Question I: Concerning the Power of Order

St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 8, a. 1-3; q. 19, a. 3 and 4.

I. State of the question. - Concerning the power of order many have not thought rightly:

A. In this matter the following erred: 1) the Montanists, who held that only the pneumatici or spiritual men, that is, those who had received the Holy Spirit, could pardon sins, because Christ said: Receive the Holy Spirit; - 2) Abelard, thinking that the power had been conceded to the Apostles alone, not to successors, who was condemned in the Council of Sens, in the year 1140 (prop. 12); - 3) the Fraticelli, Waldensians, Wycliffites, and Hussites, who granted the power of absolving sins to good laymen, but denied it to wicked priests (cf. Council of Constance, aa. 20 and 22); - 4) Lutherans, who commonly hold that the power of remitting sins is reduced to the ministry of preaching and exhortation for exciting faith in the remission of sins, and that of itself, in a case of necessity, it belongs to all the faithful, even women (provided they believe themselves absolved); nevertheless, to avoid confusion, that it is not to be exercised except by those who have been deputed for this by the community. Other Protestants, except Episcopalians and Ritualists, deny every power of the keys; - 5) many liberal Protestants hold that in the first ages of the Church the power of the keys was exercised only by charismatic persons, that is, by those faithful who rejoiced in a special gift or charism: for the hierarchy was not instituted by Christ, but various charisms were distributed among the faithful by the Holy Spirit.

B. Certain Catholics in the Middle Ages held that deacons or lower clerics were extraordinary ministers who, when priests were lacking, heard confessions and could contribute something toward absolution; - or even that in ancient times deacons were held as extraordinary ministers absolving: thus, for example, Morinus. Indeed a few said that, when priests and clerics were lacking, confession had to be made to laymen.

II. Thesis. Only priests, by divine law, that is, bishops and presbyters, are ministers of sacramental confession, who can validly absolve; whence in them the power of order is required.

This is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 1 and 6, and can. 10, of which canon the first part is directed against Wycliffe, the other against Luther.

The thesis is proved: 1) From the documents of revelation, by which it is established a) that the words of Christ: Whose sins you shall remit... were directed to the Apostles alone; besides, b) that the power was conceded as something to be exercised by way of judgment; but for there to be a judge there must be superior and inferiors; therefore this power was not conceded to all, namely to inferiors. But who in fact are the successors of the Apostles in this power, whether bishops alone, or also priests or others, must be determined from Tradition and from the use of the Church; by these it is established that from the first times generally that office was committed not only to bishops but also to presbyters, not however to others.

This is already intimated from the first times: Ignatius, while constantly commending and commanding obedience to be shown to the bishop, and in particular not promising remission of sins to sinners unless they return to the assembled Church and to the consent of the bishop (ep. ad Philad., n. 3); Clement of Rome, while commanding the Corinthians not to remove those who have been constituted bishops (that is, presbyters) and have performed their office excellently; and that they themselves be subject to the presbyters, that they may receive correction unto penance, lest they be excluded from the flock of Christ (ep. ad Cor., c. 44 and 57). Moreover, from the third century this is expressly affirmed by: Callistus, claiming this power for himself; Tertullian, De Poenitentia, c. 9, and De Pudic., c. 18, n. 17 and 18; Cyprian, De Lapsis, c. 29, and ep. 17; Origen, in Levit., hom. 2, n. 4; in Num., hom. 10, c. 1; in Ps. XXXVII, hom. 1; Athanasius, in Fragm. ex l. c. Nov.; Ephrem, or. de sacerd.; Didascalia, c. 7; Basil, reg. brev., n. 228; Chrysostom, de Sacerd., l. 3, c. 5; Const. Apost., II, 16; Ambrose, de Poen., l. I, c. 2; Jerome, in Matth. XVI, 19; Augustine, serm. 351; Enchir., c. 65; Leo the Great, ep. 108, and ep. ad Theod.; Council of Carthage III, can. 32, etc. At the beginning, indeed, the power was reserved to the bishop, but presbyters sometimes exercised it from the commission of the bishop, as is clear from Cyprian, ep. 18; from Const. Ap. VIII, 47, 52; from the Councils of Hippo, Elvira, and Carthage III, and from the institution of the penitentiary presbyter. From the sixth century the use of approaching priests is general.

Moreover it belonged to them to the exclusion of deacons, which is established both from the fact of silence concerning these and from the express testimony of Ambrose, de Poen., l. I, c. 2; Jerome, in Ier. XIII, 12; in Matt. XVI, 19; Augustine, de Civ. Dei, l. 20, c. 10; ep. 228 ad Hon., n. 8; serm. 82, n. 6 and 11; Innocent I, ep. 25 ad Dec., n. 3, and others.

2. Also by reason from St. Thomas, q. 19, a. 4: No one can remit sin and confer grace except in the name of Christ as His instrument. But no one is an instrument unless he is chosen as minister. Therefore only ministers can remit sins.¹ But not bishops alone were to be chosen, but also priests, on account of the great necessity of this sacrament.

¹ From this principle St. Thomas concludes 1) that not saints, but priests, and 2) not only holy priests, but also evil priests are ministers of the sacrament. The first thus: "From this something is constituted a principal agent, that it has some form which it can pour into another; but from this it is not constituted an instrumental agent, but from this, that it is applied by the principal agent to inducing some effect... But man... cannot either give to another grace, by which sins are remitted, nor sufficiently merit it... And on account of this, however much someone may have of grace, he cannot attain to the effect of the keys, unless he is applied to this as minister by the receiving of order" (q. 19, a. 4). The second thus: "Just as participation in the form which is to be induced in the effect does not make the instrument, so neither does the removal of such a form take away the use of the instrument. And therefore since man acts only instrumentally in the use of the keys, however much he is deprived through sin of grace, by which grace remission of sins is made, nevertheless he is in no way deprived of the use of the keys." For "the gift of the Holy Spirit is required for the use of the keys, not as something without which it cannot be done (or for validity), but because without it it is done incongruously on the part of the one using them (or for liceity), although one subjecting himself to the keys obtains the effect of the keys" (a. 5, and ad 1). And therefore even in heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates there remains the power of the keys as to essence (power of order); but the use is impeded (for the most part) from defect of matter (power of jurisdiction). For since the use of the keys in the one using them requires prelation (or jurisdiction) with respect to him upon whom he uses them..., the proper matter upon which the use of the keys is exercised is a subject man. And because by the ordination of the Church one is subject to another, therefore also through prelates of the Church there can be withdrawn from someone he who was subject to him. Whence, since the Church deprives heretics, schismatics, and others of this kind by withdrawing subjects either simply, or as to something, as regards that of which they have been deprived, they cannot have the use of the keys" (a. 6).

That priests, not deacons and lower ministers, should be chosen is most fitting, as the same St. Thomas shows, q. 8, a. 1:

"The grace which is given in the sacrament descends from Christ the Head into the members. And therefore only he is minister of the sacraments in which grace is given who has ministry over the true Body of Christ, which belongs to the priest alone, who can consecrate the Eucharist. And therefore since in the sacrament of Penance grace is conferred, only a priest is minister of this sacrament; and therefore sacramental confession is to be made to him alone, which is customarily made to a minister of the Church."

III. Observation. - In the thesis we said that only priests are ministers of sacramental confession. For confession before laymen, when a priest is lacking,

1. was in use for greater shame and confusion,² as St. Thomas also reports, q. 8, a. 2, but it was not sacramental, as is established from the response to 1 and 3 and from article 3;

² Cf. concerning this Teetaert, La confession aux laiques dans l'Eglise latine depuis le VIIIe jusqu'au XIVe siecle.

2. is satisfactory, if perfect contrition is present;

3. is a sacramental by which attrition is excited unto the remission of venial sins, like striking the breast (cf. a. 3).

IV. They object: From the history of the Church it is established that the power of hearing confessions or even of remitting sins, in the course of time, was acknowledged to have belonged to pneumatici, to certain confessors and martyrs, to deacons, indeed even to laymen.

Resp.: 1) In the beginning of the Church the pneumatici were endowed with special charisms (I Cor. XII, 3-11; XIV, 2-40; Eph. IV, 11), but it is not read that to them was conceded the power of remitting sins. Tertullian alone asserts this, after having become a Montanist; but the assertion was universally rejected, even by his disciple St. Cyprian.

2. Confessors and martyrs were endowed with the privilege of granting a letter of peace to delinquents in order to the remission of sins. But they did not hear confession nor absolve; they rejoiced only in the privilege of intercession, by which, in view of their confession, bishops admitted certain sinners to reconciliation. This is established from the letters of St. Cyprian, whose doctrine was approved not only by the African bishops, but also, when the see was vacant, by the Roman presbyters and deacons.

3. Deacons, when a bishop and priest were lacking, admitted dying sinners to full reconciliation and peace with the Church, and to reception of Viaticum, whether they had already been absolved before, or had not yet been absolved; in which last case they surely supposed perfect contrition in them.

But certain deacons exceeded the limits of their power; particular Councils prohibited this, as is established, for example, from the statutes of Odo, bishop of Paris (a. 1197), and from the Synod of Poitiers (a. 1280).

4. Finally, laymen, in danger of death, when a priest was lacking, during the Middle Ages heard the confession of the dying, but did not absolve. Moreover the practice was held useful for greater humility and contrition and greater desire of confession; indeed even by great theologians it was said to be necessary, namely for proving the sincerity of contrition, insofar as a man at least ought to furnish what is on his part and do what is in him, by confessing as much as he can and by beginning due satisfaction through the shame of confession, so that thus he might become worthy of pardon from the desire of a priest and be disposed to perfect contrition. And then the highest priest, Christ, supplies the defect of a priest and grants remission.

Nevertheless that confession was not held as truly sacramental, since they rather often say that it is to be repeated, for example St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 8, a. 2, ad 3; and nevertheless, because it was an imitation of sacramental confession and as it were a step toward it, it could even be called sacramental in a certain manner. "When necessity is imminent," says St. Thomas, ad 1, "the penitent ought to do what is on his part, namely, be contrite and confess to whom he can; and although this person cannot perfect the sacrament, so as to do what is on the part of the priest, namely absolution, nevertheless the highest priest supplies the defect of a priest. Nevertheless confession made to a layman because of the lack of a priest is sacramental in a certain manner, although it is not a perfect sacrament, because there is lacking to it what is on the part of the priest."

V. Corollaries. - From the foregoing it follows:

1. For an invalidly ordained priest the Church cannot supply the defect.

2. A deacon cannot be deputed to absolve from sins in the sacrament of Penance.

3. There is no obligation of confessing sins to others than to a priest.