matter with respect to which the sacrament of penance is concerned; second, whether and how the penitent’s acts are the proximate matter with respect to which this sacrament is concerned.

First conclusion. — ONLY AND ALL SINS COMMITTED AFTER BAPTISM ARE THE REMOTE MATTER WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE IS CONCERNED. This is the common opinion among theologians, and the Council of Trent clearly teaches it in sess. XIV, ch. 1. After recounting the institution of the sacrament of penance, it immediately adds: By this most notable deed and such clear words, the consensus of all the Fathers has always understood that the power of remitting and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and their legitimate successors, in order to reconcile the faithful who fell after baptism. In ch. 2, explaining the distinction between the sacrament of penance and baptism on the part of the minister, it says: “It is certain that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment over no one who has not first entered it through the gate of baptism. For what have I to do, says the Apostle, with those who are outside? It is otherwise with the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord once made members of his body by the washing of baptism. If they later defile themselves with some crime, he willed that they be brought before this tribunal as accused, so that by the sentence of priests they might be freed—not just once, but as often as, penitent for the sins they have committed, they have recourse to him.” Near the end of the chapter it adds: “This sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation to those who have fallen after baptism, just as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet reborn.” By these words the Council clearly signifies that only sins committed after baptism has been duly received are the remote matter of the sacrament of penance.

No reason a priori can be given for this truth other than the will of Christ the Lord, which is made known to us through the Church’s judgment and teaching. A posteriori, however, the assertion can be confirmed from the praises with which the holy Fathers celebrate the sacrament of penance, especially when they call it the second plank after shipwreck. By this they signify that this sacrament was instituted only as a help for those who, having recovered the soul’s health and reached the harbor of innocence, once again cast themselves into the shipwreck of sin.

The second part—that absolutely all sins committed after baptism can be wiped away through penance—is already clear from what we have said about the efficacy of the virtue of penance. The Council of Trent teaches this plainly in the same place, canon 5: As our Lord Jesus was about to ascend from earth to heaven, he left priests as his own vicars, set over us as governors and judges, to whom all mortal crimes into which the faithful fall must be brought, and who, by the power of the keys, pronounce sentence on the remission or retention of sins. These matters will become clearer from what will be said about the power of the keys and the power of absolution.

Second conclusion. THE PENITENT’S ACTS, NAMELY CONTRITION, CONFESSION, AND SATISFACTION, ARE THE PROXIMATE MATTER AND PARTS OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, NOT ESSENTIAL PARTS BUT INTEGRAL ONES. This conclusion consists chiefly of two parts, which the Council of Trent teaches in sess. XIV, ch. 3. After saying that the principal power of the sacrament of penance resides in the minister’s words, I absolve you, it immediately adds: “The quasi-matter of this sacrament consists of the penitent’s own acts, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Since these are required by God’s institution in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins, they are for this reason called the parts of penance. Hence, Canon 4 defines as follows: If anyone denies that three acts in the penitent are required for the full and perfect remission of sins, as the quasi-matter of the sacrament of penance—namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance—let him be anathema.” By these words the Council clearly declares that those three acts of the penitent are not properly the matter out of which the sacrament of penance is essentially composed and constituted, but are “quasi-matter,” since sacramental absolution is directed chiefly and immediately toward them. Hence they are indeed integral parts of the sacrament of penance.

The Doctor teaches that they are not essential parts—that is, parts by which the sacrament of penance is essentially constituted—in d. 16, q. 1, n. 7: “Concerning the sacrament of penance, I say that these are in no way its parts, because, as was said in d. 11, the sacrament of penance is that sacramental absolution made in certain words, etc. Contrition, which is something spiritual in the soul, is no part of it; nor is confession, because it is nothing belonging to the priest’s sentence, but is the act of the person accusing himself; nor is satisfaction, which follows that sacramental absolution. Nevertheless, these three are required for the sacrament of penance, so that it may be received worthily, either beforehand or afterward. Confession is simply required, because the priest does not arbitrarily absolve a guilty person unless that person has first accused himself before him in that forum. That absolution is also not useful unless some contrition or attrition precedes in the one confessing. The parts of this distinction are clear from what was said above: it is enough that some displeasure, even if unformed, precede; then that person is capable of sacramental absolution, and through it becomes contrite. Satisfaction, however, must follow the sacrament of penance if it is to be efficacious, in deed or in intention, unless the judge could determine that other preceding penalties suffice for the payment of the whole punishment, etc.” As is evident from these words, the Doctor does not deny that the penitent’s three acts are necessarily required for the integrity of the sacrament of penance; he denies only that they are essential parts from which it is constituted. For the sacrament of penance is understood chiefly as the priest’s absolution, in which the power of the sacrament chiefly consists, as the Council of Trent taught above.

Moreover, the sacrament is very often—and indeed ordinarily—completed before satisfaction is fulfilled, not only in nature but also in time. Consequently, satisfaction cannot be intrinsic matter or a part that essentially composes the sacrament of penance, and therefore cannot properly have the character of matter, since matter must precede form, or at least accompany it, whereas satisfaction ordinarily follows the form of absolution.

For this reason, too, the Councils of Florence and Trent pointedly call these three acts “quasi-matter,” thereby indicating that they are not matter properly so called, as if this sacrament had to consist of them, just as baptism consists of washing and words.

Nor is it an objection that the Catechism of the Council of Trent, when treating the matter of the sacrament of penance, says in no. 17: The Synod does not call these acts quasi-matter because they lack the character of true matter, but because they are not the kind of matter applied from outside, such as water in baptism and chrism in confirmation. This, I say, is no objection. Apart from the fact that the Catechism was composed for the most part by disciples of St. Thomas, as is clear from article 2 of its preface, it calls these acts true matter only in the sense that they do not constitute the sacrament as matter out of which it is essentially composed, but are matter with respect to which it is concerned. Thus the same Catechism pointedly calls these acts integral parts, saying in no. 2: “These parts are said to belong to the class of parts necessary to constitute a whole. For just as the human body consists of several members—hands, feet, eyes, and other such parts—and if any is missing it is rightly considered imperfect, but perfect if none is lacking, so penance is constituted from these three parts in such a way that, although as far as its nature is concerned contrition and confession, by which a person is made just, suffice, nevertheless, unless the third part, namely satisfaction, is also added, something necessary for its perfection is wholly lacking. These parts are so closely connected that contrition includes in the one confessing the counsel and purpose of making satisfaction; contrition includes confession and the will to make satisfaction; and the other two precede satisfaction.” Thus the Catechism. By these words it clearly signifies that the penitent’s three acts are considered parts of the sacrament of penance insofar as they contribute to its integrity. This teaching is plainly the same as the Doctor’s, as is clear from the words cited above. Although he does not say that the acts can be called parts of penance in this sense, it can easily be inferred from his argument.

I can scarcely express my astonishment, then, at how Lugo dared to write in disputation 12, no. 58: “Not a few theologians condemn Scotus’s opinion, which denies that those parts are intrinsic and says they are required only as dispositions, with a more severe censure. Cajetan, q. 9, a. 2, calls it erroneous; others call it rash, others more than rash. Others try to interpret Scotus’s words in a favorable sense, such as Angelus, who says Scotus did not deny that they are intrinsic parts but only denied that they are properly matter, which seems consistent with the manner of speaking of the Councils of Florence and Trent, where they are called quasi-matter. Others say that Scotus means the sacrament does not directly signify those acts of the penitent but signifies only absolution, while marking the other parts obliquely. Others, such as Vega, in bk. 13 on Trent, ch. 15, say that Scotus does not deny that they are integral parts, but only denies that they are essential parts. Yet these explanations are difficult to reconcile with Scotus’s words, as will be clear to anyone who considers them.” So Lugo. But it seems that he either did not read the Doctor or did not understand his plainly stated meaning when he says Vega’s explanation cannot be reconciled with the Doctor’s words. The opposite is clear enough from the words just cited.

YOU WILL SAY 1: The sacrament of penance was instituted as a judicial act, as may be gathered from John 20 and Matthew 18 and as the Council of Trent teaches in sess. XIII¹, chs. 2 and 5. But a human judgment intrinsically consists not only of the judge’s sentence, but also of other judicial acts, namely the accusation, examination, confession, and satisfaction of the accused. Therefore the sacrament of penance essentially consists not only of priestly absolution but also of the penitent’s acts: accusing himself and, by the fitting sorrow he conceives for his sins, in a certain way defending himself before God; and finally making satisfaction for the injury and offense he inflicted upon God by sin. — I deny the minor premise: for a human judgment essentially and directly signifies only the judge’s sentence, by which the accused is acquitted or condemned; the other things it connotes indirectly, as necessary prerequisites for a just sentence to be pronounced. Thus, just as a sentence in a human judgment signifies only acquittal or condemnation, so in a sacramental judgment the priest’s sentence alone signifies remission of sins and consequently causes remission of sins, since it is proper to sacraments to cause what they signify. This answer is confirmed by the Council of Trent, sess. XIII, ch. 6, where it calls absolution alone a judicial act: “Although the priest’s absolution is the dispensation of a benefit, it is nevertheless not merely a ministry of proclaiming the Gospel or declaring that sins have been remitted, but is like a judicial act in which the judge himself pronounces sentence.” Likewise, canon 9 says: If anyone says that the priest’s sacramental absolution is not a judicial act … let him be anathema.

YOU WILL SAY 2: The sacrament of penance was instituted as a reconciliation; hence it is sometimes called by this name. But reconciliation consists in the voluntary revocation, as it were, by both parties—not only by the offended party but also by the offender, who thereby retracts the offense. Therefore the reconciliation effected in penance consists not only in the priest’s act, as representing the offended God, but also in the penitent’s acts. — I deny the minor premise: for the offender’s retraction is only something prior, or a disposition, to the retraction of the injured party. Formal reconciliation, or remission of the offense, consists in that retraction by the injured party, who rescinds the former sentence of punishment and pardons the offense. Consequently the penitent’s acts, especially confession and contrition, are prior dispositions to the sinner’s reconciliation with God; but this reconciliation formally consists in the priest’s own absolution, by which he pardons the offense in God’s place and by his authority. The Council of Trent approves this answer in sess. XIV, ch. 1. Speaking of contrition, the noblest of the penitent’s acts, it says: At all times this movement of contrition was necessary for obtaining pardon of sins; in a person who has fallen after baptism, it prepares for the remission of sins only if it is joined with trust in divine mercy and with the intention of performing the other things required for rightly receiving this sacrament. The Council therefore teaches that contrition only prepares for remission of sins and the bestowal of grace. Consequently, it is not an essential part of the sacrament: to be an essential part, it would have to do more than dispose; it would actually have to signify and confer grace and remission of sins by the work performed. For an essential part of a sacrament is nothing other than a practical signification of grace—that is, the signification and effecting of grace. Therefore what does not effect grace is neither a sacrament nor an essential part of a sacrament.

YOU WILL PRESS: Not only priestly absolution but also the penitent’s acts signify that remission. For signs of contrition are also signs of interior remission, and confession signifies that just as sins are outwardly disclosed, so they are also removed from the soul. Satisfaction, too, clearly signifies remission of the punishment due for sins. Therefore the penitent’s three acts are true essential parts of the sacrament. — I deny the minor premise: for contrition, confession, and satisfaction signify remission of sins no more than, for example, a prayer by which a person asks for the help of grace in order to receive this sacrament worthily. Thus only priestly absolution formally signifies and effects the grace that remits sins. In a human judgment, similarly, accusation is not taken as signifying remission, but as informing the judge of the case, so that he may, according to his authority and in keeping with equity, pronounce a sentence of acquittal or condemnation. That sentence alone therefore signifies acquittal or condemnation. We must conclude, then, with our Venerable Vega, who attended the Council of Trent, in bk. 13 of On Justification, ch. 15: “It is most true, whatever others think, that by the power of absolution alone the Subtle Doctor and the common school of the Nominalists defend the conferring of grace upon penitent sinners. For the keys were given to priests alone, and they alone are to remit sins; grace is conferred on the confessed through their absolution, with all the other acts of the penitents absent. Absolution alone is the sign of grace; grace granted by reason of the other acts is given by the work of the one acting.”

YOU WILL PRESS: The Council of Trent, sess. XI, ch. 3, says: The Holy Synod further teaches that the form of the sacrament of penance, in which its power chiefly resides, is contained in these words of the minister: I absolve you, etc. Therefore the Council presupposes that there is some sacramental power in the matter, namely, in the penitent’s acts. — I ANSWER: the Council rightly said that the principal power lies in the form of absolution, because all the power present in the penitent’s acts is not properly sacramental. Otherwise it would follow that the penitent himself was a partial minister of this sacrament, and even its principal minister, since he would supply more parts of the sacrament than the priest. This cannot be said, since every minister of a sacrament is distinct from its recipient, and moreover the Councils of Florence and Trent call the priest alone the minister of this sacrament.

From these points it follows that if the sacrament of penance is taken in its common and ordinary sense, its parts are contrition, confession, and satisfaction. But if it is taken in a stricter sense, as formally a practical sign of grace, only absolution has the character of a sacrament, because absolution is where God’s sacred power principally resides: it absolves the penitent from sins and confers on him the grace by which he is absolved from the sins that previously held him bound. Hence the Subtle Doctor rightly defines the sacrament of penance in d. 14 as follows: Penance is the absolution of a penitent person, made in certain words spoken with due intention by a priest who has jurisdiction, and which, by divine institution, efficaciously signify the soul’s absolution from sin. Although this definition may seem a little long, it contains no superfluous part at all, as will be clear to anyone who weighs each part of it. For now, if a shorter definition is sought, these may be offered from our Bosco, disputation 7, section, no. 4: Penance is the sacrament by which a priest, as judge, confers remission of sins on one who confesses with due sorrow, with the obligation of making satisfaction. Or thus: The sacrament of penance is an efficacious sign of grace that remits sin committed after baptism. Or otherwise: It is a sacrament that remits sin by way of judgment. Or I offer this clearer one: Penance is the absolution of sins duly confessed.

IT FOLLOWS, SECOND, that penance stands for priestly absolution, as the Doctor teaches in d. 16, q. 1, n. 7. First, because, as Vega says in bk. 13 on the Council of Trent, ch. 15, the sacrament of penance is a sign of grace, not a prognostic sign of future grace, nor a memorial sign of past grace, but a demonstrative sign of grace conferred in the present. Confession and contrition are not demonstrative signs of grace: confession does not connote present grace, but is formally only a declaration and accusation of sins. Likewise, if contrition is imperfect, or is only attrition, it is merely a disposition toward sacramental grace. Second, absolution alone signifies remission, which is the effect of this sacrament; therefore absolution itself, not contrition or confession, has the complete character of a sacrament. Finally, according to the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3, the principal power of the sacrament of penance consists in absolution; consequently, absolution holds primacy in this sacrament.

NOTE 1. Since the sacraments of the New Law must consist of matter and form, whether these terms are understood strictly or less properly, it follows that, although the essence of the sacrament of penance, formally considered, consists in priestly absolution, nevertheless the penitent’s acts also contribute to it in the manner of matter. Hence the words of this absolution are called the form of this sacrament, because through absolution the penitent’s acts are determined toward effecting the sacrament. Thus the Council of Florence defines it in the decree of Eugenius, saying: The form of this sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest utters when he says: I absolve you. etc. The Council of Trent says likewise, sess. XIV, ch. 3: The holy Synod teaches that the form of the sacrament of penance... consists in those words of the minister: I absolve you; to which, in accordance with the custom of the holy Church, certain prayers are laudably added, although they by no means pertain to the essence of the form itself, nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament itself. Those prayers are: May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, bring you to eternal life. Amen. May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, etc. These prayers are indeed said before the essential words; after them, however, are said: May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints, whatever good you have done and whatever evil you have endured, be for you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen.

NOTE 2. I agree with the Subtle Doctor, In V¹ Sent., d. 11, q. 4, n. 4, that in the sacrament of penance words need not be so precise and determinate for its confection as in baptism and the Eucharist: “For,” says the Doctor, “this sacrament was instituted in the manner of a judgment. A judge, however, may deliver a sentence in any words, provided that they express the judge’s intention. Therefore,” says the Doctor, “words need not be so precise in this sacrament as in baptism or the Eucharist, because it suffices for the act of the absolving sentence to be expressed; nor need words be fixed in a public court. One judge said of the martyr Theodore, I order him to be given to the flames; another said of Saint Cyprian, It pleases me that he be punished by the sword. Commonly, however, these words are suitable: I absolve you; whatever other words may precede or follow them according to the differing custom of different Churches.” By these words the Doctor means that any form or words by which it is signified and explained that the remission of sins is effected with authority and in the manner of a judgment and sentence will be a sufficient form of this sacrament, in which the minister performs the office of a judge and authoritatively pronounces the sentence of absolution. Nevertheless, those words are to be preferred which the Church commonly prescribes and utters, namely: I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Whether, however, every part of this absolution must be uttered so necessarily that omitting any part would make the absolution invalid will be determined below.

NOTE 3. Theologians hold various opinions about the meaning and proper signification of the words I absolve you. First, Abulensis, Defensorium, part I, chs. 5 and 6, says that the verb “I absolve” is used improperly: “For,” he says, “properly speaking, neither a priest nor even God absolves from guilt or from the punishment of sin. First, Scripture nowhere says that sins are loosed, but that they are forgiven, blotted out, etc. Again, sins are not literally bonds, and consequently a person is not bound by them or loosed from them. Again, a person cannot be absolved from guilt, which has already occurred, or from punishment, which has not yet come; rather, he is absolved only from the debt of punishment to which he is bound on account of sin.” But all theologians rightly reject this opinion, first because it contradicts Scripture, which describes the remission of sins as a loosing: thus Isaiah 58 says, Loose the bonds of wickedness, etc.; and Matthew 16: Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, it seems to teach that after sin has passed only the debt of punishment remains, and that a person is absolved only from that. — Second, the opinion of the Nominalists, especially Gabriel, is likewise not to be approved. He asserts that I absolve you means: “I release you from the obligation of submitting your sins to the keys of the Church.” For to remit sin is not merely to release the obligation to confess sin. He adds that this absolution would be null when someone confesses only venial sins, or other sins already confessed and remitted, since even before absolution the penitent was free from the obligation to confess those sins. — Third, the explanation of Hugh of Saint Victor is also unconvincing. He maintains that I absolve you means, “I remit to you the eternal punishment due for guilt.” For this absolution twists the words of Christ our Lord and of the form of absolution into an improper sense, since punishment is not sin, although it arises from sin; hence to remit sin is not merely to release the punishment due for sins. Nor do the words I absolve you signify release from the temporal punishment due for sins, as the Alensis and Saint Bonaventure maintain: first, because, as just said, properly to remit sin is not merely to release the punishment due for it; second, because someone may approach the sacrament of penance with such great contrition that the whole temporal punishment is remitted by the power of that contrition. — Likewise, the explanation given by Saint Thomas, III, q. 84, a. 3, ad 5, is not convincing. Rejecting the explanation of the Master of the Sentences, he adds: A more perfect explanation would be: I absolve you, that is, I confer on you the sacrament of absolution. For this explanation seems pointless, since it signifies the same by the same; moreover, in the other sacraments the words of the form do not signify the conferral of the sacrament, but the application of the matter or something else. Again, sacramental words must be used with the same signification that they have in human speech by human convention: they can signify only what they were instituted to signify. Thus the words I and you mean the same within and outside a sacrament. But by human convention the words I absolve you are not instituted to signify themselves by reflexive signification, but something distinct from them. Therefore sacraments do not directly signify themselves, but something else. This is especially clear from the forms of the other sacraments: none signifies itself reflexively, but each signifies either matter or effect. For the form of baptism does not mean, “I confer on you the sacrament of baptism,” but “I apply to you water, which is the symbol of the soul’s interior cleansing from sin.” — I would therefore judge that the words I absolve you mean the same as “I remit to you sins and offenses.” This applies to all sins whatsoever, not only mortal and venial sins which are actually remitted, but also sins already confessed and remitted. For, as we shall say when treating of the confession of sins already remitted, however fully sins may have been forgiven the penitent, some debt of unworthiness always remains in him; this is diminished by repeated absolution, because by frequently repeating the sacrament of penance a person becomes less unworthy of God’s benefits and friendship.

With these points established beforehand, two matters must be determined in this question: first, whether, and which, words are necessary for the form of the sacrament of penance; second, whether that form must be uttered in words so necessarily that, if it were given in writing to someone absent or present, it would be invalid.

First conclusion. — THE WORDS “I ABSOLVE YOU” ALONE SUFFICE FOR THE ESSENCE OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. This is the more common opinion, shared by the Subtle Doctor in the place cited in the second Note and by the Angelic Doctor, q. 21, a. 3. It is supported by the Councils of Trent and Florence cited in the first Note, which specify only these words as the form of the sacrament of penance: I absolve you. The fact that they wrote “etc.” does not stand in the way. Apart from the fact that this particle is absent from some editions of the Council of Florence, the Councils append it not to indicate that the other words customarily added to the formula of absolution are necessary to its essence, but because they contribute to its perfect signification and explanation and must be uttered, at least by the Church’s precept. Add that even if they specify all those parts, namely from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, just as they specified I absolve you, it would still not follow that all are necessary to the sacrament. For the Council of Florence expressed the form of the sacrament of confirmation in these words: I sign you with the sign of the cross and confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It likewise declared the form of priesthood in these words: Receive the power to offer sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Yet in the disputation on the sacraments of confirmation and order we shall show that an explicit invocation of the most holy Trinity is not absolutely necessary to the form of such sacraments.

This truth is also supported by the Catechism of Saint Pius V, published by decree of the Council of Trent. In setting forth the form of the sacrament of penance, it says, n. 19: The form is, “I absolve you,” which may be inferred not only from those words, “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” but also from the very teaching of Christ our Lord which we received as handed down by the Apostles. — Nor is it an objection that both the Councils and the Catechism prefix the word I: the common opinion of the Doctors is that it does not belong to the essence of the form, since when it is omitted the sense intended by Christ and the Church is sufficiently understood in the word absolve, which is equivalent to “I absolve,” as we said similarly of the same word, which may be omitted from the form of baptism.

Moreover, the Doctor expresses an apt reason for this truth in the words cited in the second Note: the sacrament of penance is administered in the manner of a judgment. In a human judgment, however, it suffices for the act of the absolving sentence to be expressed. There is no need to state the kind of offense from which the accused is absolved or for which he is condemned; nor is it necessary to express the authority by which the judge absolves or condemns, whether ordinary or delegated, principal or secondary, or by commission. Therefore, by the same reasoning, in a sacramental judgment it will suffice to express the act of the absolving sentence; there is no need to state the offense from which the penitent is absolved or the authority by which this is done. Accordingly, it is not necessary to add to the essence of this form the words from your sins, in the name of the Father, etc. — This is confirmed: by a similar example, in the Lord’s Prayer we say, As we forgive our debtors, without adding what we forgive them; and in John 11, speaking to the Apostles about Lazarus, Christ our Lord says only, Unbind him, and let him go, nor did he think it necessary to add “from the bonds by which he is bound.” Likewise, in ordinary speech, when someone who has suffered an offense wishes to remit it, it suffices for him to say, “I pardon you” or “I forgive you,” because those words sufficiently signify the remission and pardon of the offense. In like manner, a priest speaking in God’s name, when he says, “I forgive you” or “I absolve you,” sufficiently signifies the remission of the offense or debt arising from sin. — Finally, those words suffice for the essence of the form of sacramental absolution which signify the sacrament’s principal effect. But the words I absolve you alone signify the principal effect of the sacrament of penance, namely, the remission of sins; therefore, etc. The major premise is established: it belongs to the essence of the sacraments of the New Law to effect what they signify; accordingly, those words suffice for the essence of the sacrament of penance which sufficiently declare its effect. The minor premise is supported as follows: the words of the sacraments receive their determinate signification from the circumstances that accompany them. Thus, although the words I absolve you may seem indeterminate and open to signifying absolution from any offense, whether in a civil or a sacramental court, nevertheless, when they are spoken over a penitent who has laid his sins before a priest, they are determined to signify absolution from such sins, performed by the priest as judge in the place of Christ. This is the principal effect of this sacrament.

YOU WILL SAY 1: Those words do not suffice for the essence of the sacramental form which do not determinately and explicitly express the sacrament’s effect. But the words I absolve you do not determine the effect of the sacrament of penance, since they can signify indifferently absolution from sins or from excommunication and other censures. Therefore, they must be determined by the following words, from your sins. — I DENY THE MINOR: for, as we just said, although these words in themselves may seem equally open to signifying absolution from censures and from sins, especially when a penitent is bound at once by several bonds, such as excommunication or another censure as well as the debt of guilt and punishment, nevertheless, when they are spoken over a penitent who has sacramentally confessed his sin, that is, in order to obtain absolution from the bond of the debt of guilt and punishment—and sacramental absolution properly applies only to the remission of this debt, since the effect of this sacrament is not properly release from the bond of excommunication or another censure, but only from the bond of the debt of guilt and punishment—then, precisely because the priest, after hearing the penitent’s confession, administers the sacrament of penance with the words I absolve you, he signifies perfectly and determinately that he absolves from sins as regards guilt and punishment, not from the bond of excommunication or another censure. Therefore, from the prior sacramental confession and the priest’s intention, the signification of the word absolve is sufficiently determined to absolution from the bond of guilt and punishment.

YOU WILL INSIST: If the words of the form must be determined by a prior sacramental confession, it follows that this confession is an essential part of the sacrament, since it contributes to determining the form and absolution, in which the principal power of this sacrament consists. But this is contrary to what was asserted in the preceding question, where we said that the penitent’s acts are not essential parts of this sacrament. Therefore one of our assertions is false. — I DENY THE MAJOR’S CONSEQUENT, and I distinguish its reason: “The prior confession contributes to determining the form as something intrinsic, as if it were part of the utterance by which the sacramental form is expressed”—I deny; “it contributes as something extrinsic, a circumstance, or rather matter, through which the sacramental words have sacramental signification”—I grant. For although the words of the forms of the sacraments must designate the matter determinately, it sometimes happens that the matter itself contributes to determining the words. For example, the word I baptize in the form of baptism does not of itself signify that the washing takes place in natural water, although this is required for the essence of the sacrament of baptism; it acquires this signification solely from the determination of the matter itself, which is not wine or another liquid, but only natural water. Thus, although the form determines the matter more than the matter determines the form, this does not entirely exclude the matter’s determining the form, even though the principal determination belongs to the form. The same occurs in this sacrament, in which the form, if not exclusively, at least chiefly signifies and causes the remission of sins.

YOU WILL PRESS: If the words I absolve you suffice for the form and essential signification of this sacrament, it follows that, once they have been uttered, no matter what words are omitted or added afterward, the sacrament and its effect, namely the loosing of sins, are infallibly effected. But this seems false: for if, after uttering I absolve you, the priest immediately added “from the sins of another,” the meaning would be wholly different, and consequently the sacrament would have no effect. Therefore, the essence of absolution does not consist in the words I absolve you alone; the words from your sins must necessarily be added. — I DENY THE MINOR, and to its proof I say that if the priest speaks the words I absolve you over a penitent with the proper intention of absolving him from the sins he committed, the absolution is valid, even if, after uttering those words, he changes his intention and adds, “from the sins of another.” If, however, from the beginning of the utterance he intended to say the complete sentence, “I absolve you from the sins of another,” the absolution is altogether invalid, since this is contrary to the rite and form of this sacrament.

YOU WILL SAY 2: Those words belong to the essence of this sacrament which Christ uttered when instituting it. But when instituting the sacrament of penance Christ mentioned sins; therefore, etc. The major premise is established: for this reason the Church holds the invocation of the Trinity to be necessarily and essentially required for the form of baptism: when Christ commissioned the Apostles to baptize, he said, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc. The minor premise is also established by the words of John 20, for Christ says, Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. — I DENY THE MAJOR: not all the words Christ our Lord uttered when instituting the sacraments belong to the essence of their forms. Otherwise, when a priest absolves a penitent he would have to utter those words, Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and could not use the word I absolve, but would have to say, I forgive you your sins, since Christ our Lord did not mention the word absolve, but only forgive. — As for its proof, I deny the parity. Since a profession of faith must be made in baptism, the invocation of the most holy Trinity had to be explicit and distinct, for it is certainly not understood in the word I baptize. Therefore, that explicit invocation had to be used in the very words in which Christ our Lord had expressed it. The case is different in the sacrament of penance: as we said, after a confession of sins, the word I absolve signifies those previously confessed sins sufficiently and determinately, so there is no need to mention them expressly. Christ our Lord mentioned the remission of sins when instituting this sacrament in order to show the Apostles what its matter would be; otherwise, if he had said only, “Whose you forgive,” without adding the word sins, they might have thought he had given them power to loose any bonds, just as he seemed to promise when he said, “Whatever you loose on earth.” There is no apparent reason why he expressly mentioned the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in baptism except that he wished to indicate that those words had to be used in the form of baptism. — From this it follows that the teaching of Durandus, In IV Sent., d. 22, q. 2, and with him Gerson, Alphabetum 33, as well as the Council of Cologne in its Enchiridion, on penance, is not true: namely, that all these words, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, etc., belong to the essence of the form of absolution. Nor is Gabriel’s opinion, d. 11, q. 2, to be approved: he asserts that the words I absolve you from all your sins are necessary for the form of absolution. The opinion of those who say, with Peter Soto, lecture 4 on confession, that at least the words I absolve you from your sins belong to its essence must likewise not be admitted. Finally, the teaching of those who hold with the same Soto, In IV Sent., d. 22, q. 1, a. 1, that in a case of necessity it would suffice to utter the word I absolve without identifying the person absolving must not be approved. For, as we said, since the word I absolve is indeterminate, it must necessarily be determined to sacramental signification by reference to the penitent who has confessed his sins.

It is also clear, as the second part, that this form of the sacrament of penance may be expressed in any words that signify the juridical act of priestly absolution. For, as the Doctor said in the first Note, in this sacrament it suffices for the act of the absolving sentence to be expressed; and in a public court words need not be fixed, etc. Since only an essential change that produces an altogether different meaning makes a sacrament invalid, and since the essence of the sacrament of penance requires only that it be uttered as a judicial act, it follows that whatever words the priest uses in the form of absolution to express a judicial sentence, the sacrament will be valid. Thus absolution would be valid if the priest said, I loose you from your sins, or I pardon, or I forgive you your sins. This is confirmed especially by the example of Christ, who used such words when speaking of the sacrament of penance. For in John 20 he says, Whose you forgive, they are forgiven them; and in Matthew 18, Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven; and to Peter in Matthew 10², Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Moreover, when Christ foreshadowed in Mark 2, Matthew 9, and Luke 5 what he would do in the sacrament of penance, he afterward said to the paralytic, Son, your sins are forgiven you, that is, “I forgive you your sins.” For the Pharisees and scribes said among themselves, “This man blasphemes; who can forgive sins except God alone?” When Jesus saw their thoughts, he did not rebuke them, but confirmed his action by healing the paralytic. “So that you may know,” he said, “that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” then he said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” And immediately he rose and went away to his house before them all. Priests, acting in the person of Christ, can likewise say and ministerly and instrumentally confer what Christ said and conferred by his authority as the one possessing it supremely. Nevertheless, as the Doctor observes in the place cited above, the formula prescribed by the Church must be used, in these words: I absolve you, etc.; it may not be changed without sin.

YOU WILL ASK: Whether the priest’s laying on of hands over the penitent is necessary in this sacrament?

I ANSWER that it is not absolutely necessary, both because this necessity is inferred neither from Scripture nor Tradition nor any reason. It is not inferred from Scripture, since whenever Christ our Lord mentioned this sacrament he made no mention at all of this laying on of hands, as appears from all the passages already cited. Nor from Tradition, since neither the holy Fathers nor the Councils mentioned this as necessary, except when public penitents were to be reconciled with the Church and released from further public penance; in that case the laying on of hands was indeed performed. But this absolution was not sacramental, only reconciling. This is well gathered from the First Council of Orange, ch. 3, where we read: It has been decreed that those who depart this life after receiving penance are to receive the laying on of hands without reconciliation; this suffices for the reconciliation of the dying. If he survives, let him remain in the order of penitents, so that, after fulfilling the necessary penances, he may receive legitimate communion with the reconciling laying on of hands. Likewise, at the Fourth Council of Carthage, can. 79: Penitents who have received viaticum during an illness must not consider themselves absolved by the Eucharist without the laying on of hands, if they survive. These Councils therefore hold that this laying on of hands is not absolutely necessary for the lawful and valid administration of this sacrament, since the dying can be absolved without it.

Finally, theological reasoning militates against it, since the laying on of hands is performed in the Church’s sacraments to signify the abundant effect of grace needed by those upon whom hands are laid for the duties they are to undertake. Thus in the sacrament of confirmation hands are laid on so that a person may receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit, by which he is strengthened and invigorated to confess the faith steadfastly and courageously; this certainly requires an abundance of grace. Hence in Acts 8 we read that the Apostles laid their hands on the recently baptized faithful, and they received the Holy Spirit. Similarly, in the sacrament of order, which confers a certain eminence of power for performing the divine mysteries, this laying on of hands is also performed to signify that a fullness of grace is conferred for fulfilling these duties worthily and properly. Thus Saint Paul admonished Timothy, 2 Timothy 1: I remind you to stir up the grace of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. But the sacrament of penance is ordered only to the remission of sins, not to undertaking any duties or obtaining any special excellence of grace. Therefore, the laying on of hands is not required for this sacrament. Add that the laying on of hands is performed only in sacraments by which the recipient is deputed to perform some solemn act, because the hand is above all the organ of action. Thus it is performed in two sacraments: confirmation, by which the faithful person is constituted as it were a soldier of Christ, to defend and profess his name and religion boldly before tyrants and unbelievers; and order, by which a person is set apart from the common body of the faithful, to be specially devoted to the worship of God and the ministry of religion. By receiving the other sacraments, namely the Eucharist, penance, etc., a person is not specially deputed to perform any act with courage and prudence; accordingly, this designation of an act by the laying on of hands does not seem necessary in them.

YOU WILL SAY 1: The Fathers call the sacrament of penance “the laying on of hands.” Thus Saint Clement, Apostolic Constitutions, bk. 2, ch. 41, says: “As you admit a Gentile washed by baptism after instruction, so restore this man, cleansed by penance, to the ancient pastures through the laying on of hands; for him the laying on of hands will take the place of washing.” And the Fourth Council of Carthage, ch. 76, speaking of a penitent at the point of death, says: “If he is believed to be about to die at once, let him be reconciled by the laying on of hands.” Hence Saint Leo writes, ep. 92: “Those who have partaken of food offered to idols may be cleansed by fasting and the laying on of hands.” Therefore, just as baptism is called “washing” and confirmation “chrism” because washing is absolutely necessary for baptism and anointing for confirmation, by the same reasoning the laying on of hands must be necessary for the sacrament of penance. — I DENY THE CONSEQUENT: it is called the laying on of hands only from the ceremony customarily performed in this sacrament, when the priest blesses the penitent while imparting absolution. This ceremony is entirely accidental, not essential, since it can be omitted without sin, at least without mortal sin. Add that most often, when the holy Fathers and Councils mention the laying on of hands performed when absolution is granted, they are not speaking of sacramental absolution, but of reconciliation.

YOU WILL SAY 2: In the other sacraments, besides the words, the priest performs some external act toward the recipient; therefore, one must also be performed in this sacrament. But the only such act can be the laying on of hands; therefore, etc. — I DENY THE MAJOR’S CONSEQUENT. The reason for the difference is that all the other sacraments, except the Eucharist, consist in the application of matter; hence an external act is required in them. Penance and the Eucharist are different: just as in the Eucharist the priest effects the sacrament by speaking the words over the matter alone, so the words of the priest absolving over the penitent alone effect the sacrament of absolution. Add that if some external act were required of the minister in penance, it could be the signing of the cross, by which it would be signified that the penitent receives remission of sin through the blood and merit of Christ’s Passion and cross.

Second conclusion. — SACRAMENTAL ABSOLUTION MUST NECESSARILY BE VOCAL, THAT IS, EXPRESSED BY THE VOICE.

This is inferred, first, from the decree of Eugenius, where we read of the sacrament of penance: “The form of this sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest utters: I absolve you.” And from the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 6, where we read: Although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of another’s benefit, nevertheless it is not merely the bare ministry of announcing the Gospel or declaring sins to have been remitted; rather, it is in the manner of a judicial act, in which a sentence is pronounced by him as if by a judge, etc. But these statements mean that absolution in penance must be vocal or verbal; therefore, etc.

This is confirmed by the Church’s constant practice: from the time of the Apostles until the present day she has administered this sacrament, like the others, in no other way than by words uttered with the human voice. Thus, although Christ our Lord did not explicitly say that certain words must be pronounced when penitents are absolved from sins, any more than he did when other sacraments are administered, he is nevertheless understood to have indicated this implicitly when, On Baptism, he said, Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc.; and regarding the Eucharist, when he said, Do this in remembrance of me. Hence the perpetual practice of the Fathers and the Church has always implied that these words are to be pronounced in baptism, I baptize you, and in the Eucharist, This is my body; baptism and the Eucharist have never been effected by gestures or writing. The same judgment therefore applies to penance, and with greater reason, since the form of the sacrament of penance must not only express its effect, namely, the remission of sins, but must also signify that this effect is wrought by a priest, that is, that the minister here and now effects the remission of sins by the power conferred on him by Christ our Lord.

YOU WILL SAY 1: Absolution may be granted in whatever way an accusation of sins may be made through confession. But confession can be valid even if it is not made by vocal speech, but only in writing, by a gesture, or by some external sign. Therefore, by the same reasoning, it is not essential to absolution that it be uttered in a human voice. — I DENY THE MAJOR. The reason for the difference is, first, that in the sacraments the form must be more distinct and explicit than the matter. Since absolution functions as the form, whereas confession functions as the matter, it was fitting that absolution be uttered in a human voice, so that its signification might be more distinct. Second, several causes may prevent the penitent from making a vocal confession more readily than they may prevent a priest from giving vocal absolution. It is clear that all people who are mute or do not know the language cannot express their sins in words; but a priest can utter in words what he conceives in his mind, and scarcely any causes can arise that would prevent him from uttering the form vocally.

YOU WILL INSIST: If vocal words are necessarily required for valid absolution, it must be either because it is absolution or because it is sacramental. But neither can be said. Not the first, because not every absolution expressed in writing is invalid: absolution from excommunication and censure can be granted by a kiss, gesture, or writing, at least by the supreme Pontiff, as is clear from the Clementine On the Sentence of Excommunication, final chapter. Nor the second, since otherwise no sacrament could be celebrated in any way other than by voice, which is false. For matrimony, which is a true sacrament, is validly effected by gestures, signs, and writings that testify to interior consent. Therefore, etc. — I DENY THE MINOR in both parts. As to the first, I say that there is a difference between absolution from sins and absolution from censures: just as the latter does not require a determinate form of words, so it does not require words properly speaking, because it does not operate as an instrument of Christ for producing some supernatural effect, but only as an instrument of the one absolving and reconciling a person to the Church, to which Christ granted authority to impose and remit censures. Hence it is for the Church to prescribe the manner in which excommunication and other such censures are incurred and remitted. The form of the sacraments, however, is not of this kind, since the Church cannot change it at will. As to the second, I say that matrimony is not judged in the same way as the other sacraments. Since matrimony is effected by the parties’ mutual consent, anything capable of expressing this mutual consent can also suffice for the validity of this sacrament. The case is different with the sacrament of penance, as with the other sacraments, whose form is determinate.

YOU WILL SAY 2: Whatever is essentially required for a judgment in an external court suffices for the sacrament of penance, since, as we said, Christ our Lord instituted this sacrament by analogy with a judgment in an external court. But it is not essential to a judgment in an external court that the judge pronounce a sentence aloud; therefore, neither is this required in penance. — I DENY THE MAJOR. For Christ instituted the sacrament of penance only with respect to certain essentials common to every judgment, namely, the accused person’s accusation, the examination of the crimes, and the pronouncement of a sentence; not with respect to matters that seem necessary only at the rulers’ discretion, such as whether judgments issued in writing are invalid or valid, and whether a sentence pronounced upon an absent person is valid or invalid. For Christ our Lord willed that his judgment in penance be vocal and be delivered to a person who is present: first, so that judicial authority might be expressed more clearly; second, so that the judge might know with greater certainty the present state and disposition of the person to be absolved or condemned. Therefore, let it be

Third conclusion. — ABSOLUTION RECORDED IN WRITING OR DIRECTED TO SOMEONE ABSENT WOULD BE INVALID.

This is proved from the Council of Trent, can. 31, ch. 2, where it says that Christ willed that those who after baptism have defiled themselves by some crime, instead of being washed again by baptism, should be brought before this tribunal (of penance) as accused persons, so that whenever penitents flee to him from the sins they have committed, they might be freed through the sentence of priests. But to flee to a tribunal and appear before it means nothing other than to disclose one’s sins to a priest who is present, in order to receive absolution from him. Therefore, according to the Council of Trent, it was Christ our Lord’s will that confession be made to a priest who is present and that absolution be granted to an accused person who is present.

This is proved likewise from the book On True and False Penance, ch. 10. Using the example of the lepers who were cleansed and whom Christ commanded in Luke 17 to present themselves to the priests so that they might judge them cleansed of leprosy, it concludes that penitents must present themselves before a priest-confessor and receive absolution in his presence as they lay down their sins. It says: The Lord commands those to be cleansed to show their faces to the priests, teaching that sins must be confessed in person, not disclosed through a messenger or in writing. For he said, “Show your faces,” and all of you, not one person on behalf of all; do not appoint another as a messenger to present the offering prescribed by Moses for you. Rather, you who sinned must yourselves blush, for blushing itself has a part in remission. For when a person speaks to the priest himself and overcomes his shame through fear of the one he has offended, he obtains pardon for his crime. Thus Augustine.

The Subtle Doctor teaches the same, In IV Sent., d. 17. In answering the eighth argument he says: “To the other point, it seems that confession should sometimes be made in writing, as we read of Thomas of Canterbury, who sent to the Curia for absolution. But this seems contrary to the nature of confession, because every writing by its nature is liable to become public. However secretly someone may keep a writing with him, once he sends it, it can be made public either through the messenger or through the person to whom it is sent, and by its nature it is always open to anyone who reads it, revealing what it contains. Anyone, therefore, who writes something does something contrary to the nature of a suitable sign in confession. This writing also removes the shame which is a great penalty in confession; this is so unless the penitent is present when he confesses in writing. Therefore, when it is said in 30, q. 5, Qualis debeat, that someone can confess in writing, John explains that this is when the penitent is present, because an absent person cannot do so lawfully. Therefore, let the absent person wait until he is present, intending to confess then.” By these words he plainly signifies that no confession is made in writing and, consequently, that no absolution is given to someone absent. He proves this from the nature of confession, which must not turn to the penitent’s harm and must carry shame with it. He confirms it from the gloss of John Andreae on In IV Decretals, q. 5, ch. 4, at the end, where he denies that anyone can confess or be absolved from sins in absentia. Nor is it an objection that the same chapter does not deal with penance or sacramental confession: the Doctor draws his conclusion not from the chapter’s words, but from John Andreae’s own explanation. — Moreover, that confession and therefore absolution given to someone absent is invalid is clear from the decree of Clement VIII, who condemned the former opinion by this decree in the famous controversy over the validity of absolution and confession made in writing to someone absent, defended by some theologians of the Society of Jesus, and their nullity, asserted by other theologians: On the twentieth day of June, in the year of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ 1602, in a general assembly of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, held in the Apostolic Palace on the Quirinal Hill in the presence of our most holy Lord Clement VIII, Pope by divine providence, the question was proposed whether it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letter or messenger to a confessor who is absent and to obtain absolution from him while he is absent. After hearing the opinions of the theological Fathers and maturely and carefully considering the matter with the most illustrious and most reverend lords, the Cardinals, inquisitors general against heretical depravity, our most holy Lord condemned this proposition—namely, that it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letter or messenger to an absent confessor and obtain absolution from him while absent—as at least false, rash, and scandalous, and prohibited it; he ordered that this proposition henceforth be taught neither in public nor private lectures, sermons, or assemblies, and that it never be defended, published, or in any way put into practice as probable in any case. If anyone teaches or defends it, causes it to be printed, even debates it except in order to refute it, or puts it into practice either directly or indirectly, then, besides incurring the excommunication imposed by the law itself, from which no one may absolve him except the Roman Pontiff then reigning, even another person of any dignity, including the Major Penitentiary of the Holy Roman Church, except at the point of death, he shall also be subject to other penalties to be imposed at discretion.

YOU WILL REPLY: The Pontiff did not declare that such absolution is invalid, but only unlawful, since he said that he condemned the proposition which asserts, It is lawful to confess to absent persons by letter. But the opposite appears from the words of the decree itself, which prohibits putting it into practice in any way. For if absolution or confession by letter were merely unlawful, it would follow that it was valid at least in a case of necessity, and consequently lawful, since in urgent extreme necessity all valid acts are lawful. It follows that if it were truly only unlawful, but not wholly invalid, to confess to absent persons or to absolve someone absent, no human authority, civil or papal, could prohibit it in a case of necessity, especially one of the greatest necessity. Since, therefore, the supreme Pontiff, under penalty of excommunication reserved to himself, prohibits asserting that it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letter or messenger to a confessor who is absent and to obtain absolution from him while he is absent, it is manifest that he likewise holds such confession and absolution to be invalid. — Some reply, with Suárez, III, disp. 21, sect. 4, that the supreme Pontiff did not condemn each part of the proposition separately, but only the two together as a whole: that it is indeed unlawful to absolve those who are absent, but not prohibited to confess by letter to someone absent on some occasions. — But even if this were the case, we would still have the conclusion we seek. Yet this interpretation of Suárez was wholly rejected by authority of the supreme Pontiff Paul V, as appears from the decree issued in a general Inquisition, in these words: On 14 July 1605, the case of Father Francis Suárez, Jesuit, having been proposed, and what he wrote in volume 4, on the third part of Saint Thomas, section 1, disputation 21, in interpreting the decree of Clement VIII of blessed memory, Pope, dated 10 June 1602, by which he condemned the proposition that it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letter or messenger to an absent confessor and obtain absolution from him while absent, having been considered, and what Father Suárez adduced in defense of his interpretation having also been maturely discussed, and the opinions of the most illustrious lords, the Cardinals, having been heard, His Holiness decreed that the said interpretation does not stand and must therefore be removed from his books, in accordance with the decrees formerly issued by Clement VIII of blessed memory, as recorded in the acts of the Holy Office. Moreover, in the same year, on 20 July, the same Congregation decreed: From the books of Father Francis Suárez, Jesuit, disp. 23, sect. 1, n. 12, let the words written below be removed, namely, “and from this resolution up to this point, in the absence of a confessor.” Father Suárez is to correct his book and, before publishing it, show it to this Sacred Congregation. And again, on 18 August, this decree was issued: His Holiness decreed that from volume 4

Of Father Suárez, Jesuit, on the third part of Saint Thomas, disputation 21, on confession, section 4, whose title is: Whether it is necessary for confession that the person immediately and personally disclose his sins to a priest who is present, the whole section be removed and no other section substituted in its place.

YOU WILL SAY 1: As we said above in conclusion 2, the sacrament of penance was instituted in the manner of a judgment; hence sacramental absolution is a sentence delivered in the court of conscience. But in a civil court a judge can absolve someone who is absent; therefore, in the tribunal of penance also, a priest will be able to absolve an absent penitent from sins. — I DENY THE PARITY. For although the sacrament of penance has some similarity to a civil court, it differs from it in many respects. First, in the tribunal of penance the same person is accuser, witness, and accused, because the judgment is voluntary both on the part of the accused and on the part of the judge. Second, the accused is absolved or condemned according to what he says for or against himself, since this judgment was instituted in the accused’s favor and therefore he must be believed, especially when he confesses his own injustice and crime against himself. Third, a civil judge need not be concerned with the interior state and disposition of the person he absolves. A priest, however, must have moral certainty about the present state and disposition of the person to whom he grants the benefit of absolution. He cannot know this unless the person to be absolved reveals it; but an absent person cannot do so. Since a human being is subject to continual change, however firmly he may have attested to his disposition in writing, he may have changed it by the time the priest grants absolution to him in his absence. Hence, although a civil judge can absolve an absent person, a priest cannot do so in the tribunal of penance.

YOU WILL SAY 2: The Subtle Doctor cited above reports that Saint Thomas of Canterbury, while absent, asked the Apostolic See for absolution. And Saint Cyprian, bk. 3, ep. 17, says that the lapsed, when they sought absolution by letter, could obtain it. Therefore, absolution given to someone absent can be valid. — I DENY THE CONSEQUENT. Regarding the case of Saint Thomas, reported by Baronius, vol. 12, for the year 1164, n. 6, I answer that he did not seek sacramental absolution from the Apostolic See, nor did Alexander III, the supreme Pontiff, give it to him, but only canonical absolution, because he acknowledged that he had not defended the rights of the Church against the King of England and his nobles with all the steadfastness he ought to have shown. Hence he judged himself unworthy of the priesthood, as may be gathered from the supreme Pontiff’s letter, which says: If you recall having committed something for which your own conscience ought to reproach you, whatever it may be, we advise you to confess it through penance to a priest considered discreet and prudent. When you have done this, the merciful Lord, who looks much more to the heart than to deeds, will forgive you in the compassion of his accustomed goodness; and, trusting in the merits of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we absolve you from that which has been committed and by Apostolic authority release you from the same. From this it is clear that he granted him not sacramental, but only canonical absolution, since he urges him to meet a discreet priest, confess to him, and receive sacramental absolution from him. As for Saint Cyprian, I say that the opposite is rather inferred from his words, for he says: If some have been overtaken by the danger of illness, let them not wait for my presence, but they should make an exomologesis with any priest who is present; or, if no priest is found and death is pressing, they should³ do so even before a deacon, so that, with hands laid on them as a sign of penance, they may depart in peace to the Lord. Here he indicates that a priest’s presence is required. Moreover, he is not speaking there of sacramental absolution, but only canonical absolution; otherwise he would not say that it could be imparted in the priest’s absence by a deacon. The peace of which Cyprian speaks was therefore absolution from satisfactions; deacons could grant this, since even today it is customary for archdeacons to absolve from excommunication, although they have only the order of deacon. This is not surprising, since it is clear from bk. 8 of Clement’s Apostolic Constitutions that deacons had authority to excommunicate in the priest’s absence, ch. 34: A deacon excommunicates a subdeacon, a lector, a cantor, or a deaconess, if something of this kind occurs, when the priest is absent. Therefore, in the priest’s absence they also had the power to absolve from excommunication, since it belongs to the same person to absolve as to excommunicate. Pamelius adds in his annotations on that letter of Cyprian: “Perhaps, when the bishop was absent and many priests were confined in prisons, the reconciliation of penitents was granted to deacons by some privilege in cases of necessity, just as we read that Saint Gregory at one time granted priests the administration of the sacrament of confirmation, which otherwise belongs to bishops alone.” So Pamelius.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2: There are various histories from which it appears that sacramental absolution was given by letter to persons who were absent. First, this is inferred from the history of Serapion, described by Saint Dionysius of Alexandria in his Letter to Fabian, as reported by Eusebius, bk. 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 36: “Serapion, a man of venerable age, during a persecution sacrificed to idols through weakness. Afterward he repeatedly and humbly asked to be received into the Church, but because he had sacrificed to idols no one listened to his request. He fell into a grave illness, and for the next three days lived mute and without awareness. On the fourth day, somewhat revived, he ordered his grandson to summon a priest. The priest, who happened to be ill himself and unable to come to him, gave the boy whom the sick man had sent a particle of the Eucharist and instructed him to moisten it and pour it into the old man’s mouth. He did so, and Serapion immediately breathed his last.” Dionysius adds about him: Now it is sufficiently clear that he had been preserved alive until he had been wholly loosed from the bonds of guilt; and thus, cleansed entirely of the offense with which he had been stained by sacrificing to idols, he could be numbered among the confessors on account of the many good deeds he had performed in life. One may argue from this that before falling ill the old man had not obtained sacramental absolution from idolatry: as Dionysius says, he had not been granted the petition by which he asked to be received among the penitents; nor could he have been admitted to participation in the Eucharist without first receiving absolution, lest it be given to someone unworthy. Next, it is said that he had been preserved until he was wholly loosed from the bonds of guilt. But this effect is not proper to the Eucharist, but to absolution; therefore, he was absolved by a priest before being admitted to participation in the Eucharist. It was not by a priest who was present, since illness kept him in bed; therefore, it was through a messenger. — Second, this is clear from the history of Robert, Bishop of Le Mans, who, during the time of John VIII, in the year 872, while ill, wrote to the bishops residing near the walls of Angers. He confessed his sins to them by letter and asked them to absolve him; the bishops agreed and wrote back to him. Robert’s letter is found in volume 3 of the Councils of Gaul, and contains these words: I do not cease to implore, one by one, the mercy of your goodness, that by the power granted to you from heaven you may untie the bonds of my sins and, through the earnestness of your prayers, expiate my committed offense, so that I may not be led to hell with the reprobate, but rather, through your intervention, may deserve to be raised to the joys of heaven. The bishops replied in this manner in their letter entitled Letter of absolution which those same venerable guardians sent him from the place of siege. Among other things, this letter contains: To you, confessing your sins through the ecclesiastical power of Apostolic authority, which our Lord Jesus Christ gave to his disciples and Apostles when he said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” etc., and through those same Apostles to their successors, whose office we, though unworthy, hold. And later: By his grace and power, through the virtue of the Holy Spirit, who is the remission of all sins, may he forgive you all your sins, free you from all evil, preserve you in every good work, and lead you to eternal life and the company of the holy priests. Amen. — Third, this is clear from the confession made by Hildebold, Bishop of Soissons, to Hincmar of Reims. Sirmond mentions it in his notes on the preceding letter, where he says that the title of his absolution is found in an old codex: An exhortation of Hincmar, Metropolitan, to Hildebold, Bishop, detained by bodily illness, in which, in response to the request in his letter of confession, he absolved him by his own authority through reconciling him in bodily absence. — Fourth, this is clear from a rescript of Gregory VII to the Bishop of Lincoln, found in bk. 1, ep. 31, in these words: We have thought it proper to send you absolution from your sins, as you have wandered, supported by the authority of the Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, whose office, though unworthy, we claim to hold, provided that you persevere in good works and lament your offenses as much as you wish. — Fifth, it is clear from another rescript of his to the Bishop of Lodi, whose final words are: Since you appear to be at the point of death, moved by brotherly compassion, we absolve you from your sins by the authority of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, etc. It is found in bk. 2, ep. 6. — I ANSWER that these and similar authorities and testimonies do not indicate that sacramental absolution from sins was lawfully given to persons who were absent. They indicate either only the remission of canonical penances, or the granting of indulgences, or finally some spiritual blessing by way of prayers and petitions, in which the prelates who gave absolution wished and prayed God either to grant the grace of penance to those whom they seemed to absolve, or mercifully to remit the punishment due for their sins. The reason for this answer is clear, since such absolutions are not preceded by distinct accusations of sins, but only by general and indistinct ones. A general and indistinct confession of sins does not suffice to obtain sacramental absolution except in a case of necessity. — This answer is confirmed by the fact that similar absolution was granted to people who do not seem to have made any accusation of sins, even a general and indistinct one. For Gregory VII, in bk. 8 of the Letters, writing ep. 2 to Alfonso, King of Spain, after praising him in various ways, absolved him and his nobles from sins in these words: May almighty God, Creator and Ruler of all things, ineffable disposer of every dignity, who grants salvation to kings, through the merits of the Most High Lady, the Mother of God, Mary, and of all the Saints, and by the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, absolve, through them, though we are unworthy, you and your faithful in Christ from whatever sins have been committed, and grant you victory over your enemies, etc.

NOTE 1. It was the opinion of certain ancient theologians that the form of absolution had to be wholly deprecative, so that it would be invalid if pronounced in indicative words, as may be gathered from St. Thomas, Opusc. 22, where he attacks this opinion. Alexander of Hales, however, IV, q. 21, memb. 1, and St. Bonaventure, In IV Sent., d. 18, part 1, a. 2, q. 11, seem to assert that the form of absolution is partly indicative and partly deprecative. For, says St. Bonaventure, “The Priest stands as God’s mediator to man and man’s to God. Hence through him the sinner ascends to God, and so the Priest is the sinner’s mouth, or speaks for the sinner; and through him God descends to man, and so the Priest is God’s angel,” indeed His mouth, “because he separates the precious from the vile. Insofar as he ascends, he acts as an inferior and a suppliant; insofar as he descends, as a superior and judge. In the first capacity he can obtain grace, and is suited to this; in the second, he can reconcile a person to the Church. Therefore, to signify this, a prayer is placed first in the form of absolution, in the deprecative mode, and absolution follows in the judicial mode. The prayer obtains grace, but absolution only presupposes it; for the Priest would never absolve anyone of whom he did not presume that he had been absolved by God. If, then, one asks whether the power of the keys extends to the guilt of the offense, it must be said that it can indeed extend to it by way of one who implores and commands absolution, but not at all by way of one who commands.” This is the Seraphic Doctor. There are also those who maintain that an absolution formulated in deprecative words would be valid. Thus Mayron, In IV Sent., d. 11, q. 1, and Aureolus, d. 23, assert that sacramental forms may be deprecative or indicative according to the differing custom of the Church. Dominic Soto is not far from them: In IV Sent., d. 3, single question, he teaches that absolution can validly, though not licitly, be conferred in deprecative words, and that this form is therefore valid: “He absolves you,” or “May Christ absolve you.” For, he says, the form of extreme unction is also deprecative, expressed in these words: “May the Lord forgive you,” etc. Gamachaeus too seems to share this view: in ch. 5, On Confirmation, he says that the form constituting Confirmation is not changed by these formulas: “I sign you,” “I confirm you,” or “May God sign you; confirm him, O Lord.”

NOTE 2. Although both ancient and more recent authors who advocate a deprecative form of absolution seem to rely chiefly on the authority and practice of the Eastern Church, as will be clear from the arguments below that are to be overturned, nevertheless, as Arcudius aptly observes, On the Agreement of the Western and Eastern Church, bk. 1, ch. 3, there was never any controversy between Greeks and Latins on this matter. “Accordingly,” he says, “it is not likely that the ancient form of this sacrament was ever changed out of hatred or malice toward the Greeks; indeed, Greeks in general do not even know what such terms as matter and form mean in the treatise On the Sacraments, with a few learned men excepted.” There is therefore no reason for certain modern writers to summon the Greek Euchologia, or Rituals, and practice so eagerly in support of their opinion and in defense of a deprecative form of absolution. For although such Euchologia and Rituals present a deprecative form, nevertheless, as will be clear from what is said on p. 331, the Greeks do not differ from the customary practice of the Latin Church.

NOTE 3. As for the second part of the question, namely, On conditional absolution, a condition may be distinguished as threefold: one concerning the past, the present, or the future. A past condition would be, for example, if someone said, “I absolve you from the sins confessed, if you truly committed them”; a present condition: “I absolve you, if you truly feel sorrow for your sins and have a firm purpose not to sin henceforth”; and a future condition: “I absolve you, if you do not sin again.” The difference among these conditions is that the sacraments are validly administered under a condition concerning the present or the past, since those conditions make a conditional intention absolute, according to Institutes, On Words, obligation, § 7: “Conditions referring to the present or past either immediately invalidate the obligation or make no difference at all,” as when you promise to give something if Titius was consul or if Maevius is alive. “For if matters are not so, the stipulation is worthless; but if they are so, it is immediately valid”; for things that are certain by the nature of things do not delay the obligation, “even if they are uncertain to us.” Such is the civil law, which the Church also uses unless it conflicts with the sacred canons. For, as is stated in On the Notification of New Works, “Just as laws do not disdain to imitate the sacred canons, so too the enactments of the sacred canons are supported by the constitutions of rulers.” Hence canon law too, in ch. 2, On Baptism, decrees that those whose baptism is in doubt are to be baptized with these words prefixed: “If you have been baptized, I do not baptize you; but if you have not yet been baptized, I baptize you.” Thus the only difficulty remaining is whether absolution given under a future condition is invalid until that condition is adjudicated.

First conclusion. — SACRAMENTAL ABSOLUTION EXPRESSED IN DEPRECATORY WORDS IS NOT VALID.

First, this is proved from the Councils of Florence and Trent, which decree, as was said in the preceding question, that the form of absolution is expressed in these words: “I absolve you.” The Council of Trent says in sess. XIV, ch. 3: “Although, according to the holy Church’s custom, certain prayers are laudably added, they in no way pertain to the essence of the form itself, nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament.” But if absolution formulated in deprecative words were valid, the essential words of that form would not be the foregoing “I absolve you,” and the prayers customarily added would not only be necessary for administering this sacrament but would also pertain to the essence of its form. Therefore, according to the judgment of the Councils, the form of absolution ought not to be deprecative.

It is further proved by the argument suggested by the Council of Trent in the same place, ch. 6, when it says that the Priest’s absolution is “like a judicial act, in which a sentence is pronounced by him as by a judge.” But a judge’s sentence is delivered in the indicative or imperative mood, not the optative or deprecative, as is clear in all human civil and ecclesiastical judgments. For a sentence is the act of a superior exercising authority, whereas a prayer is the act of an inferior who has no power: indeed, one who begs shows that he lacks the power to accomplish what he asks another to do for him; if he could attain it himself, he would not pray for another to do it. Therefore priestly absolution ought not to be given in deprecative words. Further, absolution ought to be given in the mode that best fits the institution and promise of the sacrament of penance. But the indicative mode fits it better than the deprecative. For Scripture, when it recounts the promise and institution of the sacrament of penance, nowhere mentions a prayer or entreaty. Christ did not say, “The sins for whose remission you pray will be remitted,” but “Whose sins you forgive,” etc. Nor did he say, “Whatever you ask to be loosed,” but “Whatever you loose,” etc. Therefore, for the institution of the sacrament of penance to be realized, the Priest must not pray but remit; otherwise he would not enact what was promised as the remission and removal of sins. The truth of our assertion will become clearer and be confirmed more forcefully by answering all the arguments certain innovators are accustomed to bring forward.

THEY OBJECT FIRST: Priests of the New Law ought to bless the faithful and reconcile to God those who have turned away from Him in the same way as the Aaronic priests blessed the Israelites and reconciled to God those who had incurred His displeasure through sin. But they did this only deprecatively. For this is how God instructed Moses in Numbers 6: “Speak to Aaron and his sons: Thus you shall bless the children of Israel, and say to them: May the Lord bless you and keep you; may the Lord show his face to you and have mercy on you; may the Lord turn his countenance toward you and give you peace. They shall invoke my name over the children of Israel, and I will bless them.” Therefore priests of the New Law will more appropriately bless the Christian people and absolve the guilty in deprecative words, such as “May God absolve you,” than in indicative words: “I absolve you.” — I DENY the major premise. For the Lord Christ had not given the Aaronic priests power to absolve from sins, nor had he said to them, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” Add that the blessing by which the Levitical priests blessed the Israelites was not sacramental, but only impetratory and ceremonial, like the blessing bishops commonly impart to the faithful when they say, “May God the almighty Father bless you,” etc., and like the blessing with which priests bless the people at the end of the sacrifice of the Mass, saying, “May the blessing of almighty God descend upon you and remain with you, in the name of the Father,” etc. It is otherwise with sacramental blessing: when Scripture mentions it, it attributes it to the Priest. Thus St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, “The cup which we bless,” etc. That is, as the gloss says, “When we priests bless it daily.” But the Priest’s absolution in the tribunal of penance is sacramental.

YOU WILL PRESS: An indicative absolution is inferred because, as just said, the Lord Christ told the Apostles, “Whose sins you forgive,” etc., by which words he granted them the power to forgive sins. But it does not follow from this that the Apostles were permitted to forgive sins in indicative words. It is proved: Christ the Lord grants the power to forgive sins in John 20 in no other way than he gives them the power to heal the sick and cast out demons in Luke 9 and Matthew 10. Yet when the Apostles healed the sick and cast out demons, they did not use indicative words, but only deprecative ones, as St. Peter said to Aeneas the paralytic: “May the Lord Jesus Christ heal you.” Therefore priests too ought not to use the indicative words “I absolve you,” but the deprecative words “May the Lord Christ absolve you.”

I DENY the minor premise. In proof of it, I say first that it is certain the Apostles, in healing the sick and raising the dead, used not only optative and deprecative words but also indicative and imperative ones, as appears from the cited chapter of Acts. For there it does not say, “May the Lord heal you,” but “He heals you”; and he immediately adds, “Rise and make your bed.” Likewise, when raising Tabitha there, he said, “Tabitha, arise.” Likewise, in Acts 3, the same Peter had said to the lame man, “What I have, I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk.” Add that I could reply that the power to absolve from sins given to the Apostles was different from, and handed down differently than, the power they had to heal the sick. The latter power did not arise from a virtue and character residing in them, as did the power of absolution, which is grounded in priestly character and ministerial power: by this power, Priests apply the sacrament as a sacred sign, upon whose enactment sanctifying grace, which expunges and remits sin, is necessarily and infallibly conferred.

THEY OBJECT 2. The holy Fathers, whenever they speak of the form of absolution, call it a prayer and the Priest’s supplications, and teach that Priests remit sins only by prayer. Thus St. Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, bk. 1, ch. 7, calls the Priest’s absolution a supplication; and in ch. 6, treating the ordination of a bishop, he says, “It is effected by the holiest invocations, or prayers.” Likewise St. Pacian, in his exhortation On Penance, says, “He who does not take away the sins of his brothers, aided by the Church’s tears, is absolved by Christ’s prayers.” He calls the Church’s prayers Christ’s prayers. For, as he says in the same place, “In both there is the Church, and in the Church there is Christ.” St. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, bk. 3, ch. 19: “We see whether the Spirit forgives sins. But there can be no doubt of this, since the Lord himself said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven.’ Behold, sins are forgiven through the Holy Spirit; human beings, however, offer their ministry for the forgiveness of sins; they do not exercise the right of divine power. For they forgive sins not in their own name, but in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. These men serve; the Godhead grants: the service is human, but the power is manifestly from above.” Augustine, On Christian Combat, ch. 16: “What is the laying on of hands except a prayer over a person?” And from Fifty Homilies, hom. 19: “If you have slept with any woman besides your wives, do penance, so that the Church may pray for you. Let no one say to himself, ‘I do it in secret; I do it before God.’ Then it was said for no reason, ‘Whatever you loose on earth,’ etc.” St. Jerome, on “The voice of the Lord divides the flame” in Psalm 28, says: “Every day in each of us he extinguishes the flame of lust through confession and the grace of the Holy Spirit,” that is, he makes it cease through the Priests’ prayers. St. Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, after saying that Priests contribute to the salvation of souls, adds: “They do this not only by teaching or advising, but also by helping through prayers; and they have the power to forgive sins not only when they regenerate us, but thereafter as well.” St. Leo, ep. 91: “Since God’s pardon cannot be obtained except through the Priests’ supplications … if any of those for whom we have supplicated the Lord should die before receiving the present gift of pardon … it is necessary that the debt of sins be loosed by priestly supplication.” But the words “pray,” “ask,” and “supplicate” signify that the form of penance is deprecative. — I answer, The holy Fathers called the form of absolution a prayer, first, says Arcudius, because of the prayers that follow and accompany it, which are uttered before and after the form itself, much as everything said in the divine Office is called a “prayer,” although it includes histories and the lives of the Saints, which are not formally prayers but rather narratives. Second, absolution is called a prayer because it implicitly and virtually contains a prayer: by Christ’s institution, the Priest efficaciously asks in Christ the Lord’s own name for the remission of sins. For the Priest who confers the sacrament hopes to be heard by God, and the divine Majesty is immediately present, working the remission of sins through the words of His minister. For this reason the forms of all the sacraments are commonly called prayers and supplications by the holy Fathers. Thus St. Augustine, On Baptism, bk. 3, ch. 18: “God hears the murderer supplicating over the water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the Eucharist, or over the head of those upon whom hands are laid.” Third, speech from an inferior to a superior is a kind of prayer: it ought to be made with humility, reverence, and lowliness of spirit, which accompany prayers and supplications. Add to this that the holy Fathers often speak of the ceremonial absolution customarily granted publicly to penitents after they had completed their works of penance. This was granted by Priests to those who had completed penitential works, in view of the supplications and prayers of the whole Church, especially of the Priests, as well as the Martyrs and those who had steadfastly professed the faith and name of Christ before unbelievers and endured various torments for that confession. Of these prayers St. Ambrose says, On Penance, bk. 2, ch. 10: “Mother Church bends down for you and washes away your guilt with tears. May Christ see you mourning; may he love you, so that many may pray for one. Moved by a widow’s tears, because many were weeping for him, he raised her daughter.” Likewise St. Pacian says that Christ’s “prayers are the faithful’s intercessions.” Hence Tertullian, On Penance, ch. 10: “When you cast yourself at the knees of the brothers, you touch Christ. You entreat Christ when they shed tears over you; Christ suffers, Christ entreats the Father.”

THEY OBJECT 3. If Priests in St. Augustine’s time had used this form, “I absolve you,” he would not have reproved heretics for this way of speaking: “I remit your sins,” since to absolve from sins is to remit them. But in Fifty Homilies, hom. 23, ch. 8, while considering the conversion of the Magdalene and the words, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?”, after saying that Christ forgives sins not insofar as he is man but insofar as he is God, he immediately reproves those who said, “I forgive your sins.” “The good physician,” he says, “healed not only the sick who were present, but also foresaw those who would come later. For there would be men who would say, ‘I forgive sins, I justify, I sanctify, I heal whomever I baptize.’” And near the end of the chapter: “Does a man dare to claim this for himself? What of the heretic? ‘I forgive, I cleanse, I sanctify.’” He surely would not have said this if the indicative form “I absolve you” had then been in use in the Church. — I answer, St. Augustine does not reprove those who say, “I remit sins,” in the name and authority of Christ as his vicars. For in the following chapter he admits that the Apostles received from Christ the power to remit sins. Rather, he reproves them for attributing this power to sanctify and remit sins to their own holiness and merits, imagining themselves most holy because they were not contaminated by association with the wicked and could justify others through their own fellowship. Hence he applies to them Isaiah 32: “Depart from me, for I am clean.” As St. Augustine continues: “When, at our conference, one who had been confessed before the Examiner was presented to them so that they might sit with us, they answered, ‘It is written that we are not to sit with such men,’” Psalm 25: “I have not sat with the council of vanity,” lest by touching the benches our contagion should reach them. Thus St. Augustine presses them: “Why did they enter the Church with us, when it is written next, ‘I will not enter in with those who do iniquity’? … Thus the Jews seemed to understand better than the heretics. For the Jews said, ‘Who is this who forgives sins? Does a man dare to claim this for himself?’ What of the heretic? ‘I forgive, I cleanse, I sanctify,’ etc.” Therefore, although those heretics—namely, the Montanists and the Donatists who sprang from them—regarded themselves as cathari, that is, pure, and others as impure, and thus arrogated to themselves the power to sanctify others by their fellowship and merits, adducing as the foundation of their error Matthew 18, “Whatever you loose,” etc., St. Augustine does not deny that Christ gave this power to the Apostles. He says that God is the principal cause, while human beings are only ministers. “Do you not know,” he says in ch. 9, “why this was said, and how it was said? The Lord was going to give human beings the Holy Spirit, and he did not want it understood that sins were forgiven by human merits, but that they are forgiven by the Holy Spirit himself in his faithful. For what is a human being but a sick person in need of healing? Do you wish to be a physician to me? Seek the Physician with me. To make clear that sins are forgiven by the Holy Spirit, whom he gave to his faithful, and not by human merits, the Lord, rising from the dead, said in one place, namely John 20, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’; and immediately added, ‘If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven him,’ that is, the Spirit of the Lord forgives, not you. But God is Spirit; therefore God forgives, not you. Yet hear what the Spirit says: ‘Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?’” Hence he concludes: “God, then, dwells in his temple, that is, in his holy faithful ones; in his Church he forgives sins through them, because they are living temples. But he who forgives through a human being can forgive even without a human being; for he is no less able to give through himself who is able to give through another.” St. Augustine, therefore, does not deny the words of the form of absolution; he condemns the pride of those who attributed the remission of sins to their own merits.

THEY OBJECT 4. St. Cyprian, On the Lapsed, says: “Let no one deceive himself, let no one mislead himself: the Lord alone can show mercy; only he can grant pardon for the sins committed against him, he who suffered for us, whom God handed over for our sins. A human being cannot be greater than God; nor can a servant by his own indulgence remit or forgive what has been committed against the Master in a more serious offense.” Therefore St. Cyprian judges that the Priest cannot absolve from sins by a judicial act, but that this must be attributed to God alone. — I deny the inference: For this was not St. Cyprian’s meaning; rather, he is reproving those who, before people had been properly disposed by due satisfaction and the labors of salutary penance, bestowed the benefit of absolution on those who had denied Christ and fallen from the faith. Hence he had said earlier: “God’s priest ought not to deceive by flattering favors, but to provide salutary remedies. He is an unskilled physician who handles with a gentle hand the swollen cavities of wounds, and by preserving the infection enclosed in the deep recesses of the viscera makes it worse. The wound must be opened, probed, and, after the rotten tissue is cut away, treated with a stronger remedy. Let the patient cry out and shout and complain in his impatience from pain; afterward he will give thanks when he has felt the healing.” He immediately adds the reason for this discourse: “For, dearly beloved brothers, a new kind of calamity has arisen. As though the storm of persecution had raged too little, another evil has been added to the heap, deceptive under the guise of mercy and seductively destructive. Against the vigor of the Gospel and the law of the Lord and God, through the rashness of certain people, careless persons are granted a false and empty communion, a dangerous peace that bites and profits no one who receives it. They do not seek the patience of healing or the true medicine of satisfaction; penance has been driven from their hearts, and the memory of the gravest and final offense has been removed. The wounds of the dying are covered over, and the lethal wound lodged in the deepest recesses of the viscera is touched while its pain is concealed. Those returning from the altars of the devil approach the holy Lord with hands soiled and polluted by their stench; still almost belching up the deadly food of idols, with their throats yet breathing out their crime and reeking of fatal contagion, they assail the Lord’s body.” By these words St. Cyprian means that he attacks only those Priests who did not seek to grant a pardon beyond their authority, but who bestowed it on the lapsed, not yet duly disposed, through cruel mercy and excessive ease and indulgence. Add that St. Cyprian is not speaking there of absolution from sins, but only from excommunication and the other censures of the Church with which those who had fallen into idolatry were bound until, after completing sufficient penance for their offense, they were released from them. Hence he adds: “Before their offenses have been expiated, before the confession of the crime has been made, before the conscience has been cleansed by the sacrifice and hand of the Priest, before the offended and threatening Lord has been appeased, they suppose they have peace—the peace some falsely claim with deceptive words. That is not peace but war; nor is one joined to the Church who is separated from the Gospel. Why call an injury a benefit? Why name impiety with the word piety? Why do those who ought continually to weep and beseech their Lord pretend to share communion with others, interrupting their lamentation of penance? … That easy indulgence does not grant peace but takes it away; it does not bestow communion but hinders salvation.”

THEY OBJECT 5. It is not likely that the Eastern Church, especially among the Greeks, never had a legitimate and valid form of absolution. But they absolve only in deprecative words. Therefore this form is neither illicit nor invalid. — I DENY the minor premise. The contrary appears from the Greek Euchologion. It does indeed first give these words of prayer: “May our Lord Jesus Christ and God, who gave his disciples the command to bind and loose sins, pass over all your sins.” But these words follow the prayer: “But I, his unworthy servant, absolve you from your sins.” Likewise: “May the just Lord, who assumed flesh for us and takes away the sin of the whole world, blot out your offenses; but I pardon you all your sins.” Arcudius himself, a highly skilled authority on the rite of the Greek Church, being Greek by birth and exceptionally learned in ecclesiastical matters, shows explicitly in bk. 1, On the Form of Penance, that although less learned Greeks sometimes use a deprecative form, the more learned absolve only imperatively or indicatively. For among the various forms of absolution he cites, none—apart from the prayers added—fails to display the authority of a judicial sentence. Priests commonly say to the penitent, “I have granted you pardon,” or “I have absolved you,” or something similar, which, he says, in Greek idiom is equivalent to “I grant pardon, I forgive, I pardon, I remit, or I forgive you your sins.” Prelates, out of respect for their honor and dignity, or out of humility, say, “My mediocrity,” or “my humility,” has you absolved. To show this, Arcudius cites a decree of Pachomius, Patriarch of Constantinople, issued against a certain Arsenius, a Catholic man allied with the Latins, which contains the excommunication of Arsenius in these words: “Our mediocrity has excommunicated you, or separated you from the undivided Trinity in this life and the next.” It also records the deposition of Arsenius, Bishop of Monembasia, in these words: “I have deposed you,” or “My mediocrity has deposed and stripped you of all priesthood,” that is, deposes and strips you.

But because Arsenius had excommunicated certain opponents of the Latin Catholics, Pachomius absolved them from excommunication, saying, “We hold all the orthodox absolved and blessed,” that is, we absolve and bless them. The same is also said in Latin of someone excusing himself: “I have you excused,” that is, I excuse you.

Arcudius also reports a certain absolution by Michael, Patriarch of Antioch, over a penitent, formulated as follows: “By the grace, gift, and power of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ to the Apostles for binding and loosing the sins of human beings, when he said, ‘Receive,’ etc., ‘Whatever you bind,’ etc., and transmitted in uninterrupted succession to us, my mediocrity has granted pardon to his spiritual son Theodosius for whatever he, as a human being, has committed in sin against God by word, deed, thought, or any of his senses; even if he was liable to excommunication or a curse from a bishop, Priest, father, or mother, or cursed himself, or violated an oath, or was implicated in any other errors. He has confessed these things to spiritual fathers and diligently performed the penance imposed by them. By the almighty power and grace of the holy and adorable Spirit, we loose him from the guilt, bond, and chain of all these things, and hold him free and pardoned.”

Arcudius attests that he saw this form of absolution granted at Lviv—which is the metropolis of Russia—to a certain Archdeacon Peter by Joachim, Patriarch of Antioch, who had traveled through those regions. Hence it is clear that the indicative and absolute form of absolution, expressed as “We loose,” etc., had previously been used by the Antiochene prelates. He also says that Hypatius, Metropolitan of Kyiv, showed him a manuscript book in the Russian language which, at the end of a deprecative formula of absolution, contained this form: “I, your spiritual father, by the power granted me by God and my superiors, absolve you from all your sins.” Gabriel of Philadelphia, in his little book On the Sacraments, gives this form of penance: “By the grace of the most holy Spirit, through my humility, you have been pardoned and absolved.” Therefore, in the form of this sacrament, the Greeks do not differ from the Latin Church’s practice of using an indicative form.

YOU WILL INSIST: Those past participles, absolved, pardoned, and the like, do not indicate something being done in the present, but something done earlier. Therefore the Greek form, expressed by such participles, is not indicative and does not mean the same as I absolve or I pardon. Arcudius denies the premise. For, he says, among Greek ecclesiastical authors these participles are used to signify a present action. In the first part, act 1, of the Council of Ephesus, the sentence deposing Nestorius is reported, by which he is actually removed from office, expressed in these words: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, blasphemed by him, has decreed through this present holy Synod that the same Nestorius be excluded from episcopal dignity and every priestly assembly.” And at the Council of Chalcedon, act 1, St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, together with the Synod, deposes the heresiarch Eutyches in this way: “We have decreed through our Lord Jesus Christ, blasphemed by him, that he be excluded from every priestly office, from our communion, and from the office of presiding over the monastery.” Therefore those participles “pardoned” and “absolved” mean the same as I absolve or I pardon.

YOU WILL INSIST: The indicative form “I have you absolved” or “I pardon you” is not in the Greek Euchologion, as Arcudius himself admits; in its place is this deprecative form: “Lord Jesus Christ, who gave us the power, absolve this man from his sins.” Therefore the Greeks use not an indicative but a deprecative form. — I deny the inference: For, as Arcudius himself observes, most Greeks use that form through ignorance, since they do not know that the whole force of absolution is contained in those few words, “I have pardoned you.” Hence the more learned among them use this indicative form, which is also found in the Euchologion supplied by Leo Allatius, the most learned among the more recent Greeks. For in it Germanus, Bishop of Amatunta, speaks as follows: “Our humility, through the grace and power of the most holy Spirit, given by our Savior Jesus Christ to his disciples for binding and loosing the sins of human beings when he said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ etc.,—from them that divine grace passed to us in uninterrupted succession—has pardoned his daughter for all the ways in which she sinned as a human being by word, deed, thought, and all her senses.”

YOU WILL INSIST AGAIN: Not only the less learned but also the more learned Greeks, ancient and modern, use a deprecative form. Therefore there is no answer. The premise is proved first from the Dialogue of Symeon of Thessalonica, where the penitent is said to confess not to the Priest but to God; and consequently he thinks the Priest only entreats God to absolve. Moreover, in a manuscript Penitential in the Barberini Library, copied nearly a hundred years ago from an ancient codex by a certain Greek deacon named Basiliscus, the Priest addresses penitents during absolution as follows: “May God pardon you through me, a sinner, both in this age and in the next.” Third, Nicholas Cabasilas, Bishop of Thessalonica, says in bk. 1, Exposition of the Divine Liturgy, ch. 29: “The remission of sins is given to penitents through the Priests’ prayers.” Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, says the same in his first response to the Lutherans: “The Priests’ prayers turn one toward God and obtain pardon.” Therefore, etc. — I deny the premise: In reply to the first proof, I say that Symeon rightly said that the sinner confesses not to the Priest but to God, because the Priest sitting at the tribunal acts in God’s place. Thus, just as he hears confession in God’s name, so he absolves. To the second, I say that the opposite is rather inferred from it: “May God pardon you through me” means the same as “I pardon you in God’s name.” To Cabasilas I reply that he falls into various errors refuted by Bessarion, especially in saying that the Eucharist is effected by the Priests’ prayer, as though the prayers customarily said in the Canon of the Mass, rather than these words, “This is my Body,” etc., effected the presence of Christ’s body. To Jeremiah I say that he means only that the Priests’ prayers are necessary both for Priests and for the other faithful who approach the Lord’s table. He does not deny that absolution is given by the Priest’s authority; indeed, he himself writes in ch. 12, “We grant remission of sins with an imposed penalty,” etc.

THEY OBJECT 6. The form for absolving or reconciling penitents to God in the sacrament of penance ought to be the form found in the Latin Church’s older Penitentials, Sacramentaries, and Rituals. But in those books, before the year of Christ 1200, the prescribed formula of absolution is not indicative but only deprecative. Therefore it must still be so considered. The major premise is established: since these books are practical, they describe each rite and each action and ceremony customarily observed in administering the sacraments. The forms of the sacraments ought to hold a principal place among such rites, so that Priests may not fail to confer the sacraments through carelessness or ignorance by uttering an empty and invalid form. The minor premise is proved first from the Roman Order, which no one can deny is very ancient, since Amalarius and Alcuin, Charlemagne’s teacher, cite it. It reports the form of absolution customarily granted to penitents on the Wednesday of the Lord’s Supper. The Archdeacon leads the penitent from the private place where he did penance into the church’s atrium, presents him to the Bishop at its doors, and addresses the Pontiff as follows: “Restore in him, Apostolic Pontiff, whatever was corrupted at the devil’s prompting, and, through the merits that support your prayers, make the man close to God by the grace of divine reconciliation.” In these words, the Archdeacon, asking for the penitent’s absolution, requests not a judge’s sentence but the Pontiff’s prayer.

It is therefore a sign that at that time the formula of absolution was only deprecative. This is confirmed by what follows. After the Bishop has recited many prayers and supplications over the penitent, he concludes the absolution with this prayer: “Be present, O Lord, to our supplications, and mercifully hear me, who am also the first to need your mercy; and grant confidence in carrying out your office to one whom you appointed minister of this work not by merit of choice but by the gift of your grace; and may you yourself work through our ministry what belongs to your goodness.” The same Order adds many other similar prayers for the absolution and reconciliation of one penitent or several. Nearly the same formula of absolution is given by the book of Sacraments of St. Gregory, Alcuin in On the Divine Offices, ch. On the Lord’s Supper, and Burchard in Decrees, bk. 19. Many Pontificals, Rituals, Sacramentaries, and handwritten Penitentials of various cathedral churches likewise contain no other form of absolution over a public or private penitent than a deprecative one—that is, prayers and supplications by which Priests implore God to pardon the sins committed by the penitent. — I ANSWER 1. The major premise can be denied. For the principal purpose of sacramental books is to describe the prayers and prefaces of Mass and similar things that vary in the celebration of the awe-inspiring mysteries, so that Priests may have a way to celebrate properly each day throughout the year; their purpose is not to record the forms of the sacraments except incidentally. As for Rituals and Penitentials, I say that the forms of the sacraments were not set out accurately in them, lest such books, if they fell into the hands of unbelievers, expose the sacraments to ridicule. Hence Innocent I, Epistle 1, ch. 3, describes more openly the rite and manner of conferring Confirmation: he specifies the matter, but not the form. For he writes: “It belongs only to bishops to sign the forehead with oil when they confer the Spirit, the Paraclete; I cannot state the words, lest I seem to betray them rather than answer the inquiry.” Therefore it was customary for bishops and Priests to transmit the forms of such sacraments orally or in particular and more secret writings; consequently nothing at all can be inferred from such books against our assertion.

I answer second, denying the minor premise: For it appears from the words of the foregoing prayer taken from the Roman Order that the Bishop does not administer the sacrament of penance through it, but only asks God for confidence to carry out properly the divine ministry entrusted to him, namely, with the authority he possesses over penitents. Hence, in the same Order, after various prayers have been recited, these forms of absolution are given. The first is for absolving several people: “We too, according to the authority granted by God to us, unworthy though we are, absolve you from every bond of your offenses, so that you may deserve to have eternal life through him who lives,” etc. The form of absolution for one person is this: “Brother N., may the Lord Jesus, who said to the Apostles, ‘Whatever you bind,’ etc., himself absolve you through our ministry from all your sins, whatever you have negligently committed in thought, speech, or deed.” By these words the Priest means the same as if he said, “I absolve you as Christ’s minister,” etc. As for the book of Sacraments of St. Gregory and certain Rituals and Penitentials, it is no wonder that only prayers to be said over the penitent are written in them: as was just said, the indicative form was well known to Priests, since they had received it by memory, so that it would not be disclosed to outsiders. Yet many handwritten Pontificals and Penitentials contain indicative absolution with prayers added. For in the Gregorian Sacramentary, a manuscript kept in the Victorine Library in Paris, we read this formula: “We absolve you in the place of blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, to whom the Lord gave the power to bind and loose; so that, insofar as accusation pertains to you and remission to us, the almighty Lord may be the salvation of your life and the forgiver of all your sins.” Likewise, an ancient manuscript of the church of St. Remigius at Reims, mentioned by Menard, is said to contain this among various episcopal blessings: “By the authority of blessed Peter, to whom were given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose souls—although we are far from being his equals in merit, we have become like him in the power granted by God—I absolve you by divine authority from the bonds of your sins.” At the end of the very ancient Sacramentary of the church of Tours, written in an old hand six hundred years ago, this indicative absolution is found: “We absolve you, brothers, from all your crimes.” In the library of the church of Rouen there is a Pontifical more than 450 years old, containing this formula of absolution: “May God himself absolve you, and, insofar as our frailty permits, may you be absolved before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ.” From these sources it appears that the indicative form was not recently introduced into the Church, since the formula corresponds to the one now in use.

YOU WILL PRESS: That anonymous author whom St. Thomas attacks in Opusc. 22 said that the indicative form had begun only thirty years earlier. St. Thomas certainly did not deny this, nor did he show that the indicative form was much older. Moreover, the Master of the Sentences, who collected the opinions of the ancient Fathers and theologians concerning the doctrine of the sacraments, does not mention an indicative form of absolution or name anyone who used one. Finally, William of Paris says: “The confessor does not speak in the manner of civil judges, ‘We absolve you’; rather, he says a prayer over him, so that God may grant absolution, remission, and sanctifying grace.” Therefore at that time an indicative form of absolution was not in use. — I deny the inference: To the first point, I deny the premise. For St. Thomas, reproving that man for rashness, says, “How can one bear witness about everything when one has not seen everything?” But it is certain, adds the holy Doctor, “that it is now 1,200 years and more since it was said to Peter, ‘Whatever you loose.’” He rightly reproves him, since the ancient codices cited make it clear that indicative forms of absolution were in use long before that time, and that the deprecative form of absolution had not been common among everyone in earlier times before the thirty years in question. To the second point, St. Thomas replies in ch. 2: “The Master did not state the form, nor is anyone among the Saints recorded as having used another form; nor is it recorded that anyone denied this form. But it is recorded that the Institutor of the sacrament said, ‘Whatever you loose,’ etc., which outweighs every authority.” To the third point: when that anonymous author objected that famous and ancient men—Master William, Bishop of Paris, William of Auxerre, and Cardinal Hugh—held the deprecative form, the cited work replies, first, that it is not established that they thought so; second, even if they did, their opinion could not outweigh the common judgment of the Masters teaching in Paris, who think otherwise and determine that without the words “I absolve you,” absolution is not effected by a merely deprecative prayer. And it rightly says that their holding this is not established. For William of Paris means only that the Priest does not absolve by his own power but by divine power. There he asks, when in certain cases a penitent cannot confess to only one Priest and is compelled to make or divide his confession between two Priests, which of them infuses sanctifying grace. He says that both contribute to infusing that grace, because the confessor does not absolve the penitent in the manner of civil judges, but rather says a prayer over him so that God may grant absolution and sanctifying grace—as if to say that God produces the grace, which the Priest therefore asks for in prayer. Nevertheless, he attributes to the Priest the office of sanctifying through absolution and blessing: by this office the bonds of sins are broken, stains are sprinkled away from penitents’ hearts, and graces are infused, but through invocation of the divine name, as he says in ch. 21. That he did not deny that Priests have the power to remit sins by a judicial authority delegated to them, he himself teaches in ch. 4, where he says: “The keys of the Church were therefore given to Priests so that there might be those,” he says, “who would open to those who knock and bring in those who wish to enter; and, as officers of mercy itself, receive with every welcome and applause the guilty fleeing to it, absolve their sins, restore them to all the goods of grace and glory after they have been stripped by inner robbers, and heal those who are spiritually wounded and sick with heavenly medicine and the remedies of the sacraments by divine power.”

THEY OBJECT FINALLY: When the penitent himself asks the Priest for absolution in the general confession, which he partly recites before his detailed accusation of sins, he only asks the Priest to pray for him to the Lord our God. Therefore the Church’s intention is that the Priest cannot absolve in indicative words, but only in deprecative ones. — I deny the inference: First, that general confession is not a sacramental part, but only the penitent’s preparation for making an accusation and receiving absolution. A sign of this is that in this general confession the penitent directs his prayers not only to the Priest, but also asks the Blessed Virgin, blessed Michael, Peter and Paul, and all the Saints to pray for him to the Lord God. But it is certain that neither the Blessed Virgin nor the other Saints can help him by applying the sacrament, but only by way of intercession. Therefore he does not direct his prayer to the Priest either with the aim of receiving the sacrament of penance from him through deprecative absolution. This is confirmed especially by the fact that the Priest himself publicly recites a similar supplication at the beginning of Mass and asks those present to pray for him, just as those present likewise ask the Priest in turn. Yet the Priest does not ask those present for sacramental absolution, nor do they in turn ask it of the Priest. Consequently, the prayer that the penitent generally recites in confessing is only an intercession by which he entreats the Priest to obtain from God the helps of grace by which he may be properly disposed for sacramental absolution. The Priest does this as well when he immediately adds, “May he have mercy on you,” etc., and “Pardon and absolution,” etc.

Second conclusion. — ABSOLUTION GIVEN UNDER A CONDITION CONCERNING THE PRESENT OR THE PAST COULD BE VALID; BUT UNDER A CONDITION CONCERNING THE FUTURE IT WOULD BE INVALID.

The first part is established. For, as we said when treating baptism, baptism is legitimately conferred under a condition concerning the past or present, for example, in this form: “If you have not been baptized, I baptize you.” Why, then, could a Priest who doubts whether he pronounced the form of absolution correctly not repeat it under this condition: “If you have not been absolved, I absolve you”? Likewise, if he has reasonable cause to doubt the penitent’s proper disposition, he may add this condition: “If you are rightly disposed, I absolve you.” The reason is that such conditions do not suspend the present effect of sacramental absolution; they become absolute propositions when the present condition is in fact met. Yet this formula of absolution should scarcely be used, since it would indicate that the Priest was conferring absolution in doubt, whereas absolution ought not to be doubtful. Although the Priest ought to take the greatest care to ascertain the penitent’s disposition—namely, sorrow and purpose—after he has carefully examined the matter, he should trust the penitent and accordingly grant absolution, and should not regard as doubtful a matter that in fact ought not to be considered doubtful.

The second part is the more common opinion among theologians, who offer various arguments to confirm it. But no better and more effective argument occurs than the will of Christ the Lord, who did not wish the sacramental judgment and remission of sins effected through sacramental absolution to be suspended into the future at the minister’s discretion when legitimate and sufficient matter is present. This will is clear from the Church’s common understanding: it did not wish to admit sacramental absolution under a condition that suspends its validity, as is clear from continuous practice and all the Rituals, in which this kind of conditional formula of absolution concerning the future is nowhere found.

Hence the difference between Matrimony and the other sacraments is that the marriage contract admits future conditions. For example, a person may marry through a proxy to whom he delegates his role, and the proxy may take a certain spouse on his behalf if the delegating person later consents, as commonly happens in other contracts. In that case the contract is not complete but only begun until the condition is fulfilled. The reason is that Christ did not change the nature of the contract in Matrimony, but only raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. But the baptismal washing with water, for example, is perfect and complete whether or not a future condition is added. Likewise, the pronouncing of the form “I baptize you,” being an external action, once it has been performed cannot be made not to have been performed, even if the condition fails. The same must be said of the matter and form of the sacrament of penance: once they have been enacted, the effect—namely, remission of sins—is necessarily enacted; otherwise, it would not be a certain and efficacious sign of that remission.

This is not prevented by the fact that civil laws admit a public judgment conditionally, so that its execution is suspended, and also particular conditional remissions of debts; nor by the fact that canon laws admit absolution from censures under a future condition. For the case of sacramental judgment is not the same. Christ the Lord willed the sacrament of penance to subsist and be effected through words signifying the actual remission of sins, as is gathered from the Church’s use and practice, as we have already said.

YOU WILL SAY: By the words “I absolve you,” the Priest absolves not only from guilt but also from temporal punishment, at least in part, in proportion to the satisfaction he imposes. Yet he does not absolve from that part of the punishment unconditionally, but only subject to the satisfaction to be fulfilled later, in the future; consequently, he suspends the effect of absolution with respect to that part. Therefore, by the same reasoning, he can suspend it with respect to the remission of guilt. — I ANSWER, the partial effect of absolution is indeed suspended until such satisfaction is performed, because the remission of punishment is not the primary effect of that absolution, but something secondary. It is therefore no wonder if this effect can be suspended until the satisfaction is fulfilled. It is otherwise with the remission of guilt, since, being the primary effect, it cannot be suspended without making the sacrament null.

NOTE 1. It is certain, and sufficiently established by what has been said several times already, that in the justification of a sinful man sin is truly wiped away with respect to the debt of guilt, and is not merely covered or not imputed. For, besides the fact that Sacred Scripture constantly asserts that sins are remitted, erased, taken away, and that a person is cleansed from them and made whiter than snow—whence those whose sin is remitted are called sons and friends of God, holy and immaculate—none of these things can truly and properly be said if the stain of sin remains, a stain that cannot be hidden from the eyes of God, who knows all things; and consequently, on its account, the man would necessarily be hated by God. For Wisdom 14 says: The impious man and his impiety are hateful to God. Hence the Council of Trent, sess. V, in the decree On Original Sin, can. 5, defines: If anyone denies that the guilt of original sin is remitted through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, or even asserts that not everything that has the true and proper character of sin is taken away, but says that it is merely scraped off or not imputed, let him be anathema. It could have said in like manner: If anyone denies that the guilt of actual sin is remitted through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in the sacrament of penance, or even asserts that not everything that has the true and proper character of sin is taken away, but says that it is merely scraped off or not imputed, let him be anathema. It is therefore certain that through the sacrament of penance sin is truly remitted with respect to the debt of guilt. How this happens, however, is disputed among theologians.

NOTE 2. There have been various opinions, especially among earlier theologians, concerning the power of absolution. First, some, with Hugh of St. Victor, bk. I, On the Sacraments, pt. 14, ch. 8, and likewise Richard of St. Victor, pt. I, On the Power of Binding and Loosing, ch. 12, taught that the priest absolves from the eternal punishment due for sin after God alone has remitted the debt of guilt, before the priest’s absolution. Second, some, with John of Medina, treatise 2, On Penance, q. 38, said that by contrition people are absolved from guilt and eternal punishment, but not from exile from the heavenly homeland; and because the priest opens that homeland by absolving, he is said to hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Third, some taught—especially the Nominalists, with Ockham as reported by Gabriel, d. 18, q. 1—that people are absolved from guilt and punishment by the priest’s absolution not actually received but held in desire. Hence, when absolution is subsequently granted, the person is released from the obligation to confess and to submit the remitted sins to the keys of the Church. Fourth, Alexander of Hales and the Seraphic Doctor seem to teach that the priest’s power has no force concerning the remission of guilt or eternal punishment, but only concerning the remission of temporal punishment; the latter is sometimes called absolution from sin, in keeping with 2 Maccabees, ch. 12: It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins, that is, from the punishment due for sins. Fifth and finally, some, with the Master of the Sentences in In IV Sent., d. 18, taught that when the priest says, I absolve you, he only signifies that he declares the person absolved from sins by prior contrition. We shall have to contend against all these opinions in the First Conclusion.

NOTE 3. According to the Subtle Doctor, d. 19, n. 4, the authority to absolve from sins—which Christ expressed by the name key of the kingdom of heaven—is threefold: “The judicial authority,” he says, “to pronounce a sentence that heaven is to be opened to someone, or that it is open, can be understood in three ways: first, as authority that is simply principal; second, as authority that is not principal but pre-eminent; third, as authority that is neither principal nor pre-eminent, but particular. The first belongs to God alone for two reasons. First, because he alone is just of himself, indeed justice itself; and the first judgment can belong only to the first just one, since judgment is not perfect unless it is also just, according to Psalm 118: I have done judgment and justice. For to judge is to dictate what is right or just; and the first just one must be most perfect, and thus most just: therefore he is the first just one. Second, because to judge belongs to the presiding authority, according to the Apostle in Romans 15: Who are you to judge another’s servant? The first Presider, however, can be none but God alone. Therefore, just as he cannot communicate his divinity to another, neither can he communicate the first power of judging, and consequently neither the simply principal key for opening heaven. The second key, namely, one that is not principal but nevertheless pre-eminent, can be understood in terms of a twofold pre-eminence: one in the universality of the causes to be judged, the other in the firmness of the definitive sentence. In either respect, pre-eminence can belong to one who knows all the merits and demerits that are the causes for which heaven is to be opened or closed, and who also has a will inseparably conformed to divine justice. For the first reason, he can pronounce sentence in all cases, because he knows them all; for the second, his sentence can be absolutely firm and irrevocable, because it is always just. This key, with both kinds of pre-eminence, belongs properly to Christ, who knows all the merits and demerits of those to be judged and always judges in conformity with divine justice. Nor can this key fittingly belong to the Church militant, since no one in the Church knows all judicial cases or has an immutably just will. The third key, namely, the particular one with respect to the cases known, and infirm with respect to the sentence pronounced—that is, one whose sentence may sometimes be revoked—can be conferred on someone in the Church militant, who may fail to know something in that case yet judge rightly in it according to divine law; and if at some point he judges beyond it, his sentence will not be firm, but in that case it will be firm.”

Thus, two matters in particular present themselves here for determination: first, whether priests of the New Law truly have the power to absolve from the debt of guilt, or merely to declare that guilt has been remitted; second, whether sacramental absolution releases the whole punishment due for sins, or at least diminishes some part of it.

First conclusion. — PRIESTS OF THE NEW LAW HAVE THE POWER, THROUGH SACRAMENTAL ABSOLUTION, TRULY AND PROPERLY TO REMIT THE SINS SUBJECT TO THEM WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBT OF GUILT.

This is now so certain and common among theologians that Suárez, disp. 18, sect. 2, memb. 3, does not hesitate to say that contrary and opposed opinions are erroneous, since they conflict with the teaching of the Council of Trent, which teaches and says, sess. XIV, ch. 6: Although the absolution of a priest is the dispensing of a benefit (namely, God’s own), nevertheless it is not merely the bare ministry either of announcing the Gospel or of declaring that sins have been remitted; rather, it is like a judicial act, in which a sentence is pronounced by the priest as by a judge, etc. Hence canon 9 says: If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of a priest is not a judicial act, but merely the ministry of pronouncing and declaring to the penitent that sins have been remitted, provided only that he believes himself absolved, or the priest absolves not seriously but in jest … let him be anathema. In these words the Council teaches plainly that a priest’s absolution is not merely declarative of the remission of sin, but a true judicial act by which such sins are remitted. Although the Council’s principal intention there was to define, against heretics, that faith alone without penance or contrition does not suffice for true justification, nevertheless it also sufficiently and plainly intimates our assertion. This is further proved from the same Council, ch. 1, where, after prefacing the words of Christ the Lord, Whose sins you shall forgive, etc., it adds: By this so remarkable a deed and such clear words, the consensus of all the Fathers has always understood that the power of remitting and retaining sins, for reconciling the faithful who have fallen after baptism, was communicated both to the Apostles and to their lawful successors. Hence this proposition of Baius was rightly condemned by the Supreme Pontiffs Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Urban VIII: The repentant sinner is not brought to life by the ministry of the absolving priest, but by God alone, who by suggesting and inspiring repentance brings him to life and raises him up; by the priest’s ministry, however, only the debt is removed.

Second, this assertion of ours is proved by the authority of the holy Fathers, who recognized in the priests of the New Law a true and perfect power to absolve from sins. Above all, St. Ambrose, bk. I, On Penance, ch. 2, explaining the words, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, says: This right has been granted to priests alone; therefore the Church rightly claims it, since it has true priests; heresy cannot claim it, since it has no true priests. And in bk. II, ch. 2, he says: It seemed impossible for sins to be remitted through penance. Christ granted this to his Apostles, and it was transmitted by the Apostles to the ministry of priests. Thus what seemed impossible became possible. But the bare power to declare sins remitted by God did not seem to be anything impossible, since the prophet Nathan declared to David that his sin had been remitted by God. Therefore, Ambrose’s meaning is not that a priest’s absolution is merely a declaration of the remission itself. St. John Chrysostom teaches the same, Hom. 5 on the words of Isaiah, and bk. III, On the Priesthood, ch. 1, where he says plainly: Our priests have been granted not merely to forbid bodily leprosy or the blemishes of the soul once cleansed, but altogether to cleanse them. St. Augustine teaches the same in many places, especially bk. On Catechizing the Uninstructed, ch. 17, as do St. Jerome, Letter 1 to Heliodorus, and many other Fathers whom Canisius cites in pt. II of the Catechism, ch. 1.

Third, the Subtle Doctor proves this truth by the following argument: the sacraments of the New Law truly effect what they signify, for they are practical signs; but sacramental absolution signifies the remission of sin as to guilt and eternal forgiveness; therefore, etc. The Doctor says: “If the sacrament of penance did not truly remit guilt, it would plainly follow that it was not a sacrament of the New Law and had no causality or causal disposition toward first grace, because it would never be worthily received unless by someone who already had first grace; for no one is regarded as worthily absolved by God unless he has first been absolved. Further, reception of this sacrament is an instrument toward grace, that is, an efficacious disposition, necessary by divine ordinance for the succession of grace. But an instrument or prior disposition is not a commemorative or indicative sign of something already past, but of what is to come. Therefore, for the sacrament of penance to be worthily conferred, it need not be a sign of a prior divine absolution.” So he says. Accordingly, he grants that the sacrament of penance can be worthily received by one who has attrition, and with attrition so great that it would not suffice by way of merit to receive justification at the point of attrition; and that if it is not received hypocritically at that point, first grace is received, because it is conferred by God. Sacramental absolution is an efficacious sign of that subsequent absolution at its final instant, just as the utterance of the words is a sign of the confection of Christ’s Body. Hence the Doctor concludes: “According to this, it is clear how a sacrament—that is, an instrument toward first grace—is a prior disposition, in the way that alteration can be called an instrument with respect to the generation of substance, because it is a prior disposition. Otherwise, as he says in d. 11, q. 1, n. 7, it would not be apparent how the sacrament of penance could be a second plank after shipwreck, if through it, as a sacrament, the second grace once lost could never be recovered, but only through attrition as a prior disposition and through contrition as a completing disposition.” So says the Doctor. By these words he plainly indicates that the sacrament of penance would not be distinct from the sacraments of the Old Law, nor would it be a second plank after shipwreck, if priests truly did not remit sins through sacramental absolution. For this sacrament would never rescue a shipwrecked person from the danger of drowning, since he would already have escaped that danger through contrition before receiving the sacrament.

This assertion is confirmed by refuting the other opinions. First, it is false that the priest absolves only from the eternal punishment due for sin after God alone has remitted the debt of guilt. For according to the Council of Trent, sess. VI, ch. 14, eternal punishment is remitted together with guilt; therefore, if guilt had been remitted before reception of the sacrament, eternal punishment too would have had to be remitted. Also, mortal guilt cannot be erased except by the infusion of grace; but, in the ordinary course, sanctifying grace cannot coexist with a debt and obligation to eternal punishment. Otherwise it would follow that someone could at once be a son of glory and of hell, destined for felicity and damnation; for grace is the seed of glory, whereas the debt of punishment is an obligation to damnation and eternal punishment.

The second opinion likewise cannot stand, namely, that absolution is only an opening, entrance, and way to the heavenly homeland. For only sins can bar this way to us; therefore, once they have been remitted, this way and entrance cannot be closed. Also, as was just said, through contrition eternal punishment is remitted with respect to the punishment of sense; therefore, much more is it remitted with respect to the punishment of loss, which is precisely exclusion and removal from the heavenly homeland. Finally, there is no foundation for the chief support of the proponents of that opinion: namely, that someone may be free of guilt and the debt of punishment and yet remain exiled from heaven, as John the Baptist and others were exiled in Limbo. For the same judgment is not to be passed on the faithful just after Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension as on the Fathers before that Resurrection. They were detained there, not because they had a debt of punishment to be paid, but because the price of Christ’s blood had not yet been paid, and it was not fitting that they enter glory before Christ. Similarly, even now the absence of bodily glory is not some debt of punishment to be paid, but a delay of the glory owed for a just reason.

The third opinion is likewise refuted, namely, that through absolution a person is released from the obligation to confess sins. First, it would follow that the formula of absolution from sins is false, since absolution from sins and the obligation to confess sins are entirely distinct things. Second, absolution given only for venial sins would accomplish absolutely nothing, since there is no necessary obligation to confess such sins. Third, it would follow that the keys and power of the Church were not granted for cleansing the soul, but only for performing an external ceremony.

Finally, the fourth opinion is wholly foreign to the efficacy of this sacrament and overturns its entire efficacy. For many other easier remedies are available to discharge the debt of temporal punishment, as is clear from indulgences and the sacrifice of the Mass; consequently, it would not have been necessary to institute a special sacrament for the remission of temporal punishment itself.

YOU WILL OBJECT 1. God alone can remit sin; therefore priests do not truly remit sin. The antecedent is proved from Isaiah 13¹, where God says: I am he who blots out your iniquities. And Matthew 9: Who can forgive sins except God alone? Hence St. Augustine, bk. 50, Homilies, hom. 23: No one takes away sins except God alone, who is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world; and he takes it away by forgiving what has been done, by helping so that it may not be done, and by leading us to the life where it can never be done at all. And in his exposition of Psalm 31, on the words, You have forgiven the wickedness of my sin, he teaches plainly that remission of sin pertains to God alone. Other holy Fathers to be cited below teach the same. — The Doctor, n. 24, distinguishes the antecedent: that God alone can remit sins by his own and principal power, I grant; by delegated power and commission, I deny. For the particle alone does not exclude the possibility that remission be effected by someone other than God; for Psalm 71 likewise says, God alone does great wonders, which is understood only of power that is one’s own and principal. Yet Ecclesiasticus 31 says of a man that he performed wonders in his life. Therefore a priest truly remits sin with respect to the debt of guilt and eternal punishment, but only instrumentally, as the Doctor explains excellently in n. 24, saying: He does it, but only instrumentally: not by attaining that effect either through his own power or in any further way, but by attaining something prior, which is a disposition necessitating that effect—necessitating, I say, by divine covenant. An agent that causes a disposition necessary for an end is called an instrumental agent, as in the case of an agent that alters and one that generates. It belongs properly to God as principal to cleanse and remit that debt by physically attaining that effect; neither of these belongs to the priest, since he attains that effect only morally, and does so by God’s commission and delegation, just as a procurator, by authority from his master, can remit to debtors what they are bound to pay that master. St. Gregory also approves this explanation. In Hom. 26 on the Gospels, considering the words of John, Whose sins you forgive, etc., he says: The Apostles receive the primacy of the heavenly judgment, so that in God’s place they retain the sins of some and remit those of others. Note the primacy of the heavenly judgment and that they remit sins in God’s place: the Apostles remit the same sins that God absolves by his heavenly judgment; otherwise they would pronounce a sentence not of the heavenly primacy but of an inferior judgment if they remitted punishment alone and not guilt. … Their place in the Church is now held by bishops. Those who receive the rank of governance receive the authority to bind and loose. The holy Fathers, especially St. Augustine, certainly meant nothing else. For although, as we have said, he teaches that priests of the New Law have in themselves true authority to absolve from sins, when he says that God alone remits sins for the penitent, he understands this only of principal authority. In the same way, he teaches that a true minister baptizes, though Christ alone is said to sanctify. Thus in bk. II, Against Cresconius, ch. 21, he says: Good and bad men alike can immerse; but no one can wash the conscience except he who is always good. And concerning the sacraments in general, bk. III, ch. 5: Whether someone receives a sacrament from a faithful or an unfaithful minister, it is God alone who sanctifies. Hence the Doctor, d. 14, q. 4, n. 11, says: I grant that a priest remits sin in penance just as in baptism, and absolves just as he baptizes, because in either case it is simply true that he administers a sacrament; but he effects the sacrament’s result ministerially, because he causes something that, according to God’s disposition or action, is regularly followed by the sacrament’s effect.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2. Consider the history of Lazarus, whom Christ the Lord alone recalled to life, but afterward commanded his disciples to unbind and let him go. For we read in John 11: Jesus cried out with a loud voice: “Lazarus, come forth!” And at once the man who had been dead came out, his feet and hands bound with bands, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to the disciples: “Unbind him and let him go.” Reflecting on this passage, the holy Fathers infer that the sinner must first be brought to life by Christ before he is loosed through the ministry of priests. St. Gregory teaches this above all, Hom. 26 on the Gospels. Treating the power to bind and loose entrusted by Christ to the Apostles, he says: Cases must therefore be weighed, and when the power of binding and loosing is to be exercised, one must consider what the sins are, and what penance followed the sin, so that those whom almighty God visits through the grace of compunction may be absolved by the pastor’s sentence. For the superior’s absolution is true when it follows the decision of the eternal Judge. This is well signified by the raising of the man who had been dead four days: it shows that the Lord first recalled and brought the dead man to life, saying, “Lazarus, come forth!” and afterward the disciples loosed the man who had come forth alive, as it is written: “When he who had been bound with bands came out, then he said to the disciples: ‘Unbind him and let him go.’” Behold, the disciples loose Lazarus when he is already alive, the one whom the Master had raised when dead. For if the disciples were to loose Lazarus while dead, they would appear to be his creator rather than to exercise a power. From this consideration we must understand that by pastoral authority we should loose those whom we know our Creator has brought to life by his life-giving grace. St. Gregory says two things here. First, the sentence of the absolving priest does not precede or accompany, but only follows, the sentence of God who brings the man to life; consequently, a priest can loose no sinner unless he is already living through grace; and it follows that priests do not truly remit sins. Second, priests loose a man dead in sin in no other way than the disciples loosed Lazarus; therefore, just as the disciples loosed one already living, so do priests. St. Augustine teaches the same in tract. 6 on John, where from this miracle he concludes that Christ kept to himself the power of remitting sins, while giving his servants the ministry, so that a servant would not place his hope in another servant. In his exposition of Matthew 16 he says: Christ gives life inwardly by himself, and grants ministers the power to loose after life; they can loose no one unless he lives. And on Psalm 87, explaining Will physicians raise him?, etc., he says: Priests can minister to the living, but cannot raise the dead. And on Psalm 101, sermon 2: The remission of sins can rightly be given through the Church; but the dead can be raised only when the Lord cries inwardly, for God does this within. We speak to your ears; how do we know what is happening in any of you? What happens within is done not by us but by him. Therefore, in the minds of those holy Fathers, remission of sins—which is the raising of a man from the death of sin—is done by God alone and not by a priest. — I distinguish the consequence: it is done by God alone as principal cause, I grant; by God alone in a way that excludes the cooperation of a ministerial cause, I deny. Second, I distinguish St. Gregory in the same way: the priest’s absolution follows the judgment of the eternal Judge in discerning the penitent’s disposition, I grant; in conferring the remission of sin, I deny. St. Gregory intends nothing else, since there he treats the discernment priests must exercise before absolving penitents: if they find them rightly disposed, they absolve them. For he had said earlier: Behold, those who fear God’s strict judgment become judges of souls, and they condemn or free others, though they fear being condemned themselves. Their place in the Church is now held by bishops: a great honor, but a heavy burden! It is difficult for one who does not know how to govern his own life properly to become judge of another’s; and it often happens that one occupies the place of judgment whose life is far from fitting for it. Thus it is often wisely arranged that he either condemns the unlearned or himself, while bound, looses others. A little later he adds the words cited in the objection: Cases must be weighed, etc. — I answer, third, that St. Gregory intends nothing other than that no one should be absolved unless God has already begun to bring him to life through the impulse of the Spirit—not yet indwelling, but merely moving him, as the Council of Trent puts it. For there are three kinds of grace of justification in the ungodly: first, prevenient and arousing; second, cooperating and assisting; third, habitual, formally sanctifying. Each of these, in some proportion, may be called the life, raising, and absolution of the sinner. The first is so called because through arousing grace the sinner, lying dead like Lazarus in the tomb of sin, is called forth by it as by Christ’s divine voice and already gives certain signs of life—not yet perfect life, since the sinner cannot be moved to receive the sacrament of penance rightly without dispositions, namely faith, hope, charity, and supernatural attrition. Since he cannot obtain these dispositions except through grace, which comes from God alone, it is rightly said that the sinner cannot first be absolved by a priest before receiving life from God—not yet perfect life, but imperfect life. Hence St. Gregory rightly said that the superior’s absolution is true when it follows the decision of the eternal Judge: that is, the person is rightly absolved by the priest whom Christ signifies as one to be absolved through the witness of compunction and the desire for penance. Nor is there an objection in the fact that he uses the example of Lazarus, who received perfect natural life before being loosed by the Apostles; one cannot infer from this that a sinner must likewise first live a perfect supernatural life before being loosed by a priest. Since the meaning of the example is allegorical, it need not correspond in every respect to the truth of the matter; it is enough that just as Lazarus was truly loosed by the Apostles, so the penitent is truly loosed by the priest from the bonds that hold him. Moreover, just as Lazarus was not loosed until he was already alive, so the sinner must first live the life of grace—not habitual, but actual—by which he grieves for his sins, moves himself with a vital movement, and comes forth through confession; he obtains perfect life through the priest’s absolution. St. Gregory signifies this when, immediately after the words cited in the objection, he adds: This life-giving, before the doing of righteous deeds, is already recognized in the very confession of sin. Hence it is not said to Lazarus, who was dead: “Come to life again,” but “Come forth.” For every sinner who hides his guilt within his conscience lies hidden inwardly, concealed in his own breast. But the dead man comes forth when the sinner freely confesses his wickedness. Thus Lazarus is told, “Come forth,” as if it were said plainly to every dead man in sin: “Why do you hide your guilt within your conscience? Come out now through confession, you who conceal yourself inwardly by denial.” The disciples then loose the one who comes forth, so that the pastors of the Church may remove the punishment deserved by the one who was not ashamed to confess what he did. Thus St. Gregory. Although this may be interpreted as sacramental absolution, which he denies should be given except to one whom Christ has brought to life, he explains most clearly what life-giving he means when he says that it becomes evident in the confession of sin, which is the effect and sign of inward compunction. — St. Augustine is to be understood in the same way. For, as he says in tract. 49 on John, on the words Lazarus, come forth: You wonder how he came out with his feet bound, but do not wonder that a man dead four days rose? In both cases it was the Lord’s power, not the dead man’s strength. He came forth, still bound and still wrapped, yet he had already come out. What does this signify? When you conceal your sin, you lie dead; and if you conceal sins as great as those I have mentioned, you lie buried. When you confess, you come forth. For what is coming forth except manifesting what was hidden, as though stripping it away? But that you may confess, God acts by crying out in a loud voice, that is, by calling with great grace. Therefore, when the dead man came forth, still bound, confessing and still guilty, so that his sins might be loosed, the Lord said to his ministers: “Unbind him and let him go.” What is “Unbind him and let him go”? “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” He writes similarly in Serm. 8, On the Words of the Lord: Whoever is weighed down by a bad habit, a bad life, that is, by the mass of earthly desires, so that what is lamentably said in a certain psalm has already come to pass in him—“The fool has said in his heart: There is no God”—is one of those of whom it is said: “From the dead, as from one who is not, confession perishes.” Who will raise him except the one who, after removing the stone, cried out: “Lazarus, come forth”? What is it to come forth except to bring into the open what was hidden? Whoever confesses comes forth; he could not come forth unless he were green with life (incipiently, through prevenient grace assisting him to elicit true supernatural sorrow); he could not live unless he had been raised. Therefore, in confession, self-accusation is praise of God.

YOU WILL SAY: St. Augustine says: What benefit is it to the Church if the sinner, already raised by the Lord’s voice, comes forth? What benefit is it to the confessor, to whom the Lord says, “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”? — He replies: Consider Lazarus himself. He comes forth bound, already alive through confessing, but not yet able to walk free of his bonds. What, then, does the Church do, to which it was said, “Whatever you loose shall be loosed,” except what the Lord immediately said to the disciples: Unbind him and let him go? Here, under the name of life, he understands only confession, which the penitent has from God alone before the priest’s absolution, and without which the priests have no power to absolve, as St. Augustine rightly said elsewhere: Christ gives life inwardly by himself and grants ministers the power to loose after life; they can loose no one unless he lives—that is, unless he has confessed rightly.

YOU WILL OBJECT 3. St. Jerome, explaining the words of Matthew, Whatever you bind, says: Bishops and presbyters, not understanding this passage, assume something of the Pharisees’ arrogance, so that they think they may either condemn the innocent or absolve the guilty, whereas before God it is the life of the accused, not the priests’ sentence, that is examined. We read in Leviticus about lepers, who are commanded to show themselves to the priests; if they have leprosy, they are then declared unclean by the priest—not because the priests make them lepers or unclean, but because they have knowledge of who is leprous and who is not, and can discern who is clean and who is unclean. Just as there the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so here the bishop and presbyter bind or loose—not those who are innocent or guilty, but, in fulfillment of their office, once they have heard the variety of sins, they know who must be bound and who loosed. Therefore, in St. Jerome’s view, the priest looses or remits sins only insofar as he declares them loosed or remitted. — I deny the inference, and concerning St. Jerome I say that by these words he rebukes and restrains certain bishops who arrogated excessive license to themselves, admitting or rejecting people from absolution at their own whim and without examining the penitents’ dispositions. Against them he teaches that their power is not absolute, but bound by certain laws, which they must observe so that their sentence is valid, absolving only those whom God judges worthy of absolution. To show this, he uses the example of the Levitical priests, who first judged lepers’ legal cleanness or uncleanness before dismissing them. Therefore he does not compare them in respect of the power itself, but in respect of its use. He adds: When, in fulfillment of his office, he has heard the varieties of sins (that is, noted the kinds and circumstances of sins), he knows who must be bound and who loosed; he does not say who has been loosed or bound—which he certainly would have said if the priest merely declared sins remitted or retained rather than remitting or retaining them.

YOU WILL OBJECT 4. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 17 on Matthew, says: To free people from the corruption of sins belongs to Christ’s power; to keep them from returning to them is the Apostles’ care and labor. — I answer that St. Chrysostom is not speaking there of the Apostles as priests or secondary judges who, by commission, hear a case and pass sentence, either absolving or retaining the sins of an accused penitent. For in this way the Apostles and their successors have the power to free people from the corruption of sins; as St. Augustine says, bk. I, On the Sermon on the Mount, ch. 6, the Lord sent the Apostolic salt into the world to season and extinguish the stench of sins. Rather, St. Chrysostom speaks of the Apostles as preachers and teachers of the world, who, in that capacity, have no power to heal from sins except by moving sinners through their preaching to do penance. Hence he adds in the same place: The struggle will be for the salvation not of you alone, but of the whole world. For I am not sending you to two cities, or ten, or twenty, nor to a single nation, as I sent the prophets, but to the whole earth, the sea, and the entire world, oppressed by manifold crimes. He sent the prophets as preachers and teachers, not as judges. Therefore St. Chrysostom is speaking there of the Apostles’ mission to preach, not of their commission to absolve.

YOU WILL OBJECT 5. Either the penitent who approaches the sacramental tribunal is contrite, and is thus already free from sin, or he is merely attrite, remains in the state of sin, and is thus unworthy of absolution; therefore the priest cannot truly absolve sin in him. — I answer that either may sometimes be the case: sometimes the penitent is contrite, sometimes only attrite. When he approaches as contrite, his sins have indeed already been remitted, but not independently of sacramental absolution. For the contrition by which he obtained remission of sins actually or virtually contains a vow to make confession and obtain absolution. Hence that remission of sin is rightly attributed to absolution, because it is granted in relation to it; and if, when the opportunity was given, absolution were neglected, this negligence would be the cause that the aforesaid remission of sin did not occur. In the same way, remission of original sin through contrition and love of God, including a vow of baptism, would not benefit someone for salvation if, when the opportunity to receive baptism was given, he neglected it. Likewise, one who approaches the sacrament of penance with attrition alone is not immediately worthy of grace, but only mediately, insofar as he is suitably disposed to obtain grace through absolution.

YOU WILL OBJECT 6. The sacrament of penance is a medicine; but medicine cannot benefit the dead, only the living; therefore, the sacrament of penance presupposes life in those who receive it. — I answer the minor: it is indeed a medicine against the deadly wounds of sin. Although these wounds have not yet inflicted the death of eternal damnation, with respect to which a sinful person may be called alive and curable, they have inflicted the death of grace; and in this sense the sacrament of penance is said to give life.

YOU WILL OBJECT 7. St. Ambrose, in To a Fallen Virgin, ch. 7, addresses her as follows: Hold fast to penance until the end of life, and do not presume that pardon can be granted to you by a human tribunal; whoever promises you this deceives you. Since you sinned directly against the Lord, it is fitting that you await a remedy from him alone on the day of judgment. St. Ambrose says that the virgin sinned against the Lord because she violated the faith she had pledged to Christ to preserve perpetual virginity; he asserts that her sin can be remitted by God alone, not by the Church. — I answer that St. Ambrose is arguing only that the aforesaid virgin must not be confident that her sin will be remitted, but must do penance for it until the end of her life: the most grievous sins of fornication and the destruction of her offspring had to be expiated by perpetual penance. St. Ambrose does not deny that she can obtain pardon not only from God but also from the Church, once she has performed the penance to which he exhorts her in these words: When you have believed that your transgressive soul is destined for the fires of hell, and that no other remedy has been established after baptism than the solace of penance, be content to undergo whatever affliction and labor, provided that you are freed from eternal punishments. Therefore, considering this and turning it over in your mind, be a harsher judge of your own deed. First of all, you must put an end to every concern for this life; and, considering yourself as dead, as you are, think how you may come back to life, and so on. Such a life and such an act of penance, if persevered in, will dare to hope—not for glory, perhaps, but certainly for the removal of punishment. But St. Ambrose would have exhorted the fallen virgin to penance in vain if he had thought that she could not obtain absolution and pardon from the Church. For no one can do penance well unless he hopes for indulgence, as he himself says in bk. I, where he also rebukes the Novatians’ harshness: they called something penance that they would not remit, and by denying pardon they removed the incentive to penance. Therefore, St. Ambrose did not deny that the Church can remit the fallen virgin’s crime. Why, however, linger over the interpretation of Ambrose when in On Penance, against the Novatians, he proves that there is no sin that cannot be remitted by the Church to penitents? These words of ch. 1 should be noted: But they deny that communion ought to be restored to those who have fallen through transgression, if they except only one crime, sacrilege, for which they deny pardon. Their position is harsh, but they seem to yield only to divine judgments; nevertheless, it would be consistent with their own assertions. For the Lord, who forgave all sins, excepted no crime.

YOU WILL OBJECT FINALLY: Priests have the power to loose in no other way than they have the power to bind; but the power to bind serves only to declare someone already bound; therefore the power to absolve also serves only to show that someone is already absolved. — I answer by distinguishing the major: they have this power in the same way with respect to its grant and authority, I grant; with respect to its exercise, I deny. For the power to bind can be exercised in two ways. First, the priest can refuse absolution and thus retain sins; second, positively, he can bind the penitent to sacramental satisfaction. Once the minor is distinguished, the inference must be denied: in both these ways the priest does not merely declare a person bound, but truly binds and obligates him, both to acquire better dispositions so that he may receive absolution rightly and to fulfill the satisfaction prescribed for him.

Second conclusion. — Through the sacrament of penance some part of temporal punishment is remitted, more or less according to the penitent’s disposition. This is gathered from the Council of Trent, sess. VI, ch. 14, where, speaking of satisfaction to be prescribed for penitents through fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other pious exercises of the spiritual life, it adds: Not indeed for eternal punishment, which is remitted together with guilt either by the sacrament or by the sacrament’s vow, but for temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always remitted in its entirety, as happens in baptism, for those who, ungrateful to God’s grace, have grieved the Holy Spirit and have not feared to violate God’s temple. In these words the Council signifies plainly enough that, if the punishment due for sins is not always remitted in full together with the remission of guilt, at least some part of it is relaxed through priestly absolution; otherwise it would have written the words not always in its entirety to no purpose. I add that it is the universal practice of the Church and of confessors to impose and prescribe lighter satisfactions on penitents who approach the tribunal with greater contrition or attrition. This is surely a sign that the Church supposes some part of temporal punishment, greater or lesser according to each person’s disposition, is relaxed through the sacrament of penance, apart from the part remitted by fulfilling the satisfaction prescribed by the priest. Nor is there any lack of a reason suggesting the same: why should the infusion of grace be greater or lesser according to the penitent’s more or less perfect disposition, rather than a part of temporal punishment being remitted—especially since the sacrament of penance was instituted for the remission of sins and, consequently, for the release of every bond and obligation by which the sinner was held? Therefore it is instituted not only for release from the debt of guilt, but also from the debt of punishment.

The Seraphic Doctor explains this truth very clearly in In IV Sent., d. 18, pt. I, a. 2, q. 2, n. 24. Inquiring whether the priest remits some part of the punishment due for sins, he sets out three opinions and answers on this matter. The first is that the priest absolves not from the punishment due for sins but from the bond of confession, obligating the penitent to the punishment of satisfaction. This opinion seems to be drawn from Hugh of St. Victor in On the Power of Binding, where seven bonds are distinguished: hardness, servitude, captivity, eternal damnation or punishment, perpetual detestation, confession, and penal expiation. God absolves from the first three through preparatory grace, which softens the heart for penance and is a grace freely given; from the bond of servitude through prevenient grace that makes one pleasing to God and frees one from the slavery of sin; from the bond of captivity through cooperating grace, which sets a person free and looses or moves him to good works. He looses from the bond of eternal damnation by binding to the fifth, namely the bond of perpetual detestation. From the sixth, however, he looses through a minister by binding to the seventh: for the priest looses the confessing sinner so that he is no longer bound to confess, but binds him to the bond of satisfaction. But, says the Seraphic Doctor, this way of speaking must be rejected, since in absolving the priest does not say, I absolve you from confession, but from sins. Hence he adds a second opinion: the priest absolves not only from the bond of guilt but also from the punishment of purgatory, obligating the penitent to satisfactory punishment; consequently, he does not remit any part of the punishment by relaxing it, but only commutes it, and does so on condition that the penitent fulfill the satisfaction imposed. Thus, if the satisfaction is adequate, the priest is said to absolve from the whole; if it is inadequate, he absolves only from so much. Hence, if the sinner dies before making adequate satisfaction, he will be punished in purgatory. But, says the Seraphic Doctor, this way of speaking too must be rejected: if the priest only commuted punishments, he would say to the penitent I absolve you from all sins in vain, since the penitent would gain no benefit from this absolution, at least as regards the relaxation of punishment. Add to this that a sinner approaching the tribunal of penance may have such great contrition that God remits all his guilt and punishment; consequently, there would be no need to commute that punishment into another punishment. Hence the Seraphic Doctor adds a third opinion, which he approves and explains in these words: “And therefore the third way of speaking is more consonant with reason, faith, and piety: that by absolving, the priest remits some part of the punishment by the power of the Keys. We may understand this in the following way: since all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, in justification, which is a work of mercy, mercy remits guilt in such a way that it does not transgress the rule of justice. For this reason, the person is still held bound to punishment. But, because of the rigor of divine justice, that punishment is beyond proportion to our powers and unknown to our thought, and for it one must make satisfaction to God. Divine mercy has therefore further provided us with a way: it has appointed the priest as arbiter and given him the power to arbitrate, to relax punishment, to make this known to us, and to remit part of the punishment by the power of Christ’s Passion. Thus divine justice requires payment from the person for that part, but is content with the punishment of Christ’s Passion. It is not for us to determine how great that part is, but for God. Then the sacrament of penance will be not only burdensome but also fruitful. Holding this opinion, then, one must grant that the priest remits some part of the punishment, as the arguments show—not eternal punishment, as the other arguments show, nor the punishment of purgatory, but, in general, that punishment to which God binds the sinner after absolution from guilt, for which he is never punished in purgatory or elsewhere; as to the part from which he is not absolved, he will either be adequately punished here, or the Lord will exact it in purgatory.” He repeats this in his answer to the second, third, and fourth objections: The priest in no way looses from eternal punishment; he absolves from purgatory not per se but per accidens, because when the debt of temporal punishment in the penitent is diminished by the power of the Keys, he is not punished so severely in purgatory as he would be if he had not been absolved. Therefore, when in the body of the Question he says that the priest does not remit any part of purgatorial punishment, he is to be understood as speaking of remission per se. If you object that this remission prejudices divine justice, he replies: Just as in baptism, through the merit and satisfaction of Christ’s Passion, the sinner is released from the whole punishment, so in penance, through the power of that same Passion of Christ, he is released from part of the punishment, in such a way that justice is in no way prejudiced; rather, the Psalmist’s words are fulfilled: Mercy and truth have met; and mercy, by paying more than is owed, satisfies justice.

Corollary. — From what has been said, the heretical opinion of Antonio de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalato, remains sufficiently and abundantly refuted. In bk. V of The Ecclesiastical Republic, he admits that priests of the New Law have the power truly to loose and bind sinners before God, but not with respect to all sins, only some. For he distinguishes two kinds of sins: some are so hidden and concealed that they cannot become known externally in any way and cause no scandal to the Church, such as, for example, a deliberate inward intention to commit adultery that has been manifested by no outward sign. Others are so notorious and public that they cause scandal to the Church and stain its holiness, such as murder, public adultery, etc. He teaches that hidden sins do not impose a bond or bind except before God, by whom alone they can be loosed directly and immediately. Therefore, if a sinner guilty of a hidden sin is perfectly contrite before God and asks pardon for it, he obtains pardon and is not bound to disclose that sin to priests in confession. If he does disclose it in order to be absolved by a priest, this absolution is entirely useless and idle: first, he says, because the sin was remitted before the sinner approached the Church; second, because the Church cannot loose what it did not bind. Public sins, insofar as they offend God, are remitted directly and immediately by God, and by the Church insofar as they offend the Church; this occurs only after satisfactions have been performed and penitential labors endured. From this he concludes that although the Church’s absolution does not benefit penitents as regards the remission of hidden sins, nevertheless, he says, the holy Fathers urged penitents to seek binding and loosing by the Church for hidden crimes because the imposed works of penance benefited them as fruits and effects of interior penance: the more severe exercises of penance imposed by priests were evidence of a contrite and humbled heart. — But this heretical doctrine is effectively condemned by what has been said, since it is established that priests of the New Law receive from Christ the power to remit absolutely any sins, without exception. For Christ the Lord says without distinction and universally, Matthew 16: Whatever you shall loose, etc.; and Matthew 18: Whatever you shall loose, etc.; and John 20: Whose sins you remit, etc. These words signify that the Apostles and their successors have as open and general a power to remit any sins in the Church militant as the loosing or remission conferred by God and Christ in heaven is open and extensive. The holy Fathers interpret these Gospel pronouncements in this way, especially St. John Chrysostom, bk. III, On the Priesthood, ch. 5, where he says: God has entrusted the priests with all heavenly power; and yet, in the matter of remitting sins, as much as God the Father gave to the Son. But the eternal Father gave his Son full power to remit sins, both public and hidden; therefore, etc. Likewise, St. Hilary, can. 16 on Matthew, addresses St. Peter as follows: O Peter, blessed foundation of the Church and worthy of its building, you who will loose the laws of hell, the gates of Tartarus, and all the bars of death! O blessed doorkeeper of heaven, to whose judgment the keys of the eternal palace are entrusted; whose earthly judgment is an authority ratified in heaven, so that whatever things are bound or loosed on earth may receive the same condition of being bound or loosed in heaven! But hidden sins, just as public ones, are, with respect to guilt and punishment, laws of hell, gates of Tartarus, and bars of death, since they kill and impede entry to heaven. Therefore priests can loose not only public sins but also hidden sins. — St. Leo proclaims the same most plainly in Serm. 3 on the anniversary of his elevation to the pontificate. After declaring the supreme authority conferred by Christ on Peter, he says: Peter’s privilege therefore remains wherever judgment is delivered according to his equity; there is neither excessive severity nor remission, when nothing will be bound or loosed except what blessed Peter has loosed or bound. In this matter Spalato falls into the most shameful error by confusing the power of the Keys with respect to the external and contentious forum with the power of the Keys with respect to the internal forum. For in ch. 7, n. 25, he says that the bond with which the Church binds sinners always consists in some excommunication: the Church either entirely separates a public sinner from the number of the faithful if he is obstinate and incorrigible, or does so only temporarily, until he has expiated the scandal by due public satisfaction. Thus he holds that sins are bound or retained by the keys of the Church only when it acts against a public sinner, and loosed or remitted when it removes that excommunication. In this way he wrongly confuses the Church’s external forum with its internal forum. For someone can be released from excommunication and nevertheless remain bound by sin, just as someone can be absolved from sin through perfect contrition and yet remain bound by excommunication. Therefore the power to absolve from excommunication is distinct from the power by which someone is absolved from sins in the interior and secret forum of the sacrament of penance.

YOU WILL SAY 1: God alone can remit an offense committed against him; therefore the Church has no part in such remission. The antecedent is established: it belongs to the one who has been injured to remit the offense. — I distinguish the antecedent: by one’s own and principal authority, I grant; by God’s delegation and commission, I deny. For just as a private judge cannot condemn an offense committed against a prince by his own authority, but only by delegation from the prince, so a priest remits an offense against God not by his own authority, but by God’s grant.

YOU WILL SAY 2: The Church can loose only what it can bind; but it cannot bind hidden sins, because it does not judge what is inward and hidden, since its judgment is entirely external; therefore, etc. — I distinguish the minor: insofar as they remain hidden and wholly interior, I grant; when they are manifested and made known through confession, I deny. For then the Church, through its ministers, can retain such hidden sins if it does not find the required dispositions in the penitent, and absolve them if it finds him suitably disposed.