Article I: On the Existence of the Power of the Keys

S. Th., in Suppl., q. 17 and 18; q. 8, a. 1, ad 1.

420. Errors. - Concerning the power of the keys many have erred, whether they denied it, or unduly restricted it, or badly understood it, or rejected its divine origin.

A. In the first times of the Church, the Encratites denied the power of remitting sins committed after Baptism, holding these sins to be irremissible, since Christians ought to be perfect and to abstain from sin; others unduly restricted it, such as the Montanists, to whom Tertullian joined himself, positing three irremissible sins: adultery, idolatry, and homicide; Novatian said this of apostasy, but his disciples of all the graver sins, which are unto death.

B. The Protestants rejected the power of remitting sins, although several, such as Luther, hesitated whether for this reason they would deny that Penance is a sacrament. Yet this sacrament would not remit sin ex opere operato, for absolution would have only the power of exciting faith and of declaring the remission of sins, not of effecting it. But Calvin, whom many followed, denied that Penance is distinguished from Baptism, or from the memory of it. Baptism indeed excites faith that sins have been forgiven and the purpose of a new life; but when sin has again been committed, the memory of Baptism renews the excitation of that faith and the purpose of a new life. Anglicans, however, acknowledge that sinners can be absolved by priests and admit the usefulness of confession, but not its necessity; indeed Ritualists say that absolution is a sacrament, but place it among the lesser sacraments.

C. Liberal Protestants hold the charismatics alone as leaders of the primitive Church elected by the faithful. At the beginning, penance was merely disciplinary, not sacramental. God alone remitted sins; but the charismatics declared the will of God showing mercy, before penitents were received into the Church, which bishops could not do unless they were at the same time charismatics. Later, when the charisms disappeared, this devolved upon the bishops, who, once the hierarchy had been instituted, arrogated true power to themselves, and assumed the ministry of sanctification, to which a special value was acknowledged.¹ Whence it happened that the faithful desired that through them release from sin be obtained for themselves; from which there arose the custom of manifesting or confessing sins to them. This custom was first propagated among monks, then widely among the faithful, so that it was said that there is no remission of sins except through priests. Finally confession itself was here and there prescribed, indeed imposed upon the universal Church in the Fourth Lateran Council, in the year 1215.

¹ To this also pertains proposition 46 of certain modernists: "There was not present in the primitive Church the concept of a Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church, but the Church only very slowly became accustomed to a concept of this kind. Indeed even after penance was acknowledged as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name of sacrament, because it was held as a shameful sacrament." Likewise prop. 47: "The words of the Lord: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, by no means refer to the sacrament of penance, whatever it pleased the Tridentine Fathers to assert."

Specifically, according to Lea,² Christ, who in the Gospel inculcates internal worship in spirit and truth, did not institute an external rite for remitting sins, but requires only love and penance of heart. Nor was a power of remitting sins by a sensible rite acknowledged in the first centuries, for the penitential discipline which was in force had the power of reconciling with the Church in the external forum, but not with God. For the Fathers, when they enumerate many means unto the remission of sins, do not commemorate priestly absolution among them. And the words themselves of absolution were nothing but prayers by which priests begged pardon from God, but in no way sacramental forms conferring grace and pardon.

² A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences, 1896.

421. Thesis. Christ conferred upon the Church the power of remitting and retaining all sins committed after Baptism, namely, by a truly judicial act and in the manner of a forensic judgment. - This is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, confirming the doctrine of the Council of Florence.

It defined these three things:

1. In the Catholic Church all sins committed after Baptism can be remitted as often as the faithful fall into them (can. 1).

2. In it there is the power truly of remitting and retaining sins, and not only of preaching the Gospel or the remission of sins (can. 2).

3. This power is not the bare ministry of declaring that sins have been remitted, but is exercised through a judicial act, which requires the confession of the penitent (can. 3).

422. Catholic doctrine is proved from the Scriptures. - That there is in the Church a true power of remitting sins is established:

A. From the promise of the power of the keys, in which it is implicitly contained. The power is promised to Peter: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. XVI, 18-19); but to the other apostles a similar participated power is promised: "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. XVIII, 18).

By these words there is promised:

1° To Peter, supreme power in order to the kingdom of heaven, which is the end of the Church, and consequently in order to governing the Church itself. For to hand over the keys of a house or city is a metaphorical expression signifying supreme power in the house or city, as is established from constant sacred and profane usage.1

2° To Peter and the apostles, a universal and unlimited power of binding and loosing whatsoever, i.e., of imposing or relaxing a moral bond, and indeed in such wise that when they bind or loose on earth, this is held ratified by God in heaven. But there is a threefold bond prohibiting from the kingdom of heaven: the bond of law, the bond of sin, and the bond of punishment. Therefore they can loose from this threefold bond, and consequently remit sin, which is the only bond directly removing one from heaven.

3° A power to be exercised in the Church, but not upon those who are outside; for it is promised to Peter in order to the Church to be built, and to the apostles in order to judging and punishing delinquents denounced to the Church, as is clear from the context (v. 17); therefore it is altogether distinguished from the power of baptizing. But the power will be perpetual: for it is promised to Peter as the foundation of the Church, which must always remain for the support of the building, and to the apostles as leaders of the Church; and therefore it will always remain in the Church.

Nor is it an obstacle that, according to the manner of speaking of the rabbis, to loose and to bind signify to declare licit or illicit, according as the more benign masters are said to loose from obligation, the more rigid to bind. For the words are to be understood according to the subject matter: whence if there is question of schools, in which there is not authoritative power but only declarative power, the sense is to declare licit or illicit; on the contrary, when the discussion is concerning the power of the keys or of ruling, and concerning true judgment and excommunication by which someone is authoritatively cast out from the Church, the context requires that they be understood of the true power of obliging or of loosing from obligation.

B. From the mission given to the Apostles of remitting and retaining sins (John XX, 21-23): Jesus "therefore said to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father has sent me, I also send you. When He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." By these words there is not handed down a mere faculty of preaching the remission of sins or of declaring that sins have been remitted to penitents, as Protestants contend, but an unlimited power truly of remitting all sins, not only as to punishment but as to guilt, and indeed to be exercised in a judicial manner. Whence it is altogether distinct from the power of remitting sins through the ministration of Baptism.

1° It is a power truly of remitting sins. For a) Christ hands on to the apostles a mission similar to that which He received from the Father, and which was not only of preaching the remission of sins but of truly dismissing and destroying them.³ - b) Whence by the sensible sign of breathing He imparts to them the Holy Spirit, by which He would manifest that a new and altogether singular power is handed over; such would not be a mission merely to announce the forgiveness of sins, which even the prophets did and which any one of the faithful can perform.⁴ - c) Hence He uses the active verb you shall forgive (aphete), which does not express some passive state to be declared, namely, that sins have been remitted, but indicates the positive action of effectively freeing from sins, as is established from biblical usage⁵ and from the verb to which it is opposed: you shall retain, which likewise requires a positive action. - d) But if in the second clause the words: they are forgiven them and they are retained, according to the Protestants themselves, are to be understood of the true remission or retention of sins, there can be no doubt that in the first clause they must be taken in the same sense. - e) Whence the remission made by the apostles is immediately efficacious, so that there is present the nexus of true causality between the pronouncement of remission by the apostles and the remission itself. For He does not say: Whose, i.e., whosever, sins you shall forgive, they will be forgiven them, but they are forgiven (apheontai), i.e., by that very fact they are remitted, just as those which you shall retain are retained. Therefore it is in no way a question of the preaching of remission, which does not have an immediate infallible effect, nor of the pronouncement of a remission already made, which would not depend on the apostles themselves remitting, but they on it.

³ Matt. I, 21; IX, 2-13; XVIII, 11; Luke V, 20, 32; VII, 47; XIX, 10; XXIV, 47; Apoc. I, 5.

⁴ Therefore it is not a question of fraternal correction, which proceeds from a private person and is made toward a private person, but of the public mission which Christ received from the Father, and which is conferred through the Holy Spirit, namely, through a supernatural charisma for carrying out a divine mission. And this also appears from the fact that the object of the mission is the remission of sins, which according to Matt. IX, 2-4 cannot be done except by divine power, and therefore requires a divine mission.

⁵ Matt. XVIII, 32, 35; Mark XI, 25; Luke VII, 47-49; XI, 4; Rom. IV, 7.

2° It is a power of remitting not only the punishment but the guilt itself of sin before God. For a) the expression aphienai tas hamartias signifies, and indeed constantly, the remission of guilt itself.⁶ - b) This is more manifest in the present case, since the mission of Christ itself is thus to be carried out and completed by the apostles; and He had come to take away the guilt itself of sin.⁷ - c) Whence the apostles, by remitting sins, act in the power of the Holy Spirit, whose proper work it is to cleanse from sin and to blot it out.

⁶ Matt. VI, 12, 14; IX, 5, 6; Mark II, 5, 10; Luke V, 20; VII, 47-49; XXIII, 34; Rom. IV, 5; VIII, 11; James II, 13.

⁷ Matt. I, 21; IX, 13; XVIII, 11; Mark II, 17; Luke V, 32; XIX, 10; Rom. V, 10, 18, 19.

3° The power is to be exercised by a judicial act in the manner of a forensic judgment. For a) the power is conferred as one and indivisible toward two contrary opposed terms, and therefore in its very exercise it needs to be determined toward one or the other through judgment. - b) For to retain (kratein, saisir, tenir) is more than not to remit, but is positively to preserve the bond of sin and to impede remission, so that it is not remitted nor can validly be remitted: it is to bind or oblige someone to appear again in judgment and in the meantime to remain subject, and to prescribe the conditions, works, and satisfactions required so that he may obtain remission. - c) But such a power, which is exercised in the name of Christ in so grave a matter, is not to be exercised arbitrarily at pleasure, but prudently and according to discretion; whence it prerequires judgment concerning the offenses committed by the sinner and concerning his dispositions, which per se cannot be had without his confession.

Therefore it is a power altogether diverse from the power of baptizing and of remitting sins through Baptism, both because it is not limited to that, since it appears to be exercised unlimitedly, toward whatever sinners; and because Baptism washes away sins, it does not formally remit them, whence the taking away of sins is attributed to the external washing and to the power of water and of the Holy Spirit; and because in Baptism a judicial act is not properly exercised, nor is there any power of retaining: for not to baptize is not positively to retain, but merely negatively to omit. But if it were not distinguished from the conferral of Baptism, there would be no power of remitting to be exercised upon the members of the body of the Church. - This is also clear from the interpretation of the Fathers.

423. Corollary. - From the foregoing it is established that the power of remitting sins was granted as unlimited, and that it extends itself to every kind of sin, as is manifest from the words "whose, i.e., whosever, sins you shall forgive," since they are said without restriction. But this is understood the more easily because it is only a part of the power of the keys of loosing whatsoever. Whence to Peter asking, Matt. XVIII, 21: "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?" Jesus responded: "I do not say, until seven times, but until seventy times seven," i.e., always, just as the power of loosing which you will exercise in my name is indefinite.

They object very many things against this conclusion:

1° That sin against the Holy Spirit, according to Christ Himself, is irremissible, namely, it is not remitted either in this age or in the future (Matt. XII, 31; Mark III, 28; Luke XII, 10).

Resp. The sin against the Holy Spirit of which the Gospel speaks is that sin of the Pharisees by which, out of malice, they attributed to the devil the miraculous works of Christ, done by the power of the Holy Spirit so that men might be saved and drawn back from evil; and thus they maliciously contemned the means granted precisely by the Holy Spirit for converting men. Whence this sin includes a depraved disposition of pertinacity, which of itself is permanent, and while it remains it is an obstacle of positive resistance to the action of divine grace converting, and thus according to its own nature it excludes remission. For this reason it is remitted with the greatest difficulty, more rarely, and only as if miraculously, and it can truly be called morally irremissible; although it is not absolutely irremissible by reason of the omnipotence of God (q. 86, a. 1, ad 3; II-II, q. 14, a. 3).

2° The doctrine of the epistle to the Hebrews concerning apostates.

a) Of these it is said VI, 4: "For it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened (by Baptism), have also tasted the heavenly gift (the Holy Eucharist), and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit (by Confirmation), and nevertheless have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and have fallen away, to be renewed again unto penance."

Resp. It is not said that their sin cannot be remitted, nor that they cannot repent; but it is affirmed that they cannot be entirely renewed, as is done through Baptism, because that is unrepeatable, as Athanasius, ep. 4 to Serapion, 13, and Chrysostom in hom. 9 on this place, 3, interpret; or because the rudiments of faith which brought about the first conversion are insufficient for this, as certain moderns understand. - Others less well explain it of moral impossibility, in the same way as was said concerning sin against the Holy Spirit.

b) Likewise X, 26: "For if we sin voluntarily after having received the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no victim for sins, but a certain terrible expectation of judgment."

Resp. It is not said that apostates cannot be converted and repent, but that they, while they remain in apostasy, lack a victim for sins. For if they have departed ungrateful toward Christ immolated, there is not another victim to be immolated for them to redeem them anew. Namely, those who deny Christ have nothing by which they can be redeemed, as the Fathers understand: Athanasius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Epiphanius.

3° The words of I John V, 16 concerning sin unto death: "He who knows his brother to sin a sin not unto death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him sinning not unto death. There is a sin unto death; for that I do not say that anyone should ask."

Resp. The sin unto death seems to be that of apostasy and infidelity by which the divinity of Christ is denied, from whom alone we have eternal life (v. 11-13); whence this sin is unto death. But it is not said to be irremissible; rather the apostle says that he does not ask that prayer be made for those who have committed it. Whence it is a sin which incurs public excommunication; but public prayers are not made for the excommunicated.

424. Catholic doctrine is proved from Tradition. - Penitential doctrine embraces three questions: a) whether in the primitive Church there was a power of remitting sins committed after Baptism, and whether it was held to have been instituted by God; - b) whether confession was necessary for the remission of sins, and whether it was public or private; - c) whether that power was exercised by way of absolution to be given by bishops or priests. The first question is concerning the existence of the sacrament of Penance, the second concerning sacramental confession, the third concerning the minister of Penance. In the present matter only the first comes to be considered.

Now there are not many monuments of the first and second centuries, and very few concerning Penance, both because there was great fervor in the primitive Church, and because they attended more to fundamental truths, and because they confessed more rarely, whether because they considered many mortal sins as venial, or because they deferred penance for a long time, since it was very rigorous and they were admitted to it only once. There is added that penance is rather a practical thing and to be done, than something to be believed and preached. Moreover, documents concerning Penance have also been lost, as, for example, the decree which seems to be attributed to Callistus, and which we know only from Tertullian, who attacks it.

And although testimonies are not yet found altogether explicit concerning the power of remitting sins specially given to bishops and priests for sins committed after Baptism, nor concerning the use of secret confession, nor concerning the obligation of confessing all mortal sins, and therefore perhaps these things cannot be directly proved with certainty by historical arguments to be of divine right, nevertheless indirectly they are certainly established from the doctrine of the Church of the following centuries, which is always infallible and unchanged in the same way. But from the beginning penance itself and the remission of sins are explicitly preached.

A. Writers from the beginning of the second century quite clearly establish that sins after Baptism can be blotted out through penance.

Thus Ignatius speaks of those who, led by penance, have returned to the unity of the Church (to the Philadelphians 3), and Irenaeus of heretics converted to the Church of God, who made exomologesis or penance (Against Heresies I, 13 and III, 3-4); Eusebius hands down other examples (H. E. V, 1 and 28), and Dionysius of Corinth says that all who have fallen, even heretics, if converted, are again to be received into communion (ibid. IV, 13); but Hermas, in the book The Shepherd, grants penance, necessary for remission, for all sins committed after Baptism, even for impurity, apostasy, and idolatry, yet only once, lest otherwise the faithful be led into sin. This last point after him Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine repeat. But Hermas describes penance in such a way that it is established that it is done under the direction of the Church.

B. In the third century, Tertullian, in the book On Penance, presents penance as an ordinary remedy, to be granted once to those fallen after Baptism, even for graver sins, as very laborious: for it consists of confession, exomologesis1 or the public fulfillment of satisfactions, and reconciliation or absolution; that this is granted by the bishop we know from the later treatise On Modesty. Yet in this work Tertullian, having now become a Montanist, holds the graver sins to be irremissible, especially three: adultery or fornication, homicide, and apostasy or idolatry. Thus he seems to attack the pontiff Callistus, who at Rome had determined that one was to be absolved from adultery.2

Likewise Origen reports the remission of sins, to be granted once after penance (hom. 15 on Leviticus), and confession to be instituted before priests (hom. 17 on Luke; hom. 2 on Leviticus); yet in a certain place he indicates three sins as irremissible (On Prayer 28).

Cyprian also, in several letters and in the book On the Lapsed, defends that remission is rather easily to be granted to merely libellatic apostates when penitent; but to those who had sacrificed, even if they had obtained a letter of peace from martyrs, only in dangerous illness, or after long penance and after the matter had been maturely weighed by the bishops. This manner of acting, while it displeased many, was approved by the priests of the Roman Church; afterward Novatian, contradicting and denying reconciliation to apostates, was condemned in the Council held at Rome, Cornelius presiding. All these things were confirmed in the Council of Carthage, celebrated in the same year (252).

In the East, Firmilian (ep. 75) and Dionysius of Alexandria (H. E. VI, 41-46) teach the same against the Novatians; and several other documents are had which affirm that the power of remitting sins without exception belongs to bishops, such as Can. ap. 52; Can. Hipp. 3; Const. Eccl. Aeg.; Didasc. ap., c. 5-10; and the canonical epistle of Gregory Thaumaturgus.

C. Finally, in the fourth century, against the Novatians they generally affirm that the power of remitting all sins was granted to bishops.

Thus Ambrose, in the book On Penance; Pacian, in the epistle to Sympronianus; Chrysostom, in the work On the Priesthood III, 5-6; Gregory Nazianzen, or. 39; Ephraem, Against Heresies, sermon 2; Aphraates (Patr. syr. I, p. 313-360); Hilary, on Matt. XVIII; Const. ap. VIII, 5.

This is confirmed, both from the institution, from the third or fourth century onward, of penitentiaries or priests to whom the office belonged of imposing penance upon sinners and imparting absolution in place of the bishop (H. E. V, 19; VII, 16); and from the unanimous testimony of the following centuries. From the fifth century the distinction already began to be instituted between public and private penance; the former was granted only once, but the latter several times, and thus gradually it became more frequent and succeeded public exomologesis: so a change was introduced in discipline, without doctrine having been changed.

From these things it is certainly established that in the Church the power of forgiving sins committed after Baptism was acknowledged. Writers of the third century and liturgical and canonical books of almost the same time testify to this, and indeed from various parts of the Church; such a universal persuasion concerning a matter of such moment would have been impossible unless it had already been admitted in the second century and brought into practice. Otherwise the Montanists and Novatians would have simply denied it, and the faithful themselves would have protested if a notable change had been introduced in so practical a matter, or if the liturgical prayers themselves had been adulterated or changed. Of these things no trace is present.

Moreover 1) in the second century the intervention of the bishop is asserted, not indeed expressly, yet implicitly. Thus Clement of Rome admonishes the delinquent Corinthians "to be subject to the presbyters and to be formed unto penance" (to the Corinthians LVII, 1); but Ignatius says that nothing of any moment in spiritual matters is to be done without the authority of the bishop (Trall. 2; Phil. 7), as he also says concerning the very return to the unity of the Church (Philad. 3); and Hermas announces that penance is to be communicated to all the prelates of the Church (vis. II, 4).

2. The power was exercised in a judicial manner: namely, from the moment at which the intervention of the bishop is explicitly commemorated, it is described as judicial, as is established from the edict of Callistus, and from the testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian, and other documents.

3. The power extends itself to all sins, since in the earliest times no restriction of it appears, and only in the third century, and only in some churches, were three sins held as irremissible: not indeed as if they could not be remitted, but in such wise that the Church herself did not will to remit them, and left the remission to God alone.

4. Public penance led to reconciliation not only with the Church but also with God, in such wise that it remitted the guilt itself. This is established from the words of Callistus: "I forgive offenses to those who have performed penance"; from the whole controversy with the Montanists and Novatians; from the comparison customarily made between Penance and Baptism (Tertullian, Penance 7 and 9; Didasc. ap. 10; Jerome, against Pelagius I, 33; Augustine, On Adulterous Marriages II, 16); from the formulas themselves of absolution, which absolve from punishment and guilt; and from the explicit doctrine of Cyprian, On the Lapsed 29, Ambrose and Pacian, l.c., Leo, ep. 112 (otherwise 108), c. 2.⁸

⁸ Objections can be seen in Galtier, o.c., n. 152-155; where also the doctrine of Augustine is treated specifically, n. 156-161.

1. The word exomologesis, even sometimes in one and the same writer, is used in a threefold sense: 1° for confession itself preparatory to public penance; 2° for the whole and laborious exercise of penance, especially of expiation, as in the present case; 3° for the acknowledgment publicly made by the penitent that he is a sinner.

2. Others attributed that edict to Zephyrinus; more recently certain authors attribute it to Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage. - Tertullian nevertheless does not deny that in the Church there is the power of remitting sins, but he thought that remission was not to be granted to all; yet he said that the power was granted personally to Peter, and was not to be transmitted to bishops, but belonged to charismatics and spiritual men.

425. Uncertain and controverted points. - Although the power of remitting sins was undoubtedly acknowledged, nevertheless not all things are clear and indubitable as to penitential discipline, but several things are subjected to controversy.

1° Whether public penance was generally denied for the three greatest sins.

Thus it does not seem to have been done from the beginning; in the second century no indication of this matter appears, but the remission of sins is proposed without restriction. Only in the third century did such discipline exist in certain Churches, for example, in Africa, also at Rome, and, as it seems, in certain parts of the East, according to Origen as witness. But the rigorous discipline did not endure, nor does it appear to have existed in all Churches.

2° Whether reconciliation in the article of death was also denied to those sins.

This also seems to have been done in certain particular Churches, yet not everywhere. To assert this would contradict the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 7. Moreover, Serapion of Alexandria admitted such delinquents to communion at the last moment (H. E. VI, 44); which, besides, the Council of Nicaea I prescribed, can. 13.⁹

⁹ Certain theologians who care little for historical disciplines think it impossible that sacramental absolution was for a longer time, or even sometimes in the article of death, denied: for this is opposed to divine right, since penance is a necessary means of salvation and the power of the keys was granted for the salvation of sinners, and therefore must be exercised obligatorily. - But against a fact an argument does not stand. Others respond that there is no conflict with divine right, because 1) Christ left to the Church the office of ordering the exercise of the power of remitting sins for the better good of the Church, and of establishing conditions for the validity of the sacrament, in a way similar to what holds for matrimony. 2) Moreover, the precept of confessing presses in danger of death; in the course of life its determination is left to the judgment of the Church. 3) Finally and chiefly, because the sacrament of Penance is not incapable of being supplied, since sin can be remitted by perfect contrition.

3° Whether the absolution which was given at the end of public penance was sacramental, or whether at the beginning of penance private absolution was given in the internal forum, but at the end public absolution in the external forum.

The absolution at the end certainly seems to have been sacramental, for from the words of the formula it was given for the relaxation of guilt and punishment. But whether at the beginning of penance absolution was also given in the internal forum is not historically established.

4° Whether in the earlier centuries, besides public penance, another private penance flourished.

Public penance, as is established from the documents, was in use not only for graver sins but also for middling or lighter ones, although not for minute sins, i.e., venial sins, which can be remitted without the intervention of the power of the keys; nor only for public offenses but also for hidden and secret ones. In this case secret confession sufficed, nor was public confession imposed, although it could be instituted; but public satisfactory penance existed, or at least after it absolution was given publicly. But whether this was always and everywhere done for hidden offenses; or whether, according to the discretion of the bishop or priest, for them, or even sometimes for public sins on account of special circumstances, only private penance was enjoined, cannot be clearly defined. Indications of private penance exist, but not apodictic signs.¹⁰

¹⁰ Publicly to be fulfilled satisfaction or absolution publicly to be granted, at first sight, could seem incompatible with the law of the seal. But the law of the seal was not declared with the same rigor as is now customary. The faithful at that time did not urge it nor see its incompatibility with the publicity of penance, from this, that the publicity was done in the family and that we are all sinners, as Tertullian says. Penance at this time was a social matter, not an individual one. Whence in the case there was not unjust defamation; otherwise even in confession itself defamation could seem to be present, especially because they were not yet accustomed to confess venial sins.

But neither in the article of death is it absolutely repugnant, although it can seem unfitting, that the Church in a particular case deny absolution and leave the sinner to the judgment of God alone, even while praying for his salvation. For it is not repugnant that the Church permit someone, as punishment for sins, to die excommunicated, and therefore without the sacraments.

426. Observation. - The sacrament of Penance, although it was instituted in the manner of a judicial act, nevertheless differs very much from this.

1° In end: the latter intends the restitution of order and the recompense of the offense to the equality of justice according to the judgment of the judge from vindicative justice; - the former intends the reconciliation of friendship with offended God and requires reintegration, not indeed to the equality of justice but only according to the judgment of the mercy of offended God.

2° Hence it also differs in judicial process: in forensic judgment the acts of the process in no way proceed from the guilty person himself, but one is accuser, another guilty party, another witness; here the denunciation of the cause must be made by the guilty person himself, and the action of the sinner against himself is required, so that the guilty person himself is plaintiff and at the same time accuser and witness.

3° Likewise in the disposition of the sinner: in forensic judgment it does not matter whether the guilty person comes into judgment voluntarily or involuntarily, but it suffices that he suffer the punishment brought by the judge, whether spontaneously or by coercion, whether he is content with the punishment or not. But here it is required that he spontaneously recompense and voluntarily submit himself to the sacred judgment of God, to which three acts concur: a) displeasure at the offense and the will of recompensing it, which is done through contrition not hidden in the heart but manifested by an external act; b) accusation by which he explains the cause and submits himself to the judgment of the priest in the place of offended God, which is done through confession; c) execution of the compensation imposed according to the judgment of the minister of God, which is done through satisfaction (q. 90, a. 2. Cf. Billuart, diss. 1, a. 2).