Article I: On the Power of Order

S. Th., Suppl., q. 8, a. 1-3; q. 19, a. 3-4.

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

A. Concerning this there erred: 1) the Montanists, who held that only the pneumatics or spiritual men, i.e., those who had received the Holy Spirit, could forgive sins, according to the words of Christ: Receive the Holy Spirit...; - 2) Abelard, thinking that the power had been granted to the Apostles alone, not to their successors, who was condemned in the Council of Sens, a. 1140 (prop. 12); - 3) the Fraticelli, Waldenses, Wycliffites, Hussites, who granted the power of absolving sins to good laymen, but denied it to wicked priests (cf. Council of Constance, a. 20 and 22); - 4) the Lutherans, who commonly hold that the power of remitting sins is reduced to the ministry of preaching and exhortation, for arousing faith in the remission of sins, and that it belongs of itself to all the faithful, even women, in a case of necessity, provided they believe themselves absolved; yet, to avoid confusion, that the same is not to be exercised except by those who have been deputed to this by the community. Other Protestants, besides Episcopalians and Ritualists, deny every power of the keys; - 5) many liberal Protestants hold that in the first centuries of the Church the power of the keys was exercised by charismatics alone, i.e., by those faithful who enjoyed a special gift or charism: for, they say, 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 inferior clerics were extraordinary ministers who, when priests were lacking, received confessions and could contribute something toward absolution; - or even that deacons in antiquity were held to be extraordinary ministers absolving: thus, for example, Morinus. Indeed a few said that, when priests and clerics were lacking, one had to confess to laymen.

572. Thesis. Priests alone, by divine right, i.e., bishops and presbyters, are ministers of sacramental confession, who can validly absolve; hence 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, the first part of which canon is directed against Wycliffe, the other against Luther.

It is proved: 1) From the documents of revelation, by which it is clear a) that the words of Christ: Whose sins you shall remit... were directed to those alone who are sent, the Apostles; moreover b) that the power was granted as a judgment to be exercised; but that there be a judge, there must be superior and inferiors; therefore this power was not granted to all, namely to inferiors. But who in fact are successors of the Apostles in this power, whether bishops alone, or also priests or others, must be determined from Tradition and the usage of the Church, by which it is clear that from the first times generally that office was committed not to bishops alone but also to presbyters, but not to others.

They already insinuate this from the first times: Ignatius, when he does not promise sinners remission of sins unless they return to the gathered Church and to the consent of the bishop (ad Philad., n. 3); Clement of Rome, when he commands the Corinthians not to remove those who had been constituted bishops, i.e., presbyters, and had discharged their office excellently, but that they themselves be subject to the presbyters so that they may receive correction unto penance, lest they be excluded from the flock of Christ (ad Cor. 44 and 57). But from the third century onward they expressly affirm it: Callistus, claiming this power for himself; Tertullian, de Poen. IX and de Pud. XVIII, 17-18; Cyprian, de Laps. 29 and ep. 17; Origen, in Lev. hom. 2, n. 4; in Num., hom. 10, c. 1; in Ps. 37, hom. 1; Athanasius, in fragment from l. c. Nov.; Ephraim, or. de sacerd.; Didasc., c. 7; Basil, reg. brev., n. 228; Chrysostom, de sacerd. III, 5; Const. Ap. II, 16; Ambrose, de Poen. I, 2; Jerome, in Mt. XVI, 19; Augustine, serm. 351; enchir. 65; Leo M., ep. 108 and ep. ad Theod.; Council of Carthage III, can. 32; etc.

In 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 Council of Hippo, Elvira, and Carthage III, and from the institution of the presbyter penitentiaries. From the sixth century the usage of approaching priests is general. Moreover it belonged to them to the exclusion of deacons, which is clear both from the fact of silence concerning these and from explicit doctrine from the third century onward: among others, the testimonies of Ambrose, de Poen. I, 2; Jerome, in Jer. XIII, 12; in Mt. XVI, 19; Augustine, de Civ. D., XX, 10; ep. 228 ad Hon., n. 8; serm. 82, n. 8 and 11; Innocent I, ep. 25 ad Dec., n. 3, and of others can be compared.

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 a minister. Therefore ministers alone can remit sins.¹ But bishops alone were not to be chosen, but also priests, because 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.

That priests, however, and not deacons and inferior ministers, should be chosen is most fitting, as the same St. Thomas shows, q. 8, a. 1: "Grace which is given in the sacrament descends from Christ the head into the members. And therefore he alone 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, the priest alone is minister of this sacrament, and therefore sacramental confession, which is customarily made to the minister of the Church, must be made to him alone."

In the first way thus: "From this something is constituted a principal agent, that it has some form which it can pour into another; but it is not constituted an instrumental agent from this, but from this, that it is applied by the principal agent for inducing some effect... But man... can neither give to another grace, by which sins are remitted, nor merit it sufficiently... And for this reason, however much someone may have of grace, he cannot reach the effect of the keys unless he is applied to this as minister through reception of order" (q. 19, a. 4).

In the second way thus: "Just as participation of the form which is to be induced in the effect does not make an 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 the 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 that 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 as to liceity, although the one subjecting himself to the keys obtains the effect of the keys" (a. 5, and ad 1).

And therefore also in heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons, the power of the keys remains as to essence, the power of order; but the use is impeded, for the most part, from defect of matter, the power of jurisdiction. For since the use of the keys in the one using them requires prelacy, or jurisdiction, with respect to him upon whom he uses it..., the proper matter upon which the use of the keys is exercised is a subject man. And because through the ordination of the Church one is subjected to another, therefore also through the prelates of the Church he who was subject to someone can be withdrawn. Hence, when the Church deprives heretics, schismatics, and others of this kind, by withdrawing subjects either simply, or as to something, as to that in which they have been deprived they cannot have the use of the keys" (a. 6).

573. Observation. - In the thesis we said that priests alone 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 relates, q. 8, a. 2, but it was not sacramental, as is clear from the response ad 1 and 3, and from a. 3;

² Cf. on 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 stirred up toward the remission of venial sins, just like striking the breast (a. 3).

574. They object: From the history of the Church it is clear that the power of receiving confessions or even of remitting sins, in the course of time, was acknowledged to pneumatics, - to some confessors and martyrs, - to deacons, - indeed even to laymen.

Resp.: 1. The pneumatics at the beginning of the Church were endowed with special charisms (I Cor. XII, 3-11; XIV, 2-40; Eph. IV, 11), but it is not read that the power of remitting sins was granted to them. Tertullian alone asserted this, having become a Montanist; and 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 enjoyed only the privilege of intercession, by which, in view of their confession, bishops admitted certain sinners to reconciliation. This is clear from the letters of St. Cyprian, whose doctrine was approved not only by the African bishops, but also, while the see was vacant, by the Roman presbyters and deacons.

3. Deacons, when 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; in which latter case they indeed supposed perfect contrition in them.

But certain deacons exceeded the limits of their power; particular Councils prohibited this, as is clear, 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, received the confession of the dying, but did not absolve. This practice, however, was held useful, for greater humility and contrition and a greater desire of confession; indeed 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 the due satisfaction through the shame of confession, so that thus he might become worthy of pardon from desire for the priest and be disposed to perfect contrition. And then the supreme priest, Christ, supplies the defect of the priest and grants remission.

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

575. Corollaries. - From the aforesaid it follows:

1. That the Church cannot supply the defect for a priest invalidly ordained.

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

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