Article — Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis
Article III: On the Form
S. Th. III, q. 84, a. 3; Opusc. 22.
It is proved from St. Thomas, III, q. 84, a. 3:
"Since the sacraments of the New Law effect what they signify..., it is necessary that the form of the sacrament signify that which is done in the sacrament, proportionally to the matter of the sacrament. Whence the form of Baptism is: I baptize thee, and the form of Confirmation: I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, because sacraments of this kind are perfected in the use of the matter; but in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration of the matter, the truth of the consecration is expressed when it is said: This is my body. But this sacrament, namely of Penance, does not consist in the consecration of some matter, nor in the use of some sanctified matter, but rather in the removal of a certain matter, namely of sin, insofar as sins are said to be the matter of Penance... But such removal is signified by the priest when it is said: I absolve thee; for sins are certain bonds... Whence it is plain that this is the most fitting form of this sacrament: I absolve thee." "Therefore it must be said that that form is taken from the very words of Christ by which He said to Peter (Matt. XVI, 19): Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth" (ibid., ad 1). "Yet because the priest absolves as minister, something which pertains to the first authority of God is fittingly added, namely, that it be said: I absolve thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (ad 3).
Briefly: the form must express the exercise of the power of the keys, or of the power of remitting sins, granted to the ministers of the Church, to be exercised in the name of God, of which the sacrament of Penance is the use and effect; which is furnished by the form: I absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, etc.
442. Thesis II. The form must express the exercise of the power of the keys, or the power of remitting sins by the minister himself, the priest. Whence 1° a merely deprecative form does not suffice; but, 2° if apparently, materially, and as to the mode of speaking it at some time was or is deprecative, at least according to the sense it must be formally indicative.
The first is proved: a) The form must indicate the exercise of the power of the keys, or of loosing sins. But to ask is not to loose. Therefore a merely deprecative form does not suffice, but the form must be indicative at least as to the sense.
The second is proved: A form deprecative according to grammatical construction must, according to the sense, be partially equivalent to an indicative or enunciative form. For sacramental absolution is a judicial sentence. But it would not be a judicial sentence unless there were signified in some way a) judicial power in the one pronouncing, b) the use of this power, and c) the actual effect, namely, the right granted in order to the remission of sins. Therefore.
443. Conclusions. - Hence 1° the expressly and formally indicative form is fitting, which enunciates the actual use of judicial power in order to the remission of sins granted in the present. For, as St. Thomas says, a. 3:
"This form is taken from the very words of Christ, by which He said to Peter (Matt. XVI, 19): Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth. And the Church uses such a form in sacramental absolution" (ad 1). But "in certain absolutions which are publicly made in the Church, as in Prime and Compline, and on the Lord's Supper, the absolving one does not use an indicative prayer, so as to say: I absolve thee, but a deprecative prayer, when he says: May almighty God have mercy on you, or: May almighty God grant you absolution and remission" (Obj. 1). "But absolutions of this kind, made in public, are not sacramental, but are certain prayers ordered to the remission of venial sins. Whence in sacramental absolution it does not suffice to say: May almighty God have mercy on thee, or: May almighty God grant thee absolution and remission, because through these words the priest does not signify that absolution is done, but asks that it be done" (ad 1).
2° Nevertheless, per se the deprecative form can be valid, if by reason of the circumstances it sufficiently shows that the minister absolves and remits sins, or if the Church has annexed this sense to it.
This is clear a) from history: for at the beginning and through the ten first centuries, in each Church all forms which are known to have been used were deprecative, for example: God, pardon him, absolve or release him, etc.1
1 This is clear from the Sacramentaries (for example, the Gelasian) and Penitentials; and from the concordant testimony of the Fathers, for example, Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, III, 18; Jerome, on Ps. 28; Against Lucifer, n. 5; Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatists, V, 20; serm. 99; Leo the Great, ep. 108 to Theodorus, etc.; who always allude to the deprecative mode of the formula, never to the indicative. - But from the eleventh century, in the Latin Church the transition begins from deprecative formulas to indicative ones, and both are used together in such a way that an indicative formula is added to the deprecative. Yet the use of the deprecative formula endured, so that at the beginning of the thirteenth century it was still in force, which we know from the testimony of William of Auxerre, William of Paris, and Hugh the Cardinal, and from the very little work of St. Thomas On the Form of Absolution, who, while defending the indicative form, nevertheless could not simply deny this (c. 2 and 5). But a little later, the indicative form was commonly received; yet in such a way that the accompanying prayers are a vestige of the ancient discipline. - In the Eastern Church, however, after the thirteenth century the deprecative form remained, and today remains among the non-united Greeks, indeed among the united who live outside Europe, and in the Coptic Church of Alexandria. But many, even among the Schismatics, have borrowed the indicative form from the Latin Church, such as the Jacobites, Armenians, Copts, Russians, Rumanians; likewise the united Greeks who live in the parts of Europe, and the Maronites; but the schismatic Ruthenians use a form which is at once deprecative and indicative.
b) by reason: A deprecative formula, with the intention of absolving, and by reason of the adjuncts, namely: the cause having been known, by him who has the power of remitting, and is held by all as a judge who truly remits, though not by his own authority but by that of God, sufficiently shows (whether implicitly, or also by explicit words, for example: "through my ministry," or by mention of the power of the keys granted) that the priest is the minister of God and absolves only by His authority; nor does it prevent the priest from being a judge and truly absolving ministerially, especially if the Church thus prescribes or tolerates and the usage is common. Then the sense will be: "Mayest thou be absolved, or thou shalt be absolved, through me, through my ministry." Thus also the formula: May almighty God bless you, uttered not by a layman but by a priest, from whom a blessing is sought according to the accustomed rite of the Church, signifies: I bless you by the authority of God; likewise absolution from censures is often given in a deprecative mode, and nevertheless it is a judicial act. And the words: The servant of Christ is baptized, are equivalent to the form of Baptism: I baptize thee.
Nor is it an obstacle that the Church cannot change the matter and form of the sacraments instituted by Christ, because not all forms of the sacraments were always wholly determined by Christ according to material uniformity, but only according to signification; whence, if the Church has the right of defining the final determination of the form, nothing prevents a deprecative form, with the manifested intention of bearing a judicial sentence, from being valid. But those who would think otherwise would have to see how they could reconcile their theory with the facts. Therefore the indicative form is more expressive and more fitting to the judicial power which belongs to the ministers of the Church, because it is certain that they do not only ask that remission be made, but as instruments of God work it potestatively; but a deprecative form can also be legitimated, because the minister remits not in his own name but in the name and authority of God; whence he says as if imperatively: May God absolve thee, i.e., in the name of God I pronounce that God ought to absolve thee.
3° Nevertheless, practically in the Latin Church the indicative form alone can be used. For since in the Western Church the use of the indicative formula has now been prescribed for many centuries, with reason one can doubt concerning the value of the deprecative formula in the Latin Church.
For the Church can prescribe one form as valid, and can declare another not to be legitimate, and therefore no longer to have an indicative sense; she can establish the conditions of exercising the judicial act and the one authentic form: for she can refuse to grant jurisdiction except for the indicative form. But whether this was the intention of the Church is not certain, but doubtful. Whence, because this at least is uncertain, one must abstain from the deprecative form as doubtful.2
2 There are also imperative forms, but those are reduced to deprecative forms if they are directed to God, for example, may God absolve thee, may He indulge; they mean: God, pardon him, indulge him; others are reduced to indicative or enunciative forms, if they are directed to the penitent, for example, be absolved by me, be absolved by God, i.e., God absolves thee through my ministry.
444. The form signifies the use and effect of the power of the keys, i.e., the remission of sin itself, or of guilt, made by the minister, so that the sense is: I truly remit guilt to thee. - This is indicated by the definition of the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 9; whence "the reality and effect of the sacrament, insofar as its force and efficacy are concerned, is reconciliation with God" (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3).
Hence A. the sense of the form is not:
1° I show or declare thee absolved, namely in the face of the Church.
Thus against the Protestants, who said that sin is remitted by faith alone, not by the force of the sacrament, and that absolution "is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins are remitted to the one confessing, provided only that he believe himself to be absolved," which was expressly condemned by Trent (can. 9). And against Peter Lombard and other ancients who asserted the same, but in a very diverse sense, for they admitted the assisting power of God operating by itself alone interiorly what is signified by exterior absolution, without attributing true instrumental causality to the minister or to his sentence as to the remission of sin, but only as to remission in the face of the Church; which nevertheless does not cohere sufficiently with the doctrine of the Council of Trent.
And indeed a) the sacraments effect what they signify; but the form of Penance signifies the remission of sin; therefore it effects it. Therefore, just as the form of Baptism: I baptize thee, does not signify: I show thee washed, but washes; so the form of Penance does not only show the man absolved, but absolves (III, q. 84, a. 3, ad 5);
b) for otherwise the power of the keys would be weakened: it would have been given to the Apostles in vain if they could do nothing except show, since every learned and prudent man could do that by discussion of conscience.
2° Nor is the sense: I absolve thee from punishment, as Richard of St. Victor and certain scholastics, and Baius, interpreted it.
For a) it is against the obvious sense of the form and John XX, 23: from sins; b) according to the Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 15, eternal punishment is remitted together with guilt; therefore if the form does not remit guilt, neither does it remit eternal punishment; c) according to the same Council, sess. 14, c. 1, the priest has power for reconciling the faithful fallen after Baptism; but reconciliation is made through the remission of guilt and not of punishment alone (cf. condemned propositions 57 and 58 of Baius). And d) then "the will of receiving the effect of the keys for the remission of guilt would not be required, just as the intention of receiving other sacraments which are not ordered to the remission of guilt but against punishment is not required" (Suppl., q. 18, a. 1).
3° Nor is the sense: I absolve thee from the obligation of again subjecting sins to the keys, as St. Bonaventure has it, IV Sent., dist. 18, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1.
For a) it is against the obvious sense of the form and John XX, 23: to loose from sins; b) absolution from venial sins, or from sins already remitted, would then now have no signification and would not have value.
4° Nor is the sense: I give thee grace remissive of sin of itself, as Suarez says, on Penance, disp. 19, sect. 2, n. 13-20.
For the words directly signify the remission of sin and only indirectly grace, because in the present order a grave offense is not remitted without the infusion of grace. The words, namely, of themselves, that is, from human institution, do not directly signify the conferral of grace, although they produce it from the institution of Christ according to sacramental signification. Therefore the sense rather is: I remit sins to thee through the infusion of grace. - Nor is it an obstacle to this that then remission precedes the infusion of grace. For remission, as cession of the divine right to aversion, precedes the infusion of grace, and the removal or expulsion of sin follows upon this.
B. But the sense of the form is: I judicially bestow upon thee the sacrament (or sacred practical sign, or title and cause) of absolution (i.e., of remission), as St. Thomas has it, q. 84, a. 3, ad 5, and in the little work On the Form of Absolution, c. 3; namely, I judicially bring it about that it is owed to thee to be freed from sin. Whence the sense of absolution is verified, even if someone is already in the state of grace, or if because of a defect of the subject grace is not conferred.
445. For the validity of the form there are required the essential words: I absolve thee, and probably also: from sins.
1° Certainly there are required: I absolve thee, because they sufficiently declare the effect of the sacrament, the judicial mode by which it is effected, and the subject receiving.
2° Probably also: from sins, because the words: I absolve thee, are not sufficiently determined and can be understood of absolution from censures or from punishments, although nevertheless probably from the previous confession itself of sins the matter is sufficiently indicated; but in practice they must be added, because in the ministration of the sacraments that which is safer must be done: but if they should have been omitted, the form would have to be repeated under condition.
3° On the contrary, essential are not: I, in the Latin language, and thy, because they are sufficiently included in: I absolve thee; yet they pertain to the integrity of the form.
4° In no way are the words required: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which are neither prescribed by Christ nor found in the ancient formulas.
Hence a) the voluntary omission or substantial corruption of an essential word, or of a word which probably is such, is always a mortal sin, because it invalidates the sacrament or exposes it to danger of nullity, and the penitent to deprivation of sacramental grace;
b) absolution under an equivalent form, although gravely illicit, is valid, for example, if it were said: I remit or pardon thee; I absolve you or your excellency; or let such a one be absolved from sins, etc., because the same sense remains and there is only an accidental change;
c) the omission alone of the words: in the name of the Father... is considered a light transgression of the ritual law.
446. The mode in which the form must be uttered, required for validity, is a) that it be uttered by mouth, b) directed to one present, c) independently of a suspensive condition in the future.
A. Uttered by mouth in words properly so called. Concerning this perhaps someone could doubt, because this sacrament was instituted by way of judgment; therefore what is rigorously required for giving sentence in other judgments could suffice also in this judgment. But in others, writing, a nod, and generally any sign by which the sentence can be manifested, suffices. Therefore also in this sacrament words properly so called could fail to be required; which is confirmed by the example of matrimony, in which a nod can suffice. Nevertheless words properly so called uttered by mouth are required for validity. It is proved:
a) From the words of Eugene IV (in the Council of Florence, decree for the Armenians), teaching that the sacraments are perfected by three things, of which one is words as the form, and that when these are lacking the sacrament does not exist. And although afterward he said of matrimony that it is regularly perfected by words, thus indicating that it can sometimes be done without words, nevertheless this exception is not added except for matrimony and thus confirms the rule; indeed the form of Penance is said to be the words of absolution which the priest utters, when he says, which can properly be understood only of words.
c) The reason is taken from the institution of Christ, which the Tradition and perpetual custom of the Church has manifested in fact and doctrine.
But the difference from matrimony is: a) that Christ the Lord did not institute something new as a sacrament, but elevated matrimony itself to the dignity of a sacrament; b) in matrimony words are required for this, that consent become known to the other party; but in other sacraments words are not required for this; c) matrimony is by its nature for all, even the mute, and therefore words are not required for validity; as to Penance, by its nature it is not unsuitable that the mute cannot absolve.
Hence in practice: 1. the opposite opinion, which formerly belonged to many, has no foundation;
- whence attention is not to be paid to this, which Sporer says, that in a case of extreme necessity a mute priest, every other priest being lacking, can give absolution by a nod or by writing;
- nevertheless it is not necessary that the words be heard, but it suffices that they be audible of themselves; indeed prudence rather demands that they be uttered not in a loud voice, but in a low voice, lest bystanders be able to notice that someone is dismissed without absolution.
B. Directed to one present. The words: I absolve thee, suppose the penitent to be morally present. But moral presence is that within which men, speaking in a higher voice, can and are accustomed to speak to and be heard by one another; which St. Alphonsus with many others thinks can certainly be extended to about 20 paces, especially where the penitent has not yet gone out of the sight of the confessor; but if the distance is greater, or if confessor and penitent are in diverse rooms entirely separated, the absolution will be doubtful, and therefore from it, outside a case of extreme necessity, one must abstain, because in such a doubt that which is safer must be done. Hence in practice:
- If the penitent leaves the confessional before absolution has been given, he can safely be absolved if it is certainly known that he is within a few paces; which can be extended to about 20, if he is still seen by the confessor; otherwise he should kindly be recalled to the confessional. But if he is already far away and cannot be found, the matter should be committed to God; afterward, however, if he returns to confession, he should be warned that he should grieve over all his sins, even past ones, and be absolved.
- A dying man can be absolved even from the doorway of the room.
- In battle a multitude of soldiers can be absolved, although some are far distant, because they form one moral thing and by this reason all are sufficiently present.
- In a case of necessity there can be absolved (under condition) all those who are perceived by some sense, even confusedly, for example, falling from a roof, slipping into a river or sea, lying in a fire, even if they are only seen from afar, provided that it is in some way probable that they are morally present, because in some sensible way they are before the confessor.
C. Independent of every suspensive condition in the future. For the sacraments at once operate the effect which they can, nor is it in the power of the minister to suspend it into the future. For at the time at which the sacrament is conferred, the effect is not produced, since the execution of the condition is uncertain, and the intention of the priest, which is required for the validity of the sacrament, remains suspended; but at the time at which the condition is verified, the sacrament no longer exists, nor therefore is it able to produce the effect. Hence:
- Absolution under a condition concerning an uncertain future is invalid, for example, I absolve thee if within a month thou shalt have made restitution.
- On the contrary, under a condition concerning the present or past it is valid, if the condition is verified, for example, I absolve thee if thou livest, if thou art capable, if thou hast made restitution, if I did not absolve thee, etc. For this does not suspend the effect, since, the condition being verified, the absolution is in reality absolute, and consequently has value in the same way as this and at once produces its effect.
- The condition if thou art disposed, as being concerning the present, does not hinder validity, although some have denied this; nevertheless it is not opportunely used in practice. Concerning this it will be said later, n. 617.
447. Corollaries. - From this practical corollaries can be deduced:
1° That absolution given to an absent person, whether through letters or through an intermediary, even when he confesses in this way, is illicit and invalid,1 both because it is not done by vocal words, and because it is not done to one present.
Besides, the nature of the sacrament of Penance seems to require that, from the mode in which it is administered, per se at least the priest can be made certain concerning the actual state of the penitent; for which there is required a present confession and absolution of one present; nor does an intermediary bear the place of the penitent as to disposition. On account of this Clement VIII, on June 20, 1602, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, at least as false, rash, and scandalous, condemned this proposition: "that it is lawful through letters or an intermediary to confess sins sacramentally to an absent confessor and from the same absent one to obtain absolution," and commanded that it should never in any case be reduced to practice. From this it follows that the absolution is not only illicit but also invalid, for otherwise sometimes, at least in extreme necessity, it could licitly be reduced to practice.
2° That absolution given to an absent person is also invalid, even if confession was made to a priest present, on account of the same motives.
3° Likewise that absolution given to one present is invalid, but by force of confession made in absence and here and now in no way renewed, not even in general. For then present matter is lacking, namely confession, and therefore the absolution would not be sacramental, as not informing the matter, nor is the priest more certified concerning the actual state of the penitent.
It is also reported that Clement VIII pronounced that he had condemned and prohibited the proposition adduced not only copulatively but divisively, concerning absolution and confession separately; and most certainly Paul V, in the Congregation of the Holy Office on July 14, 1605, declared the decree to have value in the divided sense, so that he ordered the contrary interpretation to be expunged from the writings of Suarez.
4° Whence, as an axiom, they are accustomed to say: absolution is invalid, whether a) an absent person confesses and an absent person is absolved, or b) a present person confesses and an absent person is absolved, or c) an absent person confesses and a present person is absolved.
5° Nevertheless the practice of absolving dying persons destitute of the senses, who manifested a desire of confession, concerning which testimony is had through bystanders, is not disapproved, as Clement VIII declared.
For then there is present confession of a present person made to one present through bystanders, as through interpreters. For as Billuart says, on Penance, diss. 7, art. 3, § II, "the penitent is present, the bystanders present, the confessor present, and through the testimony of the bystanders the confession itself present." Namely, the penitent is present, and his confession is morally continued and expressed by the mouth of the bystanders, so that the priest can be morally certain concerning the actual state of the penitent, since it is in no way likely that he, while the danger of death stands, has changed his good disposition.
6° Finally, absolution by telephone, or through a long phonetic canal, is invalid, or at least very doubtful.
For according to the natural and ordinary mode of conversing, the penitent and confessor are not present to each other, and by the common estimation of men, the conversation is judged to take place between absent persons: simple communication is not yet presence. Indeed neither is the very voice of the one speaking heard on the telephone, but it is only perfectly reproduced; but an artificial transfer of the voice does not suffice that the absolution which reaches the penitent be truly vocal. Whence, at most, in a case of extreme necessity, and only under condition, could the penitent be thus absolved, in default of a more certain mode.
But if the Sacred Penitentiary, on July 1, 1884, to a question proposed about this, wrote back that nothing was to be answered, it seems to have wished to signify: that the question did not pertain to itself, but to the Holy Office.
- Formerly several admitted this, as Peter Paludanus, Adrianus, Sylvester, whose opinion according to P. Soto can be held. John of St. Thomas moreover adduces for it I. Medina, On Confession, 9; and Navarrus, Summa, c. 21, n. 30. Against it stand Cajetan and Ledesma and generally the more recent authors; and St. Thomas is adduced, III, q. 84, a. 3, ad 3; a. 4, ad 3; and IV Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3; d. 14, q. 1, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 2; d. 17, q. 3, a. 4, qc. 3, ad 3; St. Bonaventure and St. Albert the Great in IV Sent.; Alexander of Hales, III, q. 60, m. 1, a. 1; Richard in IV, d. 17, a. 2, q. 5; Ferrariensis, Contra Gentiles, IV, c. 72.