Dogmatic Part — Chapter I: On the Power of the Keys Conferred upon the Church

We shall examine two things: 1. whether this power was truly conferred by Christ; 2. who are the ministers able to exercise it.

17. State of the question. 1. The nature of this power is declared. (A) The power of the keys, as it is taken here, is the power of judging concerning the internal state of conscience, or the power of remitting and retaining sins, not only in the external forum before the Church, but also in the internal forum before God; and therefore it is the power of ruling the conscience of the faithful and of changing its interior relations with respect to God.

It is twofold: (a) the power of establishing new obligations which the penitent must fulfill in order to be freed from his sins, or the power of imposing penalties; (b) the power of dissolving spiritual debts before God, or of remitting sins.

(B) This power indeed is: (a) supernatural, delegated by God Himself, conferred in order to a supernatural end; (b) ministerial under Christ, and, as it were, a certain participation in the divine power; (c) truly efficacious, that is, binding or freeing the conscience itself. (d) Nevertheless it is not absolute, since its exercise and efficacy depend on certain conditions established by God Himself, which both the minister and the penitent must observe; (e) nor infallible, since the minister of God, although judging authoritatively concerning the internal state of the penitent, can err because of human infirmity. God certainly ratifies in heaven the sentence of the minister, but only when what must be posited has been posited, or when the conditions required on the part of the minister and on the part of the penitent have been fulfilled.

18. 2. Errors. Besides the Montanists and Novatians, concerning whom we shall soon treat in their own place, Protestants have attacked the power of the keys in different ways. Their general principle is that justification, and therefore the remission of sins, takes place through faith or confidence (above, n. 6).

(a) Luther indeed remained uncertain for a long time, now acknowledging, then rejecting, a sacrament of this kind; and his disciples imitated this hesitation.¹ Yet absolution, according to them, has only the force of declaring, not of effecting, the remission of sins. (b) Calvin openly denied the existence of the sacrament, teaching that Penance is not truly distinguished from Baptism, or from the remembrance of Baptism; for according to him, sin is not destroyed through Baptism, but only testimony is given that sins have been remitted by faith, or rather are not imputed. But afterward it happens that the baptized person is terrified by subsequent sins, and then it is useful to recall to his memory the Baptism previously conferred, as a pledge of justification received for the whole course of life; this remembrance of Baptism is nothing other than Penance, by which displeasure for sin and the purpose of a new life are renewed.² (c) Anglicans acknowledge that both the dying and those about to communicate publicly can be absolved by presbyters; indeed they admit the utility of confession, but not its necessity.³ (d) The Ritualists, furthermore, teach that absolution is a sacrament, namely one of the lesser sacraments; for among the greater sacraments they count only Baptism and the Supper.

¹ Hence in the Confession of Augsburg (art. 12) one reads: "Concerning Penance they teach that remission of sins can come to those who have fallen after Baptism, at whatever time they are converted; and that the Church ought to impart absolution to such persons returning to penance." (In Schaff, Creeds, vol. III, p. 14). - "Absolution can properly be called the sacrament of Penance, as also the more learned scholastic theologians say" (Melanchthon, Apology, art. 5). Cf. Pfisterer, Luthers Lehre von der Beichte, Stuttgart, 1857.

² "Thus one must think that, at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and cleansed once for all life: and therefore as often as we have fallen, the memory of Baptism must be recalled, and the soul must be armed with this, so that it may always be certain and secure concerning the remission of sins; for although, once administered, it may seem to have passed, nevertheless it has not been abolished by later sins." (Calvin, Instit., bk. IV, ch. 15).

³ Before communion, these words are spoken by Anglican ministers: "If any among you is found whose conscience is troubled and in distress, and who needs consolation or counsel, let him have recourse to me or to another prudent priest, learned and skilled in the law of God; let him confess and disclose secretly his sins and his anxieties, so that he may be able to receive salutary admonitions, counsels, and consolations, and through us, ministers of God and of the Church, obtain confidence and absolution." Cf. Blunt, The Sacraments, London, 1868, p. 190; Morgan Dix, The Sacramental System, New York, 1893, p. 92-104. - See the doctrine of the Protestants expounded in Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, col. 218-229.

19. (e) In our days, the American Protestant H. C. Lea,¹ renewing the arguments of Dallaeus, attacks the divine institution of confession and absolution in this way: 1) Christ in the Gospel, who often inculcates that God is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth, instituted no external rite for the remission of sins, but requires only love and penance of heart. 2) The power of remitting sins by some sacramental rite was by no means acknowledged in the first centuries of the Church. There did indeed flourish a certain penitential discipline, but it had force only in the external forum, for reconciling sinners with the Church, not with God. 3) The Fathers teach that there are many means for obtaining the remission of sins, but among them they do not mention priestly absolution. 4) Besides, the words of absolution recited over penitents are nothing other than prayers by which priests earnestly begged from God the pardon of sins, and by no means sacramental forms conferring grace.²

¹ Lea, A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences, Philadelphia and London, 1896. - The Liberals teach nearly the same thing.

² Op. cit., t. I, ch. I-VII, p. 5-167.

Against these errors we shall set forth and vindicate Catholic doctrine, by critically examining the texts of Scripture and of the earlier Fathers.

20. Thesis: Christ conferred on the Church the power of remitting and retaining all sins committed after baptism, and that by a truly judicial act.

It is de fide from the following canons of the Council of Trent:³ 1. "If anyone shall say that, in the Catholic Church, Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling to God Himself the faithful as often as they fall into sins after Baptism: let him be anathema."

³ Trent, sess. XIV, can. 1, 3, 9.

3. "If anyone shall say that those words of the Lord the Savior, 'Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained,' are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of Penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood them from the beginning, but shall twist them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the authority of preaching the Gospel: let him be anathema."

9. "If anyone shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins have been remitted to the one confessing, provided only that he believes himself absolved; or that the priest absolves not seriously, but in jest; or shall say that the confession of the penitent is not required so that the priest may be able to absolve him: let him be anathema."

The Council therefore teaches that the power of remitting and retaining sins was truly conferred upon the Apostles and their successors; - and that it can be exercised in the Catholic Church not once or again, but as often as the faithful fall into sins after Baptism, and therefore that no sin is irremissible; - but that this power is not a bare ministry of declaring that sins have been remitted, but a truly judicial act by which priests reconcile to God Himself sinners who are otherwise well disposed.

In order that the demonstration may be clearer, we premise two things: (a) that Christ, while He lived on earth, exercised the power of the keys, or the power of remitting sins, by a free act of His will, for example, in the case of the paralytic and of the sinful woman; (b) that He likewise, in a general way, conferred on the Apostles all power committed to Himself by the Father for promoting the salvation of souls, as is clear from the four Gospels. Now it is altogether improbable that the power of the keys was excepted from this general mission or delegation.

¹ Cf. Corluy, Spicilegium Dogmatico-biblicum, Ghent, 1884, t. I, p. 33-51; t. II, p. 438-452; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 138-143.

In reality, Scripture being carefully inspected, two things are established: 1. that the power of the keys was promised to the Apostles and their successors, and within the amplitude of this power is contained the power of remitting sins; 2. that this power was in fact conferred on them on the very day of the resurrection.

21. 1. That this power was promised is clear from the words of Christ to Peter: "And I say to thee that 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."² Likewise from the words of Christ directed afterward to all the Apostles:³ "Amen I say to you, 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." For greater clarity of the proof, the sense of these texts must first be explained.

² Matt. 16:18-19.

³ Matt. 18:18.

(a) To Peter are promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, which Christ designates by the name kingdom of heaven, as is clear from the words previously uttered: "upon this rock I will build my Church." For to hand over the keys of someone's house or city is the same as to confer authority to close and open it, or supreme authority, as is clear from the usage of speech among sacred and profane authors; thus, when Eliacim is substituted for Sobna, the prefect of the temple or of the royal house, it is said:¹ "And I will give the key of the house of David upon his shoulder"; likewise, when the glorious Christ wishes to signify that all power has been handed over to Him, He says: "And I have the keys of death and of hell."² Therefore true authority over the Church is promised to Peter.

¹ Isa. 22:22.

² Apoc. 1:18; cf. 3:7.

22. (b) But what the nature of this power is, the following words declare: "whatsoever thou shalt bind... whatsoever thou shalt loose..." These must be declared accurately. We indeed admit that these words historically present a twofold sense: sometimes they signify nothing other than to declare that a thing is lawful or not (for example, in the Talmud one reads: Rabbi M looses, Rabbi N binds, that is, the former asserts that a thing is lawful, but the latter that it is not lawful); at other times, however, they designate legislative and judicial power. Now that this is the sense in the present place is clear from the context: 1) for Christ promises His own authority to the Apostles; but this authority is not only declarative, but at the same time legislative and judicial; therefore Christ promises the Apostles the power of making laws, imposing obligations, and also rendering judgment and loosening bonds which can prevent the faithful from entering heaven, especially sins, which are one of the chief bonds; 2) this agrees with the former part of the text, where there is handed over the power of the keys, or of closing and opening heaven, and therefore of taking away sin, which obstructs entrance into heaven; 3) and it is confirmed from the parallel passage, where the same power is conferred on the Apostles with respect to sins.¹

¹ Matt. 18:15-18. For there it is a question of sins to be remitted or retained: "If thy brother shall sin [against thee is lacking in the best codices]... tell the Church; but if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind, etc."

That this power touches not only the external forum, but conscience itself, is clear from the fact that God ratifies in heaven whatsoever the Church shall have bound or loosed on earth.

23. (c) What Christ had first promised to Peter alone, a little later He likewise promised to all the apostles together; He does not indeed hand over to them the power of the keys, or the supreme power, but the power of binding and loosing, which they will exercise dependently on Peter.

(d) In both cases, there is question here of a power to be exercised over the Church itself, not over those who are outside: "I will build the Church, and I will give to thee the keys..." Likewise, when there is question of the power conferred on the Apostles, the Church is first mentioned: "Tell the Church; but if he will not hear the Church..." A power of this kind is therefore distinguished from the power of baptizing, which is exercised over those who are outside, so that they may be introduced into the Church.

The aforesaid argument, although general, is altogether valid. Its force is confirmed from the words of St. John and from the authority of the Fathers; for already St. Pontiff Callixtus used this text to prove that there was in him the faculty of remitting sins; but Tertullian, although a Montanist, did not deny this sense, but only said that this power conferred on Peter had been transmitted only to spiritual men.²

² Tertullian, De pudicitia, ch. 21, P. L., t. II, col. 1025.

24. 2. The power which Christ had promised He conferred on the Apostles; for, having returned from the dead, He stood in the midst of the disciples and said to them:³ "Peace be to you... As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them: Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

³ John 20:21-23.

These words indeed are, as it were, an authentic declaration by which one of the many powers already promised to Peter and the Apostles in the aforesaid texts is specifically defined. For the power of which there is question here is not, as Protestants wish, a mere faculty of preaching the remission of sins, or of declaring that sins have been remitted to penitents, but the power truly to remit sins; - not only as to punishment, but also as to guilt; - extending to all sins; - to be exercised in a judicial mode; - and therefore not restricted to the power of remitting sins through baptism. This we shall declare successively.

25. (A) The power here conceded is the power truly to remit sins. This is gathered: (a) from the context; for Christ begins thus: as the Father hath sent me, I also send you; by which words it is declared that the mission to be given to the Apostles is similar to the mission which Christ received from the Father. Now Christ had not only preached the remission of sins, but had truly forgiven them; indeed He had come into the world for this, that He might truly destroy them.¹ Therefore the Apostles received the power truly to remit sins. - Afterward Christ, by the sensible sign of breathing, imparts the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, so that it may thus be manifest to all that the power to be conferred on them is a new and singular privilege, which they can exercise only with the help of the Holy Spirit. But to announce the remission of sins is not so new and singular a privilege, since the Prophets performed this, and any member of the faithful can perform it; the Apostles themselves had already done it by preaching. Therefore there is question not of preaching, but of the remission of sins.

¹ Matt. 9:2-8; Luke 5:20; 7:47; Apoc. 1, etc.

26. (b) From the text itself: 1) for the verb you shall forgive (Gr. aphete) is active, and signifies such remission as is done through a positive and efficacious action, not through a mere declaration of remission already made; this is confirmed from the other word you shall retain (kratete), which likewise denotes a positive action; for Christ did not say "you shall not forgive," which would be merely negative, but you shall retain, as if a positive action of the priest were required. 2) Moreover, in the second clause there is added "they are forgiven them, they are retained"; and this indeed, according to the Protestants themselves, sounds the same as they are truly remitted or truly retained; therefore, by force of the parallelism, the prior words, you shall forgive, you shall retain, ought to be understood in the same sense. For by what right is to forgive, in the prior clause, said to signify to declare remission, and in the latter, truly to forgive? 3) Finally, by force of this text, such is the relation between the remission of sins made by the Apostles and that made by God, that whenever the Apostles remit, God remits; but such a connection is indeed well explained if the Apostles enjoy a true faculty of remitting; but if they have only the power of preaching remission, there is no certain connection between the declaration of the Apostles and the remission of sins. For how, apart from a special revelation, can the ministers of the Church know and declare with certainty that sins have been remitted by God?

27. (B) The power conferred on the Church touches not only the debt of punishment, but also the debt of guilt, and therefore remits guilt itself before God. For Christ here uses the words aphete tas hamartias, which He had previously used to signify the true remission of sins as to guilt.¹

¹ Matt. 9:5, 6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:20; 7:47-49.

This is confirmed from the context. For (a) there is question of that remission of sins by which the mission of Christ is brought to perfection and completion; but the proper end of this mission was the interior remission of sins: for Christ had come into the world to seek sinners and make them saved, to justify, sanctify, and lead to heaven those who by sin had been made alien from God.² (b) The Apostles, in remitting sins, act in the power of the Holy Spirit conferred on them: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit..." Now it is proper to the Holy Spirit to remit sins as to guilt: for in Him we have been washed and sanctified and justified.³

² Mark 2:17; Matt. 18:11; Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:10, 18, 19.

³ 1 Cor. 6:11.

28. (C) This power extends to all sins. For (a) no limitation is added: "whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them," and the Greek text an tinon aphete clearly designates that all sinners can obtain pardon; (b) moreover, these words are determinative of the general power of loosening bonds, which suffers no exception: "whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven"; therefore all sins can be remitted.

29. (D) The same power must be exercised by a judicial act, that is, by instructing the cause and rendering sentence. (a) First, indeed, the apostles and their successors must instruct and know the cause. For a twofold power is conferred, both of remitting and of retaining sins (which word, as we noted above, says more than not remitting); now a faculty of this kind cannot be exercised at will, but prudently. But how can someone know whether sins can be remitted or not, ought to be retained or not, unless he has first instituted a juridical investigation of the matter? For this there is required knowledge both of the offenses committed by the sinner and of the dispositions of the subject, so that the Apostles and their successors may be able to judge whether, as ministers of Christ who are bound to render an account of their administration, they can absolve those who are rightly disposed, or bind the indisposed. Therefore the power of remitting sins also supposes the right and the office of instructing the cause.

(b) But once the cause has been instructed, they must also render sentence: for it pertains to them to retain or remit sins according to the dispositions of the penitent, and therefore to prescribe the conditions to be fulfilled for the remission of sins, to impose burdens and satisfactions for the sins committed. For in them there is the power of binding as well as of loosing, and whatsoever things are retained or remitted on earth are retained or remitted in heaven. Therefore they enjoy judicial power, to which sinners are compelled to subject themselves if they wish to be absolved.

30. (E) This power is not restricted to the power of remitting sins through baptism, but also includes the faculty of forgiving sins committed after baptism. We do not indeed deny that the words of John can be understood, and in fact were understood by most of the Fathers, of the power of remitting sins through baptism; for the words of Christ are general, and of themselves can be heard of sins committed before or after baptism. Certainly, however, they are not limited to baptism alone: (a) this is clear from the context, both because they are universal, and because they suppose this power to be exercised indefinitely and in a judicial mode; and this indeed is understood of penance rather than of baptism, since the latter is conferred only once, and not properly after the manner of a judgment.

(b) This interpretation is confirmed by the authority of the Fathers: for Origen openly says that the power of forgiving sins was conferred on the apostles and their successors by force of the aforesaid words.¹ St. Pacian more directly refutes the Novatians, who said that the words of John were parallel to the words of Matthew, "Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them..."; and he shows that the text of John is to be expounded according to the words of Matthew, "Whatsoever you shall bind," and therefore regards sins committed after baptism.² St. Ambrose made this interpretation his own.³ But among the Fathers who take the aforesaid words of John concerning the remission of sins through baptism, some, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, openly teach that the same words can also be understood of sins committed after baptism.⁴

¹ Origen, De orat., n. 28, P. G., t. XI, 529.

² St. Pacian, ep. 3a, n. 11, P. L., t. XIII, 1070.

³ St. Ambrose, De paenit., I, 68, P. L., XVI, 467-468.

⁴ "Moreover, men inspired by the Spirit remit sins, or retain them, in two ways, as I think: for either they call to baptism those worthy, men already proved, of course, by the gravity and constancy of life and faith, or they forbid and keep away from divine grace those who are not yet worthy; or in some other way they remit and retain sins, namely when they correct sons of the Church who sin, or pardon those doing penance." (St. Cyril, In Joan., bk. XII, ch. XX, 22-23, P. G., t. LXXIV, p. 722.)

From these words of St. John, therefore, and from the manner in which they were commonly understood already from the third century, it is rightly inferred that to the Apostles and their successors there was truly granted the power of remitting, by a judicial rite, all sins committed after baptism.⁵

⁵ Rightly, therefore, the following proposition 47 of the Modernists was condemned by the Holy Office (Lamentabili decree): "The words of the Lord: Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, etc., by no means refer to the sacrament of Penance, whatever it pleased the Tridentine Fathers to assert."

31. Scholion. (A) On the exercise of the power of the keys by the Apostles. (a) The power of binding, or of imposing penalties for the correction and amendment of sinners, at least where there was question of public offenses, was certainly exercised by the Apostles. An example is had in the case of the incestuous Corinthian concerning whom St. Paul writes: "I indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as present, him who has done this, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ... to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."¹ For there the Apostle, by an act of judgment, condemns the incestuous man to undergo some penalty. (b) The power of loosing is also indirectly inferred from these words;² for the sinner is handed over to certain temporal penalties, to the end that afterward he may be justified and saved on the day of judgment; and thus already there appears the connection between the canonical penalty imposed by the Church and the remission of sin, which afterward is manifestly exhibited in penitential discipline.

¹ 1 Cor. 5:3-5. Cf. 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Tit. 3:10.

² Certain Fathers and Theologians thought that Paul directly exercised this power when he afterward absolved the incestuous Corinthian (2 Cor. 2:5-11); but it is much more probable that he of whom there is question in the second passage is not the incestuous man of whom there is question in the first.

The same can be inferred from the manner of acting with Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he indeed hands over to Satan, but for amendment, namely, "that they may learn not to blaspheme."³

³ 1 Tim. 1:20.

32. (B) On the remissibility of all sins. The Apostles were persuaded that all sins, even the gravest, before judgment, were remissible by condign penance. Thus St. Paul supposes that the gravest sins, such as fornication, are remitted through penance;⁴ likewise St. John presents God as threatening dire punishments to those who are guilty of apostasy and idolatry, "unless they shall do penance from their works";⁵ therefore he supposes that the aforesaid sins can be destroyed by penance.

⁴ 2 Cor. 12:20-21.

⁵ Apoc. 2:19-23.

Yet a few texts are opposed, from which it seems to be clear that certain sins are irremissible. It is useful to explain these texts briefly.

(a) Namely, Christ said to the Pharisees: "Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men: but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven."⁶ - Resp. Once the context has been inspected, the sin of which there is question is that by which works manifestly divine, such as miracles done to prove the divinity of Christ's mission, are ascribed to the devil, and thus the eyes are deliberately and pertinaciously closed to the light of faith; for there is question of the Pharisees who were saying that Christ cast out demons in Beelzebub. Now that sin is said not to be remitted, not because it is never forgiven, but because of itself it has no excuse and deserves no pardon; or, according to others, because it is forgiven with greater difficulty, not indeed from a defect of power or will in God and His ministers, but because it is difficult for a sinner who has pertinaciously abused the means of grace to repent sincerely. St. Thomas declares this most excellently (2a 2ae, q. 14, a. 3): "For one who sins from ignorance or weakness deserves a lesser punishment; but one who sins from certain malice does not have any excuse by which his punishment may be lessened. Likewise also one who blasphemed against the Son of man, His divinity not yet having been revealed, could have some excuse because of the infirmity of the flesh which he beheld in Him, and thus deserved a lesser punishment. But one who blasphemed against the divinity itself, attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil, had no excuse by which his punishment might be diminished." The Holy Doctor continues by explaining that sin against the Holy Spirit is also said to be irremissible according to its own nature, insofar as it excludes faith, and therefore those things through which the remission of sins is effected; just as a disease is called incurable according to the nature of the disease, by which that through which the disease can be cured is taken away. "By this, however," he says, "the way of remitting and healing is not closed to the omnipotence and mercy of God, by which such persons are sometimes healed spiritually, as if miraculously."

⁶ Matt. 12:31. Cf. Maldonatus, on this place.

Others, however, with St. Augustine (serm. 71), hold that a sin of this kind is final impenitence, which is remitted in no way, because mortal sin in which a man perseveres until death cannot be remitted either in this life or in the future. Yet this explanation seems foreign to the context.

33. (b) The words of the Epistle to the Hebrews are alleged: "For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have also tasted the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, have nevertheless tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away, to be renewed again unto penance."¹ - Resp. Here there is question of apostates, who, after Baptism had been received (illuminated), after the Eucharist and Confirmation had been received (the heavenly gift... partakers of the Holy Spirit), were returning to Judaism or paganism; and according to certain Fathers and Theologians, it is declared that they cannot be renewed through Baptism, since a sacrament of this kind cannot be repeated. St. Athanasius hands down this interpretation:² "Nor," he says, "is it impossible to repent, but it is impossible that we be renewed under the pretext of penance. But there is an immense difference between these sayings. For he whom it repents indeed ceases to sin, yet he retains the scars of wounds. But he who is baptized, puts off the old man, and is renewed, born from above by the grace of the Spirit." St. Chrysostom says the same (hom. IX on this place, n. 3). - But very many others, and indeed more probably, understand the word impossible of great difficulty, of moral, not physical, impossibility, so that the sense is that it is exceedingly difficult for apostates to return to the true faith. In almost the same way the following words can be understood: "For if we sin voluntarily after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrible expectation of judgment";¹ since here also there is question of apostates, who, insofar as they remain in apostasy, lack the sacrifice for sins, just as those who voluntarily remain outside the Church are outside the way of salvation; yet from this the possibility of returning to the Christian faith, in which the sacrifice for sins is offered, is not precluded.²

¹ Hebr. 6:4 ff.

² Ep. 4 ad Serap., n. 13.

¹ Hebr. 10:26.

² Cf. A. Lemonnyer, O. P., Epitres de S. Paul, Paris, Bloud, 1905, t. II, p. 221-223.

(c) The words of John are also opposed:³ "He who knows his brother to sin a sin not unto death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him who sins not unto death. There is a sin unto death; I do not say that anyone should ask for that." - Resp. What that sin unto death is, theologians and commentators dispute. More probably, we think there is question here of the sin of infidelity, by which the divinity of Christ is denied, since throughout this whole chapter St. John is speaking of faith in Christ; but the Apostle does not declare such a sin to be irremissible, but only that the precept of praying for one's neighbor does not extend to those who have stained themselves with such a sin; because, on account of the enormity of their sin, they deserve to be abandoned by the faithful like heathens and publicans. In other words, these sinners are deprived of the public suffrages of the Church, as excommunicated persons are today. But if sin unto death is understood of final impenitence, the explanation already proposed above is valid.

³ 1 John 5:16.

34. Conclusion. The power of the keys, conferred by Christ on the Apostles, was exercised in apostolic times, but not in the same mode in which it is now exercised: (a) namely, not frequently, because lesser or venial sins, as not being necessary matter, were not then accustomed to be subjected to the power of the keys, and moreover greater sins, on account of the fervent life of the first Christians, were rarely committed; (b) with a certain severity, insofar as arduous penance was imposed on sinners, especially exclusion from the Church before absolution was granted, chiefly for this end, that the faithful might be more efficaciously deterred from sin. But it is not wonderful that the matter stood this way: for since Christ had not determined the mode in which the power of the keys was to be exercised, it belonged to the Church, according to the diversity of times and circumstances, to define this for the greater utility of the faithful.

35. 1. State of the question. Since today liberal Protestants contend that the Church reconciled sinners only in the external forum, namely insofar as it received again into its bosom those whom it had excommunicated on account of sins, our purpose is to show that they also obtained the remission of sins in the internal forum and before God.

¹ Petavius, De paenitentiae vetere in Ecclesia ratione, P. G., XLII, 1027 ff.; Morinus, Comment. historicus de disciplina in admin. Sacr. Paenitentiae, Antwerp, 1682, bk. I, ch. 3-7; ch. 16-19; bk. III-VII; Palmieri, Tr. de Paenitentia, 2nd ed., Prato, 1896, thesis IX-XI; L. de San, op. cit., n. 180-245; F. Pignataro, De disciplina paenitentiali priorum Ecclesiae saecul., Rome, 1904; Funk, Zur altchristlichen Bussdisciplin, Paderborn, 1897; Boudinhon, Sur l'histoire de la penitence, in Revue d'hist. et de Litter. relig., t. II, 1897, pp. 306, 496; Vacandard, in Rev. du Clerge francais, t. XIV, p. 192; t. XV, p. 195, etc.; id. in Vacant, Dict. de Theologie, t. I, p. 145-168; Batiffol, Etudes d'hist. et de theologie positive, 3rd ed., Paris, 1904; Swete, Penitential discipline in the first three centuries, in Journal of Theological Studies, April 1903, p. 321-337; Casey, Notes on a History of Auricular Confession, Philadelphia, 1889; P. A. Kirsch, Zur Geschichte der Katholischen Beichte, Wurzburg, 1902; Gartmeier, Die Beichtpflicht, 1905; G. Rauschen, Eucharistie und Bussakrament in den ersten Jahrhunderten der Kirche, 1908, in French, L'Eucharistie et la Penitence dans les six premiers siecles, trans. M. Decker and E. Ricard, 1910.

36. 2. General argument. But before we declare the individual texts, it is expedient to present a general argument, by proving that reconciliation with the Church also involves reconciliation with God, the testimonies of Scripture and of the Fathers being considered. It is proved by a twofold argument: (A) From the fact that to be united to the Church is the same as to be united to God Himself. (a) This is already clear from what was said in the Treatise on the Church, where we proved that the Church was instituted by Christ for sanctifying men (n. 607 ff.), and that outside the Church salvation is not given (n. 824 ff.): for from this it logically follows that to be truly and properly united to the Church is the same as to be joined to God Himself, who alone is the author of sanctification. (b) This indeed is confirmed from the fact that the Church, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, is the body of Christ, so that to be a member of the Church is the same as to be a member of Christ. (c) The most ancient Fathers teach the same, who, with St. Ignatius, assert that those who are intimately united to God and Christ are with the bishop, and that those who, led by penance, have returned to the unity of the Church, by that very fact are of God and live according to Christ.¹ The Fathers of the third and fourth centuries declare the matter more clearly, as we shall say below.

¹ Philad., III.

(B) From the comparison instituted by the ancient Fathers, Hermas and others, between baptism and penance as to the effects which they produce: for just as baptism internally and before God washes away sins, so likewise does penance, although in a different mode.

These things having been premised, we shall prove the thesis by a threefold class of testimonies: 1. by the implicit testimonies of the second century; 2. by explicit testimonies in the controversy with the Montanists; and 3. in the controversy with the Novatians. By way of appendix, we shall speak, 4. of penitential discipline through the first four centuries.

Yet we observe that certain documents of the earlier centuries, and indeed of the greatest importance, have perished, as can be inferred from the fact that the decree of Callixtus, concerning which below, is known to us only imperfectly, namely from the writings of Tertullian, who attacks it. Hence if the historical argument for the earlier centuries appears incomplete, that must be attributed, in part, to the paucity of documents; and therefore the things which are obscure must be elucidated both from the practice of the Church and from the documents of the subsequent age.

37. In the primitive age of the Church, the Doctors were wholly occupied in defending the fundamental dogmas of the faith, namely the unity of God, the divinity of the Christian religion, the divinity of Christ, the obedience to be furnished to bishops, etc. - Furthermore, under the influence of enthusiasm and fervor prevailing in the first Christian communities, not a few of the faithful thought that grave sins could scarcely be committed by the faithful, and therefore they thought little about penance. - Yet experience made it known that even the baptized were not impeccable, indeed that some also sometimes fell into very grave sins. From this arose the question whether and how these sins could be destroyed. Certain rigorists thought that sins committed after baptism were irremissible. Against them, the Fathers of the second century taught that sins committed after baptism can be destroyed through penance: not expressly, however, but incidentally and obscurely, if the matter is judged only from the documents which survive.

38. 1. St. Ignatius the martyr intimates this, while writing about the year 107: "For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, these are with the bishop; and as many as, led by penance, shall have returned to the unity of the Church, these also shall be of God, so that they may live according to Jesus Christ."¹ Likewise in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) one reads:² "But on the Lord's day, coming together, break bread and give thanks, after you have confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be clean"; for there confession of sins, or exomologesis, is exhibited as the means by which sins are taken away: "that your sacrifice may be clean." This is confirmed from the testimony of St. Irenaeus:³ for he narrates that certain women had been seduced and corrupted by Marcus, the magician and heretic. Now some among them, converted to the Church of God, confessed their sins and performed public penance or exomologesis; but others, terrified by public exomologesis, despairing of the life of God, departed. From this it is rightly inferred that penance was then held as a means for recovering the divine life.

¹ Ad Philadelph., n. 3; p. 267 ed. Funk (Patres Apostolici), 1901.

² Didache, A.D. 98-120?, n. 14, p. 33 ed. Funk.

³ Contra haereses, bk. I, ch. 13, n. 5-7, P. G., t. VII, 587-591.

39. 2. But the principal work in which the penitential doctrine of this age is expounded is the Pastor of Hermas, a work written very probably in the years 140-154 by the brother of Pius, the Roman Pontiff.⁴

⁴ Cf. A. d'Ales, La discipline penitentielle d'apres le Pasteur d'Hermas, in Recherches de Sc. relig., 1911, pp. 105-139, 240-261.

(a) First, the author inquires whether, after baptism, a place for penance is given. For Hermas had heard from certain doctors that there is no other penance except that which takes place in baptism. "You have heard rightly," says the Pastor;¹ "for so the matter stands. For he who received the remission of sins ought not to sin anymore, but to remain in chastity."² Nevertheless God, since He is very merciful, the Pastor continues, concedes penance for all sins committed up to this point, and indeed after the manner of an extraordinary privilege. Only one penance is given: for it is not permitted to repent and to sin again, lest the faithful thus be led into sin.³ But remission extends to all offenses, even apostasy and adultery.⁴

¹ This Pastor, according to some, is an angel of God; according to others, Christ Himself.

² Pastor, Mand. IV, 3, 2, p. 479 ed. Funk.

³ Mandat. IV, 3, 4-7, p. 479-481 ed. Funk.

⁴ Simil. VI, 2, 3-4, and VIII, 2, 8-9; VIII, 6, 6; pp. 547, 561, 569. - The mode of doing penance is afterward described: "The penitent ought to torture his soul and humble himself strongly in every act of his and be afflicted in all various tribulations; and when he shall have sustained the tribulations coming upon him, He who created all things and confirmed them will altogether have mercy on him, and will give him some remedy; and this certainly, if He shall have seen the heart of the penitent clean from every business." Thus there is required first a contrite and humbled heart, then a patient acceptance of tribulations, finally a change of life (Simil. VII, 4, p. 555 ed. Funk).

40. (b) But that this penance takes place under the leadership and auspices of the Church is clear especially from the analogy of the tower, which, as Hermas says, is the Church. For through baptism we enter the tower; through sin we are expelled from it; but through penance we enter again into the structure of the tower: "For for this reason an interruption of the building was made, that these (sinners), if they shall have done penance, may enter into the structure of the tower. But if they shall not have done penance, then others will enter and they will be cast away forever."⁵ Therefore there is not question of merely private penance, but of that which takes place under ecclesiastical pastors, and is concluded by reconciliation with the Church, and therefore with God Himself.

⁵ Simil. IX, 14, 2, p. 605 ed. Funk.

(c) The necessity and efficacy of penance in the internal forum for recovering spiritual life he declares thus:⁶ "But as many as do not do penance have lost their life; as many of these as have done penance have become good and have received a dwelling in the first walls; some have even ascended into the tower. You see, therefore, he says, that the penance of sinners has life, but impenitence death."

⁶ Simil. VII, 6, 6, p. 569.

41. Hermas therefore supposes that there is in the Church the power of imposing penance and of reconciling sinners before God; but he does not describe the mode of this reconciliation, because his purpose was to restore Christian morals, not to describe all the things which pertain to penitential discipline. But what he omitted here, the writers of the third century affirm so expressly that from this it is rightly inferred that the power of the keys was not unknown in the second century.

Penance, which Hermas had handed down as an extraordinary remedy in the middle of the second century, is exhibited as an ordinary remedy at the beginning of the third century. - Furthermore, the Church's power of remitting sins is expressly affirmed.

42. 1. This is clear from the heresy of the Montanists, who, around the end of the second century, with Montanus as author, judging that the end of the world and the last judgment were imminent, preached rigorism in Phrygia, and especially contended that apostasy, homicide, and adultery were never to be remitted by the Church. To them Tertullian, around the year 202, gave the name and authority of his talent.

(A) While he was still Catholic, he had indeed written a book On Penance, in which he distinguishes two kinds of penance: the first is performed before baptism by catechumens; the second belongs to the faithful who, after baptism, have fallen into grave sins. He speaks of this latter with difficulty, lest the baptized, by hope of pardon, be led to sin more freely, and he observes that this penance is conceded only once: "He placed in the vestibule a second penance, which may open to those who knock, but now once, because now for the second time; but never more, because the next time would be in vain."¹

¹ De Paenit., ch. 7, P. L., t. I, p. 1241. - Cf. A. d'Ales, La Theologie de Tertullien, p. 339-355; 478-491.

43. (B) But in the Treatise On Modesty, which he wrote when already a Montanist (A.D. 217-222), Tertullian contends that certain sins are irremissible.

(a) The occasion of this treatise was the edict of Callixtus, in which the Roman Pontiff declared that he would thereafter remit the sins of fornication and adultery: "I hear," says Tertullian, "that an edict has been set forth, and indeed a peremptory one. The supreme Pontiff, that is, the bishop of bishops, issues this edict: I remit the offenses of adultery and fornication to those who have discharged penance."¹ For at that time there prevailed, at least in some churches, the custom of not absolving from the three gravest sins, namely idolatry or apostasy, fornication or adultery, and homicide; not because the Church lacked the faculty of remitting them, but so that the faithful might be more efficaciously removed from these sins. Public penance was indeed imposed on those guilty of these crimes, and hope was left to them that they might obtain pardon from God Himself; but absolution from these sins was not customarily given: and therefore they were sins, as it were, reserved to God. - But Callixtus, fearing lest adulterers should fall into despair, promulgated the aforesaid edict, passing over the two other sins in silence. There he speaks as one having authority; for, Tertullian bearing witness, the edict is peremptory; and he derives his authority from the words of Christ: Thou art Peter, etc.

¹ We know this decree from Tertullian himself, De pudic., ch. 1, p. 220 ed. Vind.; P. L., t. II, p. 981.

44. (b) Tertullian the Montanist sharply rebukes him. He indeed admits that there is in bishops a power of forgiving certain sins, namely those which are not unto death;² but he asserts that certain sins are unto death or irremissible, among which he counts fornication and adultery. Moreover, he says,³ Callixtus does not remit idolatry or homicide; why therefore does he forgive adultery? Yet Tertullian confesses that these three sins can be pardoned by God. Indeed he acknowledges that this power belongs to the Church, but he adds that its exercise is not expedient: "But the Church," you say, "has the power of granting offenses. This I both acknowledge the more and dispose, who have the Paraclete Himself in the new prophets saying: The Church can forgive an offense; but I will not do it, lest they also commit others."¹ Therefore this power of absolving from all sins committed after baptism was considered so unshaken that it was acknowledged by the Montanists themselves. Nor did they deny that the words: "Thou art Peter... whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc.," included the power of remitting sins, but they said that this same power had been transmitted not to bishops, but to the spiritual,² or to the disciples of Montanus who were led by the Spirit. Thus they erred rather concerning the sacred hierarchy and the opportuneness of forgiving sins than concerning the power of absolving considered in itself.

² Sins of this kind, which are called lighter or lesser or middle in relation to the three reserved crimes, are not those which today we call venial, but mortal sins which were expiated by public penance.

³ De pudic., ch. 5, p. 227 ed. Vind.; P. L., t. II, p. 988.

¹ De pudic., ch. 21, p. 269 Vind.; P. L., II, 1024.

² De pudic., ch. 21, p. 270-271; P. L., II, 1026.

Notwithstanding Tertullian's eloquence, the decree of Callixtus was soon received into the universal Church, and, by the middle of the third century, the practice of imparting absolution to adulterers prevailed.

45. 2. This indeed is confirmed by other testimonies:

(A) Origen distinctly acknowledges that there is in bishops and priests the power of forgiving sins, and indeed before God: "But he upon whom Jesus breathed, as upon the apostles... he forgives the things which God would forgive, and retains incurable sins." Even graver sins can be remitted once, but lighter ones always: "In the graver crimes a place for penance is conceded only once; but those common ones into which we frequently fall always receive penance and are redeemed without interruption."³ Therefore, if elsewhere he seems to say that there are three irremissible sins, that is very probably understood in the sense that they cannot be pardoned without due penance.⁴

³ In Levit., XV, 2, P. G., XII, 561; C. Celsum, III, 51.

⁴ De oratione, 28, P. G., XI, 527-530; for there he ridicules those "who in some way arrogate to themselves those things which surpass the priestly dignity... and boast as if they could also pardon idolatry and remit adulteries and fornications."

46. (B) Moreover, from the liturgical and canonical books of this time it is clear that the power of forgiving sins was conceded to bishops in ordination itself. (a) Thus, among the Canons of Hippolytus, at the beginning of the third century, one reads (can. 3): "Grant also to him, O Lord, the episcopate and a clement spirit for redeeming sins; and grant to him the faculty for dissolving all bonds of iniquity of demons." - Likewise, in the Constitutions of the Egyptian Church, at the end of the third century, similar words are found: "Let him offer the sacrifice of Thy holy Church, and in a holy mind ... let him forgive sins according to Thy command, let him make ordinations according to Thy dispositions, and, in the power of the authority conferred on Thy Apostles, let him loose all bonds of punishments."¹

¹ You will find both these documents among the Monumenta Ecclesiae liturgica (edited by F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq), Paris, t. I, p. XXXI.

(b) This is also inferred from the work Didascalia Apostolorum, which before the end of the third century was received in the Syrian church. For there (ch. 5-10) it is handed down that the office falls upon the bishop of indeed gravely rebuking sinners and imposing penance on them, but afterward of reconciling them through the imposition of hands, because he has the power of binding and loosing. Nor is any sin excepted; but on the contrary texts of Scripture are brought forward, from which it is clear that God pardoned the sins of Manasseh, who had committed idolatry and homicide, and also of the adulterous woman.²

² Lagarde edited the Syriac text of this work, Leipzig, 1854; Nau made a French version public in Canoniste contemporain, t. XXIV, 1901, pp. 78, 137, 205, 273, 336, 401, 543, 643; t. XXV, 1902, pp. 14, 73, 138, 193. - You will find the same doctrine in the Apostolic Constitutions; cf. Funk, Die Apostolischen Konstitutionem, eine litterar-historische Untersuchung, Rottenburg, 1891.

47. Conclusion. In the third century the Montanists themselves acknowledge that some power of remitting sins is in the Church, and the liturgical and canonical books openly teach this; and from this it is rightly inferred that the same doctrine had been received in the second century: for if Tertullian had known that this doctrine had recently been brought into the Church, he would surely have said this while he was so sharply attacking Callixtus. Moreover, the prayers of ordination and the canons cited above concerning the power of the keys would not have been universally received unless they had been consonant with the faith of the Church.

And thus the interpretation which we gave of the testimonies of the second century is confirmed.

48. But a new question arose concerning the absolution of the lapsed, or of those who had fallen into apostasy at the time of the Decian persecution (A.D. 250). Many Christians had sacrificed to idols, and were called sacrificati; others had received from officials a certificate in which it was declared that they had sacrificed, although in reality they had abstained from the worship of idols; for this reason they were called libellatici. When the storm had calmed, many of the lapsed were seeking reconciliation and absolution, asking from confessors and martyrs certificates of peace, which they would present to priests so that they might immediately be received into the peace of the Church. From this arose the question whether absolution was to be conceded to the lapsed, just as Callixtus had conceded it to adulterers.

49. 1. Doctrine of the Church. (A) St. Cyprian, both in his letters and in the book On the Lapsed, responds thus. (a) Peace is not to be denied to those of the lapsed who by true penance and confession of Christ have expiated their sin: "Therefore, when they shall have washed away every offense and, with the Lord assisting them by a stronger power, shall have destroyed the former stain, those ought no longer to lie under the devil who, having been made exiles and having been despoiled of all their goods, have raised themselves up and have begun to stand with Christ."¹ Likewise, if they labor under dangerous illness, they can immediately be reconciled, "so that, exomologesis having been made and the hand having been imposed on them by you unto penance, with the peace promised to them by the martyrs they may be sent to the Lord."²

¹ Ep. XXV, p. 538 ed. Vind., P. L., t. IV, p. 274.

² Ep. XIX, 2, p. 525 ed. Vind.; P. L., t. IV, p. 260; cf. ep. XVIII, p. 524 ed. Vind., and P. L., 259.

(b) But, outside these cases, the lapsed ought to perform long penance before they are absolved, nor are those priests to be approved who, once letters of peace given by the martyrs had been shown, immediately received the lapsed to communion: "For, when in lesser sins sinners perform penance for a just time, and according to the order of discipline come to exomologesis, and through the imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communication, now, at a raw time, while persecution still continues, the peace of the Church herself not yet having been restored, they are admitted to communication, and offering is made in their name, and not while penance has not been completed, while exomologesis has not yet been made, while the hand has not yet been imposed on them by the bishop and clergy, the Eucharist is given to them."¹

¹ Ep. XVI, 2, p. 518 ed. Vind.; P. L., t. IV, p. 251-252.

50. (B) Response of the Roman Church. But when some complained about this, St. Cyprian wrote to the presbyters and deacons of Rome, the pontifical see being vacant, setting forth the whole matter; and they approved his manner of acting and confirmed it by the ancient practice of the Roman Church. They acted cautiously and prudently toward the lapsed, "so that wicked men may not praise our prone facility, nor those truly doing penance accuse our cruelty as if harsh."²

² Ep. XXX (otherwise XXXI), p. 556 ed. Vind.; P. L., t. IV, p. 315. - Novatian, afterward a favorer of rigorism and schism, wrote this letter; and already some mark of severity appears in his letter.

(C) The Carthaginian Decree. Afterward this manner of acting was approved by the Council of Carthage (A.D. 251), at which many bishops were present. A distinction was instituted between the libellatici and the sacrificati: the former were reconciled after some penance, the latter only at the end of life: "And therefore it pleased us..., the cases of individuals having been examined, that the libellatici meanwhile be admitted, and that aid be given to the sacrificati at the end, because there is no exomologesis in the lower regions."³ Thus apostasy was no longer a reserved sin. But those who were unwilling to perform penance through life, and only at the time of dangerous illness beg for exomologesis, will not receive communion and peace, because "he is not worthy to receive consolation in death who did not think that he was going to die."⁴

³ Ep. LV, 17, p. 636 ed. Vind.

⁴ Ibid. 23, p. 641-642 ed. Vind.

51. 2. Error of the Novatians. (A) It is expounded. Yet these decrees did not please Novatus and Felicissimus, who fled to Rome and adhered to Novatian: this presbyter, grieving that he had not been elected Supreme Pontiff, withdrew from the Church. (a) Novatian himself taught that the Church cannot remit the sin of apostasy: this error was condemned in a Council held at Rome in A.D. 251, but it survived for many years. (b) His disciples, the Novatians, afterward taught that all sins unto death cannot be forgiven by the Church.

52. (B) Novatianism is attacked by the Fathers. Against them there wrote, among others, St. Ambrose and St. Pacian.

St. Ambrose, in the book On Penance,⁵ against the Novatians (about A.D. 384), proves that Christ conferred on the Church the power of forgiving all sins, and indeed before God: from the words of John:¹ "Whose sins you shall forgive..."; and from the words of Matthew:² "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." Then he demonstrates that sins are remitted before God from the analogy with baptism: "In baptism certainly there is remission of all sins: what difference does it make whether through penance or through the laver priests claim for themselves this right given to them?³ There is one mystery in both." And afterward he adds that in penance, as in baptism, grace is conferred. - Finally he shows that no sins are irremissible, by explaining the texts of Scripture brought forward by the adversaries,⁴ concerning which we have already treated above, n. 32-33.

⁵ Migne, P. L., t. XVI, p. 465-524.

¹ P. L., XVI, 467.

² P. L., XVI, 476.

³ De paenit., bk. I, ch. 8, P. L., XVI, 477.

⁴ P. L., XVI, 480-482, 496, 499.

53. St. Pacian, bishop of Barcelona, in three letters written to Sempronian the Novatian (about A.D. 380), expressly defends Catholic doctrine against the Novatians. (a) He proves that the power of forgiving sins was conceded by God not only to the apostles, but to their successors: "God would never threaten the one who does not do penance, unless He pardoned the one doing penance. You will say: God alone will be able to do this. It is true: but what He does through His priests is His own power. For what is that which He says to the Apostles: Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, etc.? Why this, if it was not lawful for men to bind and loose? Or is this lawful only to the Apostles? Therefore also to baptize is lawful only to them."⁵ (b) But because the Novatians said that baptism would become useless if remission of sins is given to penitents, St. Pacian shows that there is a distinction between the two sacraments: "For Baptism is the sacrament of the Lord's passion; the pardon of penitents is the merit of the one confessing. All can obtain the former, because it is the gift of God's grace, that is, a gratuitous donation; but that labor belongs to the few who rise after a fall, who recover after wounds, who are helped by tearful voices, who revive through the destruction of the flesh."⁶

⁵ Ep. I ad Sympron., n. 6, P. L., t. XIII, 1057.

⁶ Ep. III ad Sympron., n. 8, P. L., XII, 1068.

(c) Since the heretics contended that remission of sin is an incitement to sinning, Pacian responds: "What do you say? Therefore he who more often shows the remedy of the crime shows the crime? And does that physician, when he cures, teach men to be wounded constantly? God does not wish man to sin even once, and yet He frees from sin. Nor certainly when He frees does He teach sin; just as neither does one who frees from a fire show forth a fire."¹ (d) Finally he shows that all sins can be remitted: "Whatsoever you shall loose, He says; He excepts absolutely nothing. Whatsoever, He says: whether great or small."² - But because the condemnation of the incestuous man was opposed, he responds that this man was not handed over to Satan unto eternal death, but for doing penance: "Then you see that this very sinner guilty of incest is not handed over to death, but to Satan, for amendment, for being buffeted, for doing penance. Finally he says, For the destruction of the flesh, yet not of the soul, nor even of the spirit; but for the destruction of the flesh alone, namely temptations, distresses of the flesh, losses of members."³

¹ Op. cit., n. 9, p. 1069.

² Op. cit., n. 12, p. 1071.

³ Op. cit., n. 18, p. 1075.

54. Many other Fathers of the fourth century hand down this power of absolving as an unshaken truth.⁴ - Nor is it necessary to proceed further, since, the adversaries admitting it, the power of the keys was already exercised by the Church from the fifth century.

⁴ Thus, among others, St. John Chrysostom, in the work De Sacerdotio, bk. III, ch. 5, P. G., t. LXVII, 643; St. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 39 in SS. Lumina, n. 18-19, P. G., t. XXXVI, 356-357; St. Aphraates, Patrol. syriaca, ed. Graffin, 1894, t. I, pp. 313-360; St. Ephrem, Opera, Rome, 1740, t. II, p. 440; St. Hilary, Comment. in Matt., P. L., t. IX, 1921, etc.

From the controversy with the Novatians it is lawful to infer that here there is a new extension of the decree of Callixtus: not only fornication, but also apostasy, indeed even homicide, are remitted by the power of the keys, so that no sin is any longer reserved to God. For, taking occasion from the Novatian heresy, the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries expressly assert that no sins are irremissible.

55. General conclusion. From the facts and testimonies alleged above, it is historically clear that Protestants altogether err when they affirm that through the earlier centuries the Church reconciled sinners only in the ecclesiastical forum. (a) For explicitly the Fathers of the fourth, and indeed of the third, century affirm that there is in the Church the power truly to forgive at least certain sins, even grave ones, before God, or with the infusion of grace.

(b) The same is implicitly clear from the manner in which the contrary heresy progressively arose: first Tertullian with the Montanists does not deny the power itself, but only the opportuneness of exercising it; afterward the Novatians, even in the fourth century, do not altogether deny this power, but restrict it to sins which are not unto death; the Protestants of the sixteenth century are the first who wholly rejected the power of the keys.

Therefore Catholic doctrine is not new, since it casts deep roots in antiquity, but the assertion of Protestants is new, which was wholly unknown to the ancient Fathers.

56. The difficulty is solved. Yet the Liberals object that in the fourth century traces are found of the opinion by force of which sins are not truly remitted, but only declared remitted. For Jerome, explaining the words Thou art Peter..., institutes a comparison between the priests of the Old and of the New Law, and asserts that the mission of the former and the latter is similar; just as the ancient priest did not cure leprosy, but only judged authentically concerning the disease and its healing, so "the bishop and presbyter binds or looses, not those who are innocent or guilty, but, according to his office, when he has heard the varieties of sins, he knows who is to be bound or who is to be loosed."¹

¹ In Matth., XVI, 19, P. L., XXVI, 118.

Resp. (a) Even if St. Jerome had taught that the power of priests is merely declarative, his testimony, as being one single testimony, could not overturn the countless testimonies of the Fathers of an earlier or later age. (b) But very probably his words can be understood in a Catholic sense, namely in the sense that priests cannot forgive sins in an arbitrary mode, but after accurate investigation, so that they may know who is legitimately to be bound or loosed, as was said above concerning the nature of this power (n. 17); for afterward he confesses that whatsoever they bind upon earth is bound in heaven.²

² In Matth., XIX, 18.

The power of the keys, from what has been said, was always the same in the Church, but the mode of exercising it was different according to different times, as the utility of the faithful or of the Church required: it will be opportune to explain this briefly.

³ Tertullian, De paenitentia, De pudicitia; Philosophoumena, IX, 12; E. Preuschen, Tertullians Schriften De paenitentia und de pudicitia, mit Rucksicht auf Bussdisziplin untersucht, Giessen, 1890; E. Rolffs, Das Indulgenz-Edikt des romischen Bischofs Kallist kritisch untersucht und reconstruiert, Leipzig, 1893; A. d'Ales, La Theologie de Tertullien, p. 339-355; G. Rauschen, op. cit., t. II, § II.

57. 1. The general character of the ancient penitential discipline is described. The Church imposed on sinner faithful a new kind of life, very similar to eremitic religious life. (A) First, penance was enjoined by the Bishop:¹ (a) sinners put on a special habit, so that in sackcloth and ashes they might lead an austere and laborious life: thus they were, as it were, authentically received among the penitents; (b) they were deprived of many privileges in the religious and civil order: standing at the doors of the church, or admitted within the church in a special place, they could not assist at the Eucharistic sacrifice; nor enter upon marriage or use a marriage already entered upon; nor even seek honors, exercise military service or business;² (c) but they afflicted their body with various mortifications, renounced baths and sumptuous banquets; content with brief sleep, they devoted themselves to lengthy prayer, redeeming sins by alms proportioned to their condition: thus they preluded the religious life which was afterward instituted.

¹ How laborious penance of this kind was, Tertullian describes thus, De paenit., ch. IX, P. L., I, 1243-1244: "And so exomologesis is a discipline of prostrating and humbling man, enjoining a manner of life alluring mercy; concerning dress also and food it commands one to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to obscure the body with filth, to cast down the soul with sorrows, to change by sad treatment those things in which he sinned; moreover to know food and drink as plain, of course not for the belly's sake, but for the soul's; and for the most part to nourish prayers by fasts, to groan, to weep, and to roar day and night to the Lord thy God, to throw oneself before the presbyters, and to kneel before the dear ones of God, to enjoin on all the brethren the embassies of his supplication."

² Thus Pope Siricius, writing to Himerius, ep. I, 5, P. L., XIII, 1137, reproaches those "who, after penance has been done, like dogs and swine returning to their former vomit and wallowing-places, again sought the military belt and theatrical pleasures and new marriages and forbidden intercourse."

58. (B) The whole Church cooperated with this public penance, not only by pious exhortations, but also by asking pardon from God for the penitents: this was, as it were, the first origin of indulgences.

59. (C) When the penance was judged sufficient, absolution was conceded by the Bishop, which consisted in the imposition of hands with a prayer which signified the pardon of sins. But this was given to each penitent only once, lest by a more frequent concession the faithful should seem to be led to multiplying sins. But if they sinned again, they were committed to the divine mercy. Generally, once a year, absolution was solemnly conceded before the faithful gathered together, and indeed on the Lord's Supper, according to the Roman usage. But if the danger of death was urgent, the sick were absolved immediately, lest they depart from the world without communion.³

³ This is clear from the letter of St. Innocent I, Pope, to Decentius, bishop of Gubbio (P. L., XX, 559): "Concerning penitents, however, who, whether from graver things committed or from lighter ones, have performed penance, if no sickness intervenes, they are to be remitted on the fifth feria before Easter, according to the custom of the Roman Church. But it will be for the priest to judge about weighing the offenses, so that he may attend to the confession of the penitent and to the weeping and tears of the one correcting himself, and then order him to be dismissed, when he has seen his satisfaction to be congruous. But if someone falls into sickness and has come even to desperation, he is to be relaxed before the time of Easter, lest he depart from the world without communion."

60. 2. Differences between the ancient and today's discipline are reviewed. (A) The chief difference consists in this, that formerly public penance and absolution were given only once to the Christian sinner, whereas today absolution is conceded as often as the contrite sinner asks it.

(B) Formerly the Church imparted absolution only to those who proved an undoubted conversion by long and laborious penance, and at the same time performed satisfaction for sins, so that there might be greater certainty about the dispositions of the penitents and about the efficacy of the absolution; whereas today it is imparted to those who show probable signs of conversion and seriously promise that they will fulfill penance, so that sinners may more confidently and more frequently have recourse to the sacred tribunal.

Conclusion. In antiquity, as now, three acts of the penitent were required, but the primitive Church chiefly insisted on satisfaction, whereas today it insists more on sorrow and confession.

But this change of discipline does not touch the power itself of the keys.

61. 3. Disputed questions. Today, however, among Catholic authors, two principal questions are agitated: (a) whether, for some time, in the universal Church, absolution was denied to the gravest sins; (b) whether, in the first five centuries, besides public penance, private penance also flourished.

62. (A) As to the first, (a) authors of the greatest weight, such as Morinus, d'Aubespine, Juenin, Petavius, Sirmond, Funk, Vacandard, Batiffol, think that the Church, through the first three centuries, denied absolution to the guilty of apostasy, fornication, and homicide,¹ even in the article of death, remitting them to the judgment of God and at the same time pouring forth prayers that God would pardon them. - They prove this: from Tertullian; for he asserts that Callixtus was the first who gave pardon to adulterers, and thus does not stand by itself, because he continues to deny absolution to idolaters and murderers;¹ from Cyprian, who testifies that certain African bishops were unwilling to absolve adulterers;² from the Council of Elvira (A.D. 306), can. 1, where it is said: "It has pleased us that among those who, after the faith of saving baptism, at an adult age shall have approached the temple to worship an idol, and shall have done this, which is a capital crime, because it is of the highest wickedness, it has pleased us that he should not receive communion even at the end";³ from the Council of Arles (A.D. 314), can. 22, where similar things are had; from Origen, who rebukes priests absolving, from ignorance of canonical discipline, the three aforesaid offenses.⁴ Therefore, they say, in the Church both Latin and Greek, there prevailed until the fourth century the practice of denying pardon to those guilty of these crimes.

¹ Morinus, op. cit., bk. X, ch. 1-3; d'Aubespine, De vet. Ecclesiae ritibus, ch. 2; Juenin, De paenit., q. VII, ch. 1, a. 2, § 1; Petavius, in notes to Epiphanius, haeres. 59, at the end of his works; Sirmond, Hist. paenit. publicae, ch. 1; Funk, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1906, p. 432 ff.; Vacandard, in Rev. du clerge franc., t. XX, 1899, p. 575 ff.; Batiffol, op. cit., p. 215.

¹ Tertullian, De pudicitia, ch. 5-6; P. L., t. II, p. 987-991.

² St. Cyprian, ep. 52 to Antonianus, n. 21.

³ In Bruns, op. cit., t. II, p. 2.

⁴ Origen, De oratione, ch. 28, P. G., t. XI, p. 528-529.

63. (b) Moreover, many theologians, among whom Esser, Stufler, and A. d'Ales, teach that a universal practice of denying absolution at the end of life to graver crimes never prevailed in the Church.⁵ They prove this by a twofold argument: indirectly, by the authority of the Council of Trent defining sacramental confession to be necessary by divine right; from which it is inferred that the Church could not deny to penitents, especially in the article of death, so necessary a sacrament; directly, by exhibiting the testimonies of the Fathers, especially Hermas, St. Cyprian, St. Pacian, St. Caelestine, St. Leo, etc., which we have reported above.

⁵ Palmieri, th. 9, p. 92; De San, n. 211 ff.; Pignataro, op. cit., p. 106 ff.; Pelle, Le Tribunal de la Penitence, thesis, Paris, Oudin, 1903, p. 86-136; G. Esser, Die Bussschriften Tertullians, 1905; Stufler in Zeitschrift f. Kath. Theol., 1908, p. 1-48; A. d'Ales, in Rev. du Cl. fr., 1907, t. L, p. 337-365, and L'Edit de Calliste, p. 228 ff.

They respond to the alleged authorities: Tertullian calumniates the doctrine of Callixtus, perhaps in order to lessen his authority among the Africans; Cyprian affirms that certain bishops, but not all, denied absolution to adulterers; the councils alleged above speak of communion, not of absolution to be denied.

64. (c) Judgment concerning this controversy. Here there is question not of a dogmatic matter, but of a historical and disciplinary one, which must be settled from facts. But these are sufficiently obscure. It seems certain that, in the middle of the second century, absolution was not denied on account of the aforesaid sins, as is clear from the authority of Hermas. Likewise all concede that already from the fourth century the reservation of these sins had been abolished, at least in most churches. But the matter remains doubtful as to the end of the second century and the beginning of the third. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria indeed suppose that in their time adultery and homicide could be pardoned.¹ But in certain churches, especially in Africa, some bishops did not absolve from these sins, St. Cyprian bearing witness: "And indeed among our predecessors certain bishops here in our province did not think that peace was to be given to adulterers."² That the same practice was received in certain churches, even at Rome, is clear from the testimony of St. Hippolytus (Philosophoumena, IX, 12). But from this it is by no means proved that this practice was universal; for it did not prevail in the East, and in the West it was not received in all churches or by all. The testimonies of Tertullian, already a Montanist, and of Hippolytus, who then favored rigorism, do not seem wholly worthy of faith, and St. Cyprian rightly hands down that only certain bishops adhered to that practice; but all confess that the Council of Elvira promoted rigorism.

¹ St. Irenaeus, loc. cit.; Clement of Alexandria, Liber quis dives salvetur, ch. 47, P. G., t. IX, p. 647-651, where he narrates that St. John received into the Church a certain leader of robbers, previously baptized by him, and therefore supposes that homicide is not irremissible.

² St. Cyprian, Epist. LV, 21.

Wherefore the prior opinion unjustly asserts that the practice of denying absolution to the three graver offenses was universal. (A. d'Ales, L'Edit de Calliste; Tixeront, Theol. anteniceenne, 8th ed., pp. 361-377, 500-504).

65. (B) As to private penance, a twofold opinion likewise prevails.

(a) The theologians of whom above³ hold that in the earlier centuries there was a twofold kind of penance: public penance for public graver offenses, but private penance for occult ones. They prove this: 1) a priori; for if there had prevailed an obligation of publicly confessing occult sins or of publicly doing penance for them, the sacramental seal would have been violated; moreover, public penance was conceded only once, and therefore, if private penance were taken away, there would be no hope of pardon for those falling again. 2) From certain facts: Cerdon, the heretic, is described by St. Irenaeus⁴ as "coming into the Church and making exomologesis... now indeed secretly teaching [heresy], but now making exomologesis"; but public penance was given once; therefore here there is question of private exomologesis. Almost the same thing is narrated about Marcion, who, having been cast out of the Church once and again, finally underwent penance, afterward to receive peace.⁵ - Furthermore, the Council of Nicaea, can. 13, establishes that sacred communion is not to be denied to all who are dying (and therefore to those who have relapsed); therefore penance was first ministered to them, and that private.

³ The arguments of these were recently expounded by N. Nardi, in Etudes des PP. Jesuites, t. 80, 1899, p. 577, and t. 82, 1900, p. 577.

⁴ St. Irenaeus, C. Haeres., bk. III, ch. 4, P. G., t. VII, p. 857.

⁵ Tertullian, De praescript., ch. 30, P. L., t. II, p. 42.

66. (b) On the contrary, however, the critics of whom above deny that through four centuries there was a private penance distinct from public penance.¹ They indeed acknowledge that the confession of sins was sometimes occult and auricular; but satisfaction or penance was always public; the same must be said of absolution, if you except the case of the dying: for then the pardon of sins took place privately. For: 1) as often as the Fathers of the first four centuries treat of penance, namely Hermas, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Pacian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria, etc., they always describe it as public. 2) Private penance is not exhibited except at the end of the fourth century in the East, when Nectarius (381-398) abolished the penitentiaries, on the occasion of a certain scandal;² but in the West, in the following century. 3) The very few facts alleged to the contrary prove nothing: Cerdon and Marcion, heretics, underwent no other exomologesis except public, which alone belonged to so great a crime, but because of their inconstancy they broke it off several times; from the Nicene canon nothing else is inferred except that the pardon of sins is conceded privately to the dying, by way of privilege, but from this it is by no means proved that, in a general way, private penance prevailed for other Christians; indeed, if the dying survived, according to the First Council of Orange, can. 3, they ought to stand in the order of penitents, and therefore to perform public penance.

¹ The arguments of these were recently set forth by Vacandard, in Rev. du Cl. francais, t. XXIX, 1900, p. 258-264.

² This is narrated by Socrates, H. E., bk. V, ch. 19, P. G., t. LXVII, p. 613 ff., and Sozomen, H. E., bk. VII, ch. 16, P. G., t. LXVII, 1457 ff.

67. (c) Judgment concerning this controversy. In a matter so difficult and obscure, it may be allowed to observe these things: - 1) It is not sufficiently clear, from the documents and facts known up to this point, that private penance was in use through the first three centuries. Sometimes confession was secret, as will be declared more fully below, but nothing proves that the remission of sins was conceded without public satisfaction. 2) Not only the three greatest sins, namely apostasy, fornication, and homicide, were subjected to public penance, but also other lesser sins which were considered as mortal; St. Cyprian testifies to this: "When in lesser sins sinners perform penance for a just time and according to the order of discipline come to exomologesis, and through the imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion."³ 3) Public penance was truly sacramental, since it wholly tended to the remission of sins not only as to punishment, but also as to guilt, through the ministry and absolution of the priest, the faithful interceding with him, as is clear from the things said above concerning exomologesis, and from what is to be said concerning absolution. 4) Sacramental absolution was conceded to the dying, even before they had completed canonical penance, so that, reconciled with God, they might depart from life; furthermore, sometimes, on account of the intercession of confessors and martyrs, the time of penance was shortened.

³ St. Cyprian, ep. 9, n. 2, P. L., t. IV, p. 251.

Whether or not, outside these or similar cases, absolution was conceded before exomologesis had been completed is not sufficiently clear. But for common offenses penance was shorter and was conceded several times.¹

¹ Thus most modern critics. The contrary, however, is held, among others, by Palmieri, De Paenit., Appendix, p. 508; Frank, Bussdisziplin, p. 811 ff.; Schmitz, Bussbucher, II, 34 ff., 74 ff.; Pignataro, op. cit., p. 99; Pesch, n. 263-268.

68. From the things said above it can already be inferred that the power of the keys belongs not to all Christians, but only to certain ministers of the Church: for since this power touches the very conscience of all the faithful and remits sins even before God, it is evident that it cannot be exercised except by those who are deputed by God to rule the faithful and sanctify them. For exercising it, according to Trent, a twofold power is required, namely the power of order and of jurisdiction.

69. (a) And first, the power of order: - "Concerning the minister of this sacrament, the holy Synod declares that all doctrines are false and wholly foreign to the truth of the Gospel which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any other men whatsoever besides Bishops and Priests, thinking that those words of the Lord: '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,' and: 'Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained,' were said to all the faithful of Christ indifferently and promiscuously, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, in such a way that anyone has the power of remitting sins, public sins indeed by correction, if the one corrected shall acquiesce, but secret ones by spontaneous confession made to anyone whatsoever. It also teaches that even priests who are held by mortal sin exercise, through the power of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination, the function of remitting sins as ministers of Christ; and that those think wickedly who contend that this power is not in bad priests."²

² Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 6.

In the same sense the Code speaks, can. 871: "The minister of this sacrament is only a priest."

70. (b) The power of jurisdiction is required besides for the valid use of this power, because it is exercised only in a judicial mode: -

"Since therefore the nature and reason of judgment demands that sentence be pronounced only upon subjects, it has always been persuaded in the Church of God, and this Synod confirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he does not have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction ought to be of no moment."¹

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 7. Cf. Code, can. 872.

71. State of the question. (A) They have erred concerning this matter:

(a) the Montanists, who held that only pneumatics or spiritual men, that is, those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, could pardon sins; (b) the Waldenses and Wycliffites, who conceded the power of absolving sins to good laymen, but denied it to wicked priests; (c) liberal Protestants, who hold that in the first centuries of the Church the power of the keys was exercised by charismatics, that is, by those members of the faithful who enjoyed a special gift or charism: for they contend that the hierarchy was not instituted by Christ, but that various charisms, among which was the charism of forgiving sins, were distributed among the faithful by the Holy Spirit.²

² Muller, in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 1895, p. 1 ff., 187 ff.; cf. Vacandard, in Rev. du Cl. fr., t. XIX, 1899, p. 337.

72. (B) Furthermore, in the Middle Ages, certain Catholic authors held that deacons or clerics of inferior order were in some sense extraordinary ministers of penance, insofar as, priests being lacking, they could receive confessions, indeed, according to some, contribute something toward the absolution of sins.³ - Moreover Morinus thinks, on account of some difficult passages of the Fathers, that in antiquity deacons were held as extraordinary ministers of penance. - Finally, a few said that, priests and clerics being lacking, confession should be made to laymen.⁴

³ See their opinions expounded in Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 183-189; Laurain, De l'intervention des laiques, des diacres et des abbesses dans l'administration de la penitence, Paris, 1897, p. 69.

⁴ In Laurain, op. cit., p. 18 ff.

73. Thesis: Priests alone, that is, bishops and presbyters, are ministers of the power of the keys, or can validly absolve from sins.

It is de fide from Trent, can. 10: "If anyone shall say that priests who are in mortal sin do not have the power of binding and loosing; or that priests alone are not ministers of absolution, but that to all and each of Christ's faithful it was said: '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'; and: 'Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'; by force of which words anyone whatsoever can absolve sins, public sins indeed by correction only, if the one corrected shall acquiesce, but secret sins by spontaneous confession: let him be anathema."

74. 1. It is proved from Scripture, namely from the two texts alleged by Trent, which we declared above (n. 21-31). For from these, joined with the interpretation of the Fathers, it follows that the power conferred on the apostles and their successors must be exercised in a judicial mode. Now not all the faithful enjoy judicial authority, but only those who preside over the Church, whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God,"¹ as is clear from the things proved in the treatise on the Church. - But who were invested with this power must be determined from the doctrine and practice of the Church.²

¹ Acts 20:28.

² These are priests, that is, bishops and presbyters, as is clear from the facts brought forward. Through the first four centuries, this power was exercised almost exclusively by bishops; but in the fourth century, to certain presbyters, namely penitentiaries, there was conceded the authority of hearing confessions and absolving sinners; from the fifth to the eighth century this power was extended to several other presbyters; and already from the eighth century to all priests. (Tixeront, III, 253.)

75. 2. By Tradition. (A) In the second century, we can gather only certain traces, for the reasons already brought forward where we treated of the power itself of the keys. St. Ignatius constantly commends and commands obedience to be furnished to the bishop, nor does he promise to sinners the remission of sins unless they return to the bishop; from which it is inferred that the power of absolving, which involves judicial power, was exercised only by bishops or dependently on them.

76. (B) But this is expressly affirmed in the third and fourth centuries, as soon as errors concerning this matter arise. Thus, Tertullian bearing witness, Callixtus claims for himself the power of remitting sins, and indeed by force of the text "Whatsoever thou shalt bind." - The Montanists indeed contend that this authority belongs to spiritual men,³ but their error is rejected by the universal Church. Tertullian himself, while still Catholic, describing exomologesis, says that sinners groan, weep, and "throw themselves before the presbyters."¹ St. Cyprian, disciple of Tertullian, exhorts sinners to penance, "while satisfaction and remission made through priests is pleasing before the Lord."² Others with St. Ambrose explicitly say that the power of binding and loosing, and therefore of remitting sins, is in priests alone: "For this right has been permitted to priests alone. Therefore the Church rightly claims this, since she has true priests; heresy cannot claim it, since it does not have priests of God."³ We have already said (n. 46) that the power of absolving is conferred on bishops in ordination itself.

³ Tertullian declares this thus, De pudicitia, ch. 21: "And therefore the Church indeed will forgive offenses; but the Church of the Spirit through a spiritual man, not the Church the number of bishops."

¹ De Paenitent., n. 9.

² De Lapsis, ch. 29.

³ St. Ambrose, De Paenit., bk. I, ch. 2, P. L., t. XVI, p. 468.

77. The Greek Fathers assert the same. Origen expressly asserts that the power of remitting sins was conferred on the apostles and their successors by force of the words "Whose sins you shall forgive"...; and from the context and parallel passages it is clear that these successors are priests: thus he speaks of the sinner who "is not ashamed to show his sin to the priest of the Lord, and to seek medicine."⁴ - St. Athanasius, in the Fragment from the Books against the Novatians, writes: "Just as a man baptized by a priest is illuminated by the grace of the Holy Spirit, so one who confesses in penance receives remission through the priest by the grace of Christ."⁵ - In the fourth century, at Constantinople, penitentiary presbyters were instituted, whose office was to impose penance and absolve those confessing.⁶

⁴ Origen, in Levit., hom. II, n. 4, P. G., t. XII, p. 418; cf. 560, 561; t. XI, p. 528, 529; t. XIII, 1846.

⁵ P. G., t. XXVI, p. 1315.

⁶ Socrates, H. E., bk. V, ch. 19, P. G., LXVII, 614-615. It is also probable that penitentiaries were likewise constituted at Rome at the beginning of the fourth century. Yet certain Catholics deny this, thinking that the imposition of penance and the absolution of sins, in the western Church, was reserved to the bishop. See Vacandard, in Revue du Clerge francais, t. XLII, 1905, p. 361; whose arguments, however, Batiffol refutes, ibid., p. 449.

78. Difficulties are solved. (A) It is permitted to observe only a few things concerning pneumatics. We do not indeed deny that certain persons, in the primitive Church, were endowed with special charisms, which are described by St. Paul;⁷ but nowhere is it said that to them was conceded the power of remitting sins. - Tertullian, already made a Montanist, ascribes this power to spiritual men, but, notwithstanding his talent, this assertion was soon universally reproved, even by St. Cyprian, his disciple. Therefore nothing can be deduced from this against our thesis.

⁷ 1 Cor. 12:3-11; 14:2-40; Ephes. 4:11.

79. (B) Some object that confessors and martyrs obtained the privilege of conceding certificates of peace, and therefore the remission of sins. - It is indeed true that certificates of peace were given by them, so that the lapsed might more easily obtain pardon; but from the letters of St. Cyprian it is evidently clear that this intercession of the martyrs was indeed one of the motives on account of which a milder or shorter penance was imposed, just as today, by force of the communion of saints, indulgences are conceded, but by no means was it true absolution from sins. He indeed confesses that the lapsed can be helped by the prayers of the martyrs; but the bishops must judge to whom and when reconciliation ought to be conceded.¹ Now this doctrine was approved not only by the African bishops, but also by the Roman Church, as we already noted above, n. 50. From this the thesis is confirmed not a little, since it is clear that the martyrs themselves contributed something to the pardon of sins only by a privilege of intercession.

¹ Letters, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 26, 30, etc., P. L., t. IV, pp. 252, 255, 257, 260, 270, 304-305.

80. (C) Yet another difficulty arises from the intervention of deacons in the administration of penance. St. Cyprian, writing concerning the lapsed who were in danger of death, says that they can make exomologesis before a presbyter, or, if a presbyter is lacking, before a deacon:² "If they have been occupied by some inconvenience and danger of illness, without awaiting our presence, before any presbyter whatsoever who is present, or, if a presbyter shall not be found and death begins to press, before a deacon also they can make exomologesis of their offense, so that, the hand having been imposed on them unto penance, they may come to the Lord with the peace which the martyrs desired to be given, in letters written to us."

² Epist. 12 to the clergy concerning the Lapsed, P. L., t. IV, p. 259.

The matter is explained in different ways. (a) Some, with Morinus, think that the holy Doctor truly held that deacons are extraordinary ministers of penance in more urgent cases. (b) Others say that here there is question of external reconciliation with the Church, which, as regards sinners, had to precede the administration of viaticum. For the question was concerning the lapsed who had received a certificate of peace from the martyrs and at the same time labored under grave illness and were in danger of death. The bishop permits presbyters, and, if they are lacking, deacons, to impose penance on the sick through the imposition of hands, so that, penance having been accepted and an act of contrition elicited, those about to die may be able to receive communion, and thus approach the Lord with peace; for often deacons, priests being lacking, ministered viaticum to the dying who had been justified by an act of perfect contrition. This is confirmed by canon 32 of the Council of Elvira (306): "If anyone before a presbyter has fallen by a grave lapse into the ruin of death, it has pleased us that he ought not to perform penance, but rather before the bishop; yet, sickness compelling, it is necessary that a presbyter furnish communion, and a deacon if a priest shall have ordered him." Thus it is explained how some deacons, since they ministered viaticum, heard confessions beforehand, namely so that they might arouse sinners to contrition; this can be inferred from Odo, bishop of Paris, statutes (1197), where one reads:¹ "Item, we strictly forbid that deacons in any way hear confessions, except in the most straitened necessity; for they do not have the keys, nor can they absolve."

¹ In Mansi, XXII, 653; cf. Laurain, p. 88 ff., where you will find many other documents.

81. (D) It is also sometimes objected that monks who had not been initiated into the priesthood heard confessions.

Resp. We readily admit that in the Middle Ages, especially in the East, the matter sometimes stood this way, because, namely, the Christian people, scandalized by the wicked morals of secular priests, often preferred to confess sins to religious, even to those who were not priests: but this was an abuse and ignorance born of good faith.

82. (E) They urge: In the Middle Ages the practice prevailed that, in danger of death, when a priest was lacking, confession was made to laymen; the most learned theologians commended this practice, indeed taught its necessity, for example Lanfranc,² Peter Lombard,³ Robert Pullus,⁴ Albert the Great,⁵ St. Thomas,⁶ and others; therefore laymen absolve.

² De Celanda confessione, in Migne, t. 150, p. 629 ff.

³ Sentent., bk. IV, dist. 17.

⁴ Sentent., bk. VI, ch. 51, 301-302, in Migne, t. 186, p. 897.

⁵ In IV Sentent., dist. 17, art. 58-59.

⁶ In IV Sentent., dist. 17, q. 3, a. 3, sol. 2.

Resp. The aforesaid Doctors by no means teach that laymen have the power of absolving, although they hold that, in a case of necessity, it is useful or necessary for sins to be confessed to a layman. They accepted this opinion from the author of the book On True and False Penance, which was wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine; here are the words of Pseudo-Augustine:⁷ "He who wishes to confess sins so that he may find grace, let him seek a priest who knows how to bind and loose... Yet such is the force of confession that, if a priest is lacking, let him confess to his neighbor... Although he to whom confession is made does not have the power of loosing, nevertheless he who confesses his crime to his companion is made worthy of pardon from the desire of the priest." From this it follows that laymen lack the power of absolving. St. Thomas holds the same (loc. cit.) when he says: "But when necessity is imminent, the penitent ought to do what is on his part, namely to be contrite, and to confess to whom he can; and although he cannot perfect the sacrament, so that he may do what is on the part of the priest, nevertheless the supreme priest supplies the defect." Therefore laymen, when they heard confessions in a case of necessity, did not enjoy the power of absolving; but Christ Himself, on occasion of this humble confession, imparted the remission of sins to those well disposed. Nevertheless, because of this intervention, deacons were called by certain theologians of this age extraordinary ministers of the sacrament of Penance.¹

⁷ In Migne, P. L., t. 40, p. 1122.

¹ Vacant sets forth at length these opinions of the Scholastics, Diction. de Theologie, t. I, p. 182-189.

From this one can likewise infer how necessary confession was considered to be, since, when a priest was lacking, it was said that it should be made before a layman.

83. (F) We say nothing of abbesses, who sometimes usurped the power of hearing the confessions of nuns; for this was reproved as incongruous and absurd in both Churches, Greek and Latin, "because," as Innocent III said, "although the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was more worthy and more excellent than all the Apostles, nevertheless the Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven not to her, but to them."²

² In Migne, P. L., t. 216, p. 356; for the eastern Church, see P. G., t. 119, p. 1066; cf. Laurain, op. cit., p. 1-67.

84. State of the question. (A) Besides the power of order, in the minister of Penance there is desired the power of jurisdiction. (a) Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in general is defined as the power of ruling subjects in those things which regard the supernatural end. It differs from the power of order: for the latter is the power of ministering the sacraments, conferred by sacred ordination, and inhering indelibly in the subject; whereas jurisdiction is the power of ruling, conferred by an external act of a superior, which can be revoked. This indeed is threefold: legislative, for making laws; judicial, for authoritatively rendering sentences; and coercive, for inflicting penalties against delinquents.

(b) Now the jurisdiction which is required for the sacrament of Penance is judicial, since this sacrament is ministered under a judicial form. But judicial power can be twofold: of the external forum, when directly and primarily it regards the public utility of the Church; of the internal forum, when directly and primarily it regards the private utility of each member of the faithful. Since, therefore, the sacrament of Penance was instituted primarily for the sanctification of private persons, the jurisdiction necessary for its administration is a judicial power of the internal forum, and indeed of the penitential forum, so that it may thus be distinguished from jurisdiction of the internal extra-penitential forum, which can be exercised outside sacramental confession, for example, by dispensing in a vow; by removing a censure with effect in the internal forum only.

(c) Hence the jurisdiction of the confessor can be defined as a supernatural power, conferred by an external act of a superior, by which a priest can exercise judgment toward subjects in the internal and penitential forum. But it is conferred by designating the subjects over whom the power of absolving can be exercised, or the place where it is legitimately exercised.

(B) Now certain older theologians, such as Durandus, held that jurisdiction is given in ordination itself, although they acknowledged that its use is bound by the prohibition of the Church; theologians commonly reject this opinion as antiquated. The Synod of Pistoia was even further distant from the truth when it asserted that it is indeed fitting, but not necessary for the validity of absolution, that the confessor possess jurisdiction.¹

¹ In Denzinger, n. 1400.

85. Thesis: Besides the power of order, for valid absolution there is required the power of jurisdiction, which is not received by force of ordination alone, but by concession of ecclesiastical superiors.

1. The former point, namely that jurisdiction is required for valid absolution, is explicitly declared by Trent, above, n. 68. The Decree for the Armenians had gone before:² "The minister of this sacrament is a priest having the authority of absolving, either ordinary, or by commission of a superior"; that is, ordinary or delegated jurisdiction.

² In Denzinger, n. 594.

(A) The reason for this assertion is taken, as Trent rightly hands down, from the very nature of absolution. For the power of remitting or retaining sins is exercised by way of judgment; but judicial power cannot validly be exercised except over a subject, that is, over one who has been subjected to the authority or jurisdiction of the judge by a legitimate superior; just as, in civil matters, not any judge whatsoever can know any cause whatsoever, but each knows those causes which are assigned explicitly or implicitly by a legitimate superior; for if judges were to treat any causes indiscriminately, there would be no subordination of inferiors and superiors, but the whole order of justice would be disturbed.

From this it is likewise given to understand why jurisdiction in the other sacraments is required for licit, but not for valid, administration, whereas it is necessary for valid absolution: for the other sacraments are not conferred by way of judgment, and therefore of themselves do not demand jurisdiction.

86. (B) The matter is also historically clear. For from what has been said, the power of remitting sins in the first centuries of the Church was exercised by the Bishop of each diocese, and indeed over his own subjects, as is clear from the letters of St. Cyprian; wherefore the holy Doctor rebukes priests who had reconciled the lapsed without consulting the Bishop.¹ - But afterward, from the fourth and fifth centuries, with the number of the faithful and of sins increased, the Bishops began to designate penitentiary presbyters attached to some special church, who there would receive the confessions of penitents.² - When parishes were instituted in villages and country places, the power of absolving, like the other ecclesiastical offices to be performed, was committed to parish priests. Hence, when the Fourth Lateran Council issued the decree concerning annual confession, it commanded that the faithful confess to their own priest, that is, to the parish priest having jurisdiction over subjects, or to a priest delegated by him or by a legitimate superior. - To religious indeed, not having a parish, the faculty of receiving confessions was given, but by force of delegation conceded by the Supreme Pontiff or Ordinaries.³ Therefore some jurisdiction was always necessary for exercising the power of absolution.

¹ St. Cyprian, ep. 11, P. L., IV, p. 257. - This is likewise clear from can. 4 of the Second Council of Carthage: "If anyone has been placed in danger and shall have asked to be reconciled to the divine altars, if the bishop shall have been absent, the presbyter ought certainly to consult the bishop, and thus reconcile the endangered one by his precept." (In Bruns, t. I, p. 119.)

² Thomassin, Anc. et nouv. discipline de l'Eglise, Bar-le-Duc, 1864, t. I, P. I, bk. II, ch. 10 and 11, p. 381 ff., and ch. 23-26.

³ Thomassin, op. cit., ch. 12, p. 401 ff.

87. 2. But the latter point, namely that this jurisdiction is not conferred by force of ordination alone, but by concession of superiors, follows from the things already proved. For Trent (loc. cit.), by declaring that the absolution of a priest lacking jurisdiction is of no moment or value, supposes that there can be a priest who lacks jurisdiction; but if jurisdiction were conceded by force of ordination alone, it could not be taken away, since the power of order, like the priestly character itself, is indelible; therefore jurisdiction does not flow from ordination itself.

This can also be declared thus. Every jurisdiction is either ordinary, that is, annexed to the office or munus which is conceded, or delegated, that is, obtained from a special commission of an ecclesiastical superior; but neither is conferred by force of ordination alone: not the former, because no one by force of ordination itself receives a determined diocese or parish; not the latter, because ecclesiastical superiors do not intend to concede this special commission by force of ordination, but afterward confer it by a special and distinct act of mission.

88. It is indeed objected that the complete power of absolving, and therefore jurisdiction, was conferred on the Apostles by Christ by these words: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, etc."; but the same words are said to newly ordained priests; therefore they too receive the same power by force of ordination. - Resp. The Apostles received from Christ both powers, of order and of jurisdiction, not precisely by force of the words "Receive ye, etc.," but by force of the intention of Christ, which is sufficiently manifested by the preceding words, "as the Father has sent me, I also send you." Hence, although the words "Receive ye" are said to new priests, it does not follow from this that they receive the power of jurisdiction, because the Church does not intend to concede it by these words; therefore the parity must be denied.

89. Corollaries. 1. Jurisdiction can be limited in various modes by legitimate superiors, but especially by the Roman Pontiff, who has supreme jurisdiction in the universal Church. For ecclesiastical superiors who possess ordinary jurisdiction can concede it or not; therefore, a fortiori, they can confer it in a more or less limited mode, as in the Lord they shall have judged expedient. Hence jurisdiction can be limited as to persons, insofar as the faculty of absolving is restricted to certain persons or kinds of persons; as to place, for example, within the limits of one parish; as to time, so that after a certain time has elapsed it expires; as to sins, insofar as a superior can reserve to himself absolution from certain graver sins.

90. This is historically clear. When bishops permitted presbyters to absolve from sins, they reserved to themselves certain very grave ones. Thus, in the Synod of Paris (about A.D. 1200), it is established: "Let priests reserve greater things to greater ones, in confessions, such as homicides, sacrileges, sins against nature, incests, and defilements of virgins, laying of hands upon parents, broken vows, etc." Almost at the same time, the Council of London decreed "that those who knowingly have perjured themselves to the detriment of anyone whatsoever are not absolved... except by the diocesan bishop, or by his authority, except only in the article of death." Moreover, the bishops themselves were not accustomed to absolve certain more atrocious crimes, but remitted them to the Supreme Pontiff. An example is had in can. 13 of the Council of Avignon (1209): "Against public perjurers, convicted of perjury, and those who persevered pertinaciously in excommunication for six months... we promulgate a special and new canon, namely that it be lawful for none of the bishops to absolve anathema of this kind, but that, according to the Apostolic See, sacrilegious persons and incendiaries be sent to be absolved."¹ - Finally, the Roman Pontiffs themselves reserved certain graver crimes to themselves, so that the faithful might be more efficaciously deterred from perpetrating them. For Trent says, ch. 7: "It seemed to our most holy Fathers to pertain greatly to the discipline of the Christian people, that certain more atrocious and graver crimes be absolved not by any priests whatsoever, but only by the highest priests; whence the Supreme Pontiffs, by the supreme authority handed down to them in the universal Church, were rightly able, by their particular judgment, to reserve certain graver causes of crimes."

¹ You will find these canons and very many others in Thomassin, op. cit., P. I, bk. II, ch. 13-14, t. I, p. 406-417.

91. 2. It is commonly held that jurisdiction is required also for the absolution of venial sins. Many older theologians, even of the first name, such as St. Thomas and Scotus,² denied this, because venial sins can be remitted also by other sacraments, in which jurisdiction is not required. Others said that any priests whatsoever received from the Church jurisdiction for absolving from venials by force of custom, without special concession; this could once have been true, but today it has fallen into desuetude; for Innocent XI, by the decree Cum ad aures,³ prohibited Bishops from permitting that the confession of venials be made to a simple priest not approved by the bishop or Ordinary. Hence today it is commonly taught⁴ that jurisdiction is required even for absolution from venials; for in the sacrament of Penance venial sins also are remitted by way of judgment; but a judge cannot render a valid sentence without jurisdiction; therefore.

² St. Thomas, in 4, dist. 18, q. 2, a. 3, sol. 1 ad 3; Scotus, in 4, d. 18, q. 4, a. 2, sol. 3.

³ In Denzinger, n. 1086.

⁴ I say commonly, because a few with Ballerini, Opus Morale, De Paenit., n. 555, hold the contrary and understand the decree of Innocent XI concerning liceity, not concerning the validity of absolution.