Chapter — Concina, Compendium
Chapter II — On the jurisdiction of the minister of the sacrament of Penance
I. QUESTION I. Is a priest alone the minister of the sacrament of Penance? ANSWER. The innovators deny it — the Waldenses, Hussites, Wycliffites, and Lutherans — whose errors Trent condemned, session 14, canons 9 and 10. It is therefore a dogma of faith that bishops and priests alone can administer the sacrament of Penance. It is established from John 20: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Which words the perpetual tradition of the Church has declared to pertain to the Apostles alone and their successors, laymen being excluded. The testimonies of the Fathers and of the Councils which confirm this tradition are obvious, and therefore I pass them over.
II. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 1485, teaches that, although the more common and more probable opinion be that a layman, a cleric being absent, does not even in the article of death validly absolve from censures, the opposite nevertheless, he subjoins, grave authors defend probably, whom Diana and Moya relate, because they think that the pious mother Church grants the same. Whence Sánchez infers that a layman in such a case is bound to absolve from censures. Whether these pious figments of Probabilism be arbitrary, and afford a handle to the heretics for extending this faculty to absolving even from sins, let the more learned judge. From the piety of mother Church all things can be inferred, unless a certain rule be prescribed. The aforesaid opinion I reject as false. But grave authors teach it probably. These authors, who probably call the common doctrine of the Church into controversy, are not grave to me.
IV. QUESTION III. Whether a Regular presented to the bishop and unjustly rejected acquires jurisdiction and validly absolves? ANSWER. All confess that the bishop's approbation is necessary to all priests, both secular and regular, that they may validly receive the confessions of seculars. The opposite opinion was condemned by Alexander VII, proposition 12: He satisfies the precept of annual confession who confesses to a Regular presented to the bishop but unjustly reproved by him. Regulars therefore must needs be approved by the bishop. Those approved by the bishop of one diocese are not approved for other dioceses: the contrary opinion has been disapproved both by the Gallican Clergy and by Alexander VII in the decree to Henry of Angers. Those approved for seculars are not approved for nuns; and the opposite opinion Gregory XV disapproved in the year 1621. Regulars approved for one monastery cannot without a new approbation hear the confessions of the nuns of another monastery.
V. Regulars, even though laureate and learned, are bound to undergo the bishop's examination as often as it shall have seemed expedient to bishops. As regards this therefore, let them employ the bishop's prudence.
VI. Concerning Regulars approved by a bishop without the presentation of their regular superiors, and these being unaware or unwilling, authors dispute on either side. Very many theologians teach that such Regulars so approved absolve invalidly, and not merely unlawfully. On the contrary the Salmanticenses, several authors being cited, defend that they absolve validly but unlawfully. They dispute also whether such Regulars so approved sin mortally in hearing confessions. The disputations concerning valid or invalid absolution being dismissed, I say that Regulars who obtain this approbation with their superiors unaware or unwilling are not called by God to this task, but are intruders. What corollaries flow hence are known to all. Most imprudently would bishops approve Regulars against the will of their superiors, at least unless, the cause of the opposition being known, it were openly established that the superiors resisted unjustly. For any human law whatsoever sometimes admits its own exceptions.
VII. Regulars approved in one diocese can absolve the faithful of another diocese who come to them, as the common opinion teaches, and universal custom obtains. Superiors also of Regulars need approbation — as Provincials, Priors, Guardians, and so forth — because Trent excepts no one. Wherefore the opposite opinion is utterly false. They can nevertheless absolve without approbation the seculars dwelling in their houses as of the household, otherwise if they dwell there not continuously and not as of the household and do not enjoy the table. Regulars making a journey, if confessors of their own Order be lacking, ought to confess to an approved priest, because this is the safer opinion.
VIII. QUESTION IV. What is ordinary and what delegated jurisdiction? ANSWER. The first belongs to someone by reason of his office, that is, to the curate of the souls of whom he is the pastor. Of this kind are the Pope, the bishop, the abbot, the parish priest, the perpetual vicar of a bishop, a capitular vicar, the supreme Penitentiary, a cardinal in the church of his own title, the vicars general of the Pope, legates a latere in the province of their legation. Among Regulars there are Generals, Provincials, and local Superiors. All these come under the name of Ordinary, and by the name of one's own priest. Hence the Pope has no Ordinary, since he is the supreme pastor of all. The Ordinary of a bishop is the Pope, and of a parish priest the bishop. An archbishop has the ordinary faculty of absolving sacramentally while he visits the diocese of a suffragan.
IX. Delegated jurisdiction is that which is granted to some priest, not by reason of the cure of souls, but from the will of him who has ordinary jurisdiction and can lawfully delegate it, if he to whom the jurisdiction is to be delegated be capable: for the suspended and excommunicated who are not tolerated are not capable. A bishop can delegate, but not a parish priest, because he who cannot delegate jurisdiction over his own sheep to a priest not approved by his own bishop.
X. Priests not approved cannot absolve from venial sins, as Innocent XI declared in the decree for frequent communion given in the year 1679. In this decree the Fathers of the Society also are comprehended. Wherefore Fr. La Croix is deceived, who at no. 1553 excepts the Jesuits; the decree nevertheless he did not ignore.
XI. Fr. Viva, question 8, article 1, no. 5, says: “Innocent XI in the year 1679 willed that bishops should not permit confession of venial sins to be made to a simple priest not approved by the bishop or Ordinary. … I think nevertheless with the Cardinal and others in La Croix that it is not invalid, and that the sacrament would not be exposed to the danger of frustration. For since it is probable that jurisdiction is conferred immediately upon a priest by Christ the Lord, and that with probable jurisdiction the sacrament of Penance is validly conferred, as we shall say in the ninth question, therefore the sacrament is validly conferred by a simple priest absolving only from venial sins, or from mortal sins otherwise absolved.”
XII. The Supreme Pontiff forbids that simple priests be able to absolve from venial sins; Fr. Viva probably teaches the opposite, because priests have jurisdiction immediately from Christ the Lord. Behold how true is Probabilism adverse to the power of the Pontiffs, of bishops, and consequently of princes. Assuredly priests have power from Christ the Lord, but by force of the ecclesiastical hierarchy subject to the Pontiff and the bishop. Otherwise it would have to be said, by force of the doctrine of Fr. Viva, that simple priests can absolve also from mortal sins not absolved. What displeases more is the progress of Probabilism. First they say that a simple priest can absolve from venial sins; then from mortal sins confessed; then from mortal sins invincibly forgotten, as the Salmanticenses, tract 6, chapter 11, no. 61; and at last from mortal sins confessed in good faith to a simple priest, as with other probabilists Leander, tract 5, disputation 31, question 14, teaches. All these things are false, and disapproved by Innocent XI.
XIII. QUESTION V. Whether every priest in the article of death has jurisdiction of absolving from sins and from censures? ANSWER. In the article of death, if an approved priest be present, a simple priest cannot impart absolution, because no necessity urges. It must be said otherwise if the approved one were unwilling to hear the confession, or if the simple priest had already begun to hear the confession.
XIV. To mendicants approved by the Ordinary there is delegated jurisdiction of absolving from all cases and censures reserved to the Pope, the cases of the Bull In Coena being excepted, and six others reserved by Clement VIII outside the city and within Italy. But Benedict XIV reserved to himself and his successors the faculty of absolving an accomplice of a crime against the sixth precept, as will be said below.
XV. Those who have ordinary power can, say authors commonly, exercise it in another's diocese with their own subjects, provided that in the formula of the faculty there be no limitation for such a place, as is wont frequently to happen. But custom is to be regarded.
XVI. QUESTION VI. Who is the proper minister of vagrants, of pilgrims, and of those who have a domicile in a twofold parish? ANSWER. Those are called vagrants who have no proper domicile; their parish priest is he under whom they are found at the time of confession. Those who go on pilgrimage, although they have a proper domicile, can confess to any approved confessor to whom they turn aside. Those who have a twofold domicile in a twofold parish can confess to either parish priest.
XVII. Jurisdiction is not acquired by custom alone, unless there accede the consent, at least tacit, of the superior. Nor does a presumed or interpretative consent suffice. A confessor excommunicated and not tolerated loses all jurisdiction. One excommunicated and tolerated absolves unlawfully but validly. That a parish priest excommunicated and not tolerated, but not deprived of his parish, can grant to another that he assist at a marriage, but not delegate jurisdiction of hearing confessions, very many teach; because, they say, to assist at a marriage is not an act of jurisdiction, but of testimony. But this opinion is false. What? Is assisting at a marriage not an act of jurisdiction? All men therefore indiscriminately will be able to be ministers of matrimony, just as they can be witnesses. But this is absurd. Neither therefore can the aforesaid parish priest grant. A priest absolving one excommunicated ought to send before absolution from censures before he absolve from sins.
XVIII. Bishops can from a just cause limit the jurisdiction of hearing confessions in a church, before sunrise, after sunset, and of women. But without a just and reasonable cause they cannot limit this jurisdiction, at least in respect of Regulars. If nevertheless a bishop should limit it, even without a just cause, the limitation would hold, and the absolutions would be invalid, just as when without a just cause men are reproved, they remain reproved.
XIX. QUESTION VII. Whether jurisdiction expires by the death of him who granted it? ANSWER. Jurisdiction delegated in this forum in general by the Supreme Pontiff does not cease by the death of the granter, as the common opinion teaches. But theologians dispute concerning jurisdiction granted by inferior prelates, by a bishop, and so forth. Very many affirm that it expires; but more commonly they teach that it continues, until either the predetermined time elapse, or it be revoked by the successor. And this they gather from common custom, the prelates consenting. Nor does it stand in the way that, the bishop being dead, his Vicar lacks power, because the Vicar general makes one tribunal with the bishop.
XX. A delegate cannot subdelegate, because a delegation is personal, granted to this person and not to another. Therefore he who receives it cannot communicate it to another. The contrary opinion, which some defend, is not approved by me.
XXI. QUESTION VIII. Whether common error, a coloured title being lacking, is enough that jurisdiction be said to be conferred? ANSWER. Someone is a simple priest lacking all jurisdiction. Him all the faithful of some place hold as pastor or confessor. This is common error concerning the jurisdiction of that priest. But if a simple priest obtain from the bishop a parochial benefice, yet on account of some canonical impediment — suppose excommunication, or simony, or another obstacle — obtain it invalidly, and possess the parochial benefice; by force of this he is held by all as parish priest or curate. This is common error conjoined with a coloured title: for he possesses a title, namely the collation of a parochial benefice conferred by a lawful superior, namely by the bishop; but because the benefice was invalidly conferred, he possesses indeed a title, yet not a true but a false and apparent one, and therefore called coloured. But he who does not obtain a benefice, but by false letters feigns himself parish priest, has no title, not even a coloured one.
XXII. The common opinion teaches that common error conjoined with a coloured title, by which someone is held as parish priest or curate, is enough for jurisdiction, so that such a man can validly absolve and administer the other sacraments: because on account of the public utility the Church in this case of a benefice conferred, though invalidly on account of an occult impediment, in fact confers jurisdiction, as the common opinion of theologians and canonists teaches.
XXIII. Fr. Viva with others teaches that even common error alone suffices, provided the error be not supine and gross but probable.
XXIV. The most celebrated of canonists, Fagnanus, Book 5, On the Crime of Forgery, chapter Supra eo, that he may prove that a coloured title conjoined with common error suffices for jurisdiction, adduces in support of canon law the civil law itself, namely the law Barbarius, where a slave, when he was thought free, by delegation pronounced sentence. But he rejects common error alone, defended by certain men.
XXV. QUESTION IX. Whether doubtful and probable jurisdiction suffices? ANSWER. Some affirm it. And Fr. Viva teaches these things in his Course, question 8, article 2, nos. 1 and 2: “It seems not to be lawful to confect the sacrament of Penance with probable jurisdiction, at least when certain jurisdiction can be had. Nevertheless I think it lawful to absolve with probable jurisdiction. … Hence it follows that by Innocent XI in the first of his proscribed theses this opinion has not been condemned: BECAUSE HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONDEMNED IT OPENLY, if he had willed that not only in those things which pertain to the matter and form of the sacrament, but also in those which pertain to jurisdiction, we should follow the safer opinion, the probable being omitted, as many learned men reckon.”
XXVI. Unless all things deceive me, this opinion is contained in the first proposition condemned by Innocent XI. For in that condemned thesis mention is made neither of matter nor of form. There is a deep silence concerning these: the thesis is indefinite, and comprehends every opinion concerning the validity of the sacrament. Nor indeed can a reason be assigned why he should have condemned this and not that. Anyone can say: this probable opinion, the safer being forsaken, is condemned, but not that one; another would say: that one is condemned, but not this one; and in this fashion the pontifical decree would be illusory, and would condemn nothing. An indefinite proposition therefore, being condemned, comprehends every probable opinion operating in the sight of a safer one concerning the validity of the sacrament. But all men, even Fr. Viva, confessing it, jurisdiction pertains to the validity of the sacrament. Therefore a probable opinion concerning probable jurisdiction, the safer being forsaken, seems condemned.
XXVII. Fr. Viva replies that in the proscribed thesis there is condemned the use of a less safe opinion in those things which are adverse to ecclesiastical law. Which answer is altogether false, and disapproved by Fr. La Croix himself, Book 6, part 3, no. 15, page 3551; nay, he testifies that all disapprove it.
XXVIII. Fr. Viva insists: “It is not probable that a hundred and thirty Doctors related by Gobat were deceived in a matter of so great moment, and are worthy of censure.” It is false that Gobat cites 150 Doctors, nay not even 100. Unless the brevity set before me hindered, I should wish to transcribe the words of Fr. Gobat; but see Vol. IX, Book 2, dissertation 2, chapter 5, no. 5. For the rest, even if Fr. Gobat cited six hundred probabilists, these being passed over, place must be given to the pontifical decree.
XXIX. They insist that the pious mother Church supplies, when a probable opinion concerning jurisdiction is present. I answer that the pious mother Church, through her own head Innocent XI, condemned this doctrine. Therefore she refuses to supply.
XXX. The probabilists object that most grave authors — Suárez, Filliucci, Reginald, Lessius, Bonacina, Diana, and others whom Gobat cites — defend the use of probable jurisdiction. I answer that the aforesaid authors, like Fr. Gobat, wrote before Innocent XI condemned this opinion, and are therefore to be excused; but they are not in this to be followed.