Dogmatic Part — Chapter III: On the Sacrament of Penance Itself

From the things said concerning the power of the keys and the three acts of the penitent, it is permitted to infer that penance is truly a sacrament: we shall briefly declare its existence, constitutive elements, and effects.

157. Tridentine doctrine. Against the Protestants, who commonly denied that Penance is a sacrament distinct from baptism, Trent declared two things: (a) that Penance is a sacrament instituted by Christ; (b) and indeed truly distinct from baptism: -

¹ St. Thomas, 3, q. 84, a. 1; Suarez, disp. XVII, sect. I; Bellarmine, l. I, ch. 9; Drouin, q. II, § 3; Billuart, diss. I, art. 1; Billot, th. 2; L. de San, n. 289-300.

"But the Lord then especially instituted the sacrament of Penance when, having been raised from the dead, He breathed upon His Disciples, saying: 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' By so signal a deed and by words so clear, the consensus of all the Fathers has always understood that the power of remitting sins, for reconciling the faithful who have fallen after Baptism, was communicated to the Apostles and their legitimate successors; and the Catholic Church, with great reason, once rejected and condemned as heretics the Novatians, who obstinately denied the power of remitting. Wherefore this holy Synod, approving and receiving this most true sense of those words of the Lord, condemns the fictitious interpretations of those who falsely twist those words, against the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the word of God and announcing the Gospel of Christ.

"Besides, this sacrament is recognized to differ from Baptism in many ways; for besides the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is completed, are most widely different, it is certain that the minister of Baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment over no one who has not first entered into her through the gate of Baptism. 'For what have I to do,' says the Apostle, 'with judging those who are outside?' The case is otherwise with the household of faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of Baptism once made members of His body; for these, if afterward they have contaminated themselves with some crime, He willed not that they be washed by Baptism repeated, since that is in no way lawful in the Catholic Church, but that they be placed as guilty persons before this tribunal; so that by the sentence of priests, not once, but as often as they flee to Him penitent from the sins committed, they may be able to be freed.

"Moreover, one is the fruit of Baptism, and another the fruit of Penance: for by Baptism, putting on Christ, we are made an entirely new creature in Him, obtaining the full and complete remission of all sins; but to this newness and integrity we can by no means arrive through the sacrament of Penance without our great weepings and labors, divine justice requiring this: so that Penance has deservedly been called by the holy Fathers a certain laborious Baptism. But this sacrament of Penance is necessary unto salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, as Baptism itself is for those not yet regenerated."¹

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 1-2.

We shall defend both assertions in one and the same thesis.

158. Thesis: The rite by which the power of forgiving sins is exercised is a true sacrament of the New Law, distinct from Baptism. It is of faith from Trent:² "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." - "If anyone, confounding the sacraments, shall say that Baptism itself is the sacrament of Penance, as if these two sacraments were not distinct... let him be anathema." - The thesis is briefly proved, because, in the manner of a corollary, it is inferred from the things said concerning the power of the keys.

² Sess. XIV, can. 1-2.

159. 1° Scripture. For a sacrament of the New Law three things are required and suffice, as was proved in the Treatise on the Sacraments: a sensible sign, productive of grace, permanently instituted by Christ. But these three things are to be found in the rite by which sins are remitted: (A) a sensible sign; for, from the things said, sins are remitted by a judicial act, which imports at least two things, namely the sensible manifestation of sins and the external sentence of the judge absolving the penitent. Besides, a sign of this kind is distinguished from the rite of baptism; for Baptism is conferred by washing, while Penance is under the form of judgment; in Penance sins can be retained judicially, not so in Baptism.

(B) Productive of grace; for grave sins, from the things said, are truly remitted through this rite; but they cannot be blotted out without the infusion of sanctifying grace; for, from the things proved in the Treatise on Grace (n. 132), justification essentially consists in the conferral of habitual grace; therefore a rite of this kind is productive of grace. - But this grace differs from the grace of baptism, since it is properly remissive of sin and can be granted many times, while the grace conferred in Baptism is regenerative, and is conferred only once.

(C) Permanently instituted by Christ; for we have demonstrated that this power was conferred upon the Apostles by Christ Himself risen again, when He said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." But that the same power is perpetual in the Church is clear: (a) from the general principle, conceded by the Protestants themselves, that all prerogatives which are necessary not only for founding the Church, but also for preserving her, were conferred upon the Apostles not for themselves alone, but also for their successors; but the power of remitting sins is no less necessary today than in the time of Christ, since men easily fall into sin; therefore such power was permanently granted. This St. Pacian had already noticed, and from it he thus argued against the Novatians:¹ if the power of remitting sins was not transmitted to the successors of the apostles, why do you say that the power of baptizing was granted in perpetuity? (b) From history, which clearly shows that this faculty was perpetually claimed and exercised by the Church, as the testimonies already adduced prove.

¹ Ep. I to Sempron., n. 6; P. L., t. XIII, p. 1057.

160. 2° By Tradition. From the Fathers, who often compare Penance with Baptism, and assert that in both sins are remitted and grace conferred, although in a different way. We already reported above the words of St. Ambrose, n. 52. Likewise St. Jerome² asserts that sins are remitted "by the blood of the Savior either in the gift of Baptism or in Penance, which imitates the grace of Baptism through the ineffable clemency of the Savior." Nor otherwise St. Augustine:¹ "If it was done by a catechumen (homicide), it is washed away by Baptism; if by one baptized, it is healed by Penance and reconciliation." From these and other testimonies which could be cited, it follows that Penance, no less than Baptism, is a true sacrament, since in both sins are blotted out and grace is infused. - Moreover, from the whole description of penitential discipline it is clear that there is the greatest difference between baptism and penance: for the latter was much more laborious than the preparation for baptism.

² Dialog. I against the Pelagians, n. 33; P. L., t. XXIII, p. 527.

¹ De conjug. adult., bk. II, ch. 16; P. L., t. XL, p. 482.

161. 3° Reason of fittingness.² Indeed it befitted divine mercy to institute a remedy not only against original sin, but also against actual sins committed after Baptism; for man, even regenerated, remains subject to many temptations and easily falls. But surely the best remedy is a sacrament, by force of which we can be more certain concerning sins pardoned, through the judicial sentence passed by the minister of God, and thus be rendered more peaceful: for if each one had to judge concerning his own penance, a broad way would lie open to doubts and anxieties. By force of it also the blood of Christ, flowing down to us, cleanses us from our iniquities, and renders us more ready to offer fuller satisfaction for sins, and also to employ the means by which new offenses can be guarded against in the future; therefore the institution of this sacrament was fitting.

² Cf. Roman Catechism, on Penance, n. 14.

When the Scholastics adapted their general theory concerning matter and form to sacred rites, they taught that the sacraments consist of a twofold essential element, namely matter and form; this manner of speaking the Church used, especially in the Councils of Florence and Trent. Therefore it is necessary to inquire what the matter and form of this sacrament are. Now both Councils declared that the three acts of the penitent are the quasi-matter of the sacrament of Penance, but that the form is the words of absolution.

162. 1° State of the question. A twofold matter is distinguished in the sacraments: remote and proximate. The remote matter of Penance, or rather the matter to be removed, as some theologians say, or, as is more pleasing to others, the matter about which the sacrament is concerned, is all sins committed after baptism, whether mortal or venial, whether already remitted by absolution or not. Mortal sins not yet accused and absolved are necessary matter, or matter necessarily to be subjected to the keys of the Church; but venial sins and mortal sins already remitted are sufficient and free matter, that is, matter which can, but need not necessarily, be subjected to the power of the keys, as will be declared more fully in the moral part.

¹ St. Thomas, 3, q. 84, a. 2; Suarez, disp. XVIII, sect. 3; Salmant., disp. I, dub. 2; Billuart, diss. I, a. 2; Palmieri, th. 14; Billot, th. 3; L. de San, n. 300-343.

But the question arises concerning the proximate matter of this sacrament; theologians dispute in what, namely, it essentially consists, whether in the three acts of the penitent, or in absolution or some other action. Three opinions especially have come forth on this matter.

163. (A) Some older theologians, such as William of Auxerre and Alexander of Hales, thought that the proximate matter was situated in the imposition of the hand made by the priest while he absolves the penitent. But this opinion is commonly rejected by theologians. A threefold imposition of this kind is indeed commemorated among ecclesiastical authors:² the first, which was employed when public penance was imposed; the second, which was repeated over the penitents whenever they were dismissed from the church after the catechumens; the third, finally, in the reconciliation of penitents. But this rite was not regarded as essential, as is clearly gathered from the canon of the First Council of Orange, where it is said: "Those who depart from the body, penance having been received, it has pleased us that they be communicated without the reconciling imposition of the hand, which suffices for the consolation of one dying, according to the definition of the Fathers." Now if the imposition of the hand had been necessary for the remission of sin, certainly the dying would not have been deprived of it.

² Cf. Sirmundus, Historia paenitent. publicae, ch. VII; Palmieri, p. 159.

164. (B) The Scotists, with whom Maldonatus, Ballerini, Berardi and others agree,³ teach that the whole essence of the sacrament consists in absolution, which, insofar as it is an external ceremony, constitutes the matter, and insofar as it has the force of signifying, is the form. According to Scotus and his older disciples, the three acts of the penitent are not only dispositions for the valid and fruitful reception of the sacrament, but also conditions without which, having gone before, the minister cannot sufficiently know the cause and pass sentence; for which reason they conclude that the external manifestation of these dispositions is truly of the necessity of the sacrament. According to more recent Scotists, acts of this kind are only dispositions required for the worthy reception of the sacrament; wherefore it is not necessary that they be manifested by an exterior act.

³ Scotus, in 4 dist. 14, q. 4 and dist. 16, q. 1; Maldonatus, de Paenitent., p. III, th. 7; Ballerini-Palmieri, de Paenit., n. 5 sq.; Berardi, Praxis Confessar., t. IV, n. 2.

But they argue thus: (a) first, the matter was not defined by Trent, as is asserted by certain Thomists; for, as C. Pallavicini relates,¹ the Synod called the three acts of the penitent not matter, but quasi-matter, and declared them necessary not for the essence, but only for the integrity of the sacrament. (b) A sacrament is that which properly confers grace; but only the absolution of the Priest properly confers sacramental grace; therefore it alone is properly the essence of the sacrament. (c) It is certain, from the practice of the Church, that sacramental absolution can be given to those who present no exterior sign of contrition; but if the three acts of the penitent were the matter of the sacrament, this would be invalid, since matter must be sensible; therefore acts of this kind are not the matter of the sacrament, but only dispositions, and the whole essence of the sacrament consists in absolution.

¹ Historia C. Trident., bk. XII, ch. 12.

(C) Yet the more common opinion, which not only St. Thomas and his disciples defend, but also Suarez, the Salmanticenses, De Lugo, Bellarmine, and many others, holds that the three acts of the penitent are truly the proximate matter of the sacrament.

165. 2° Thesis: The three acts of the penitent, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are the proximate matter of the sacrament of Penance. Thus more commonly.

(A) The Council of Florence, in the Decree to the Armenians, after declaring the necessity of matter and form in any sacrament, adds these things: "The fourth sacrament is Penance, whose quasi-matter is the acts of the penitent, which are distinguished into three parts." Similarly Trent:¹ "But the quasi-matter of this sacrament is the acts of the penitent himself, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction. These, insofar as they are required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins by the institution of God, for this reason are called parts of Penance." Hence thus: the two aforesaid Councils distinctly commemorated the matter and form of the other sacraments, and when they treated of Penance, they designated no other matter except the three acts of the penitent; therefore those acts are truly the proximate matter of this sacrament, unless perhaps it be said that matter of this kind was intentionally passed over: which can scarcely be admitted in a matter of such great moment. Nor should it be objected that the Councils said quasi-matter, and not matter; "nor indeed are these acts called quasi-matter by the holy Synod because they do not have the character of true matter, but because they are not matter of that kind which is applied externally, as water in Baptism, and chrism in Confirmation."² Namely, Penance is a sacrament of its own kind, whose matter is not a corporeal element, as in certain others, but the very virtue of penance raised to the dignity of a sacrament, and for that reason it is called quasi-matter.

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3; cf. can. 4.

² Catechism of the Council of Trent, on Penance, n. 17. - Hence St. Thomas himself used this manner of speaking: "The fourth sacrament is Penance, whose quasi-matter is the acts of the penitent." (De artic. fidei et eccl. sacramentis, t. XXVII, p. 180, ed. Vives.)

(B) Besides, Christ instituted this sacrament in the manner of a judgment, in which it is possible to find two constitutive elements, namely the matter of the judgment itself which the penitent provides, and the sentence which is passed by the judge; but the matter of the judgment is provided by the three acts of the penitent, namely by the humble confession of sins, which sincere contrition accompanies and satisfaction follows; therefore acts of this kind are truly the proximate matter of the sacrament. It is indeed objected that grace is conferred only by absolution, and not by these acts, and consequently that they do not pertain to the essence of the sacrament; but undeservedly, for although such acts do not of themselves confer grace, nevertheless, because by the positive institution of Christ they have been raised to the dignity of sacramental matter, they truly concur with the form by which, so to speak, they are fecundated, for producing grace. Nor is it useful to say that contrition is not something sensible; for although it is not sensible immediately and in itself, nevertheless it becomes sensible mediately, insofar as it is manifested through the exterior acts of confession, satisfaction, and other signs of sorrow.¹ Moreover it suffices that the matter be virtually sensible; consequently even a man destitute of the senses, who before falling into this state manifested contrition by words or signs, by that very fact exhibits virtual contrition.

¹ St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 90, a. 2, ad 1.

Yet notwithstanding these things, we freely confess that the opinion of the Scotists is not lacking in probability, nor to be despised in practice: consequently, in a case of extreme necessity, even if exterior signs of contrition are lacking, the penitent is to be absolved under condition.

166. Trent teaches³ that "the form of the sacrament of Penance, in which its force chiefly is situated, has been placed in those words of the minister: I absolve you, etc.; to which indeed, according to the custom of Holy Church, certain prayers are laudably added; yet they by no means belong to the essence of the form itself."

² St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, a. 3; Suarez, disp. XIX; De Lugo, disp. 13; Salmantic., disp. III; Morinus, l. VIII; Drouin, q. II, ch. 3; Billuart, diss. I, a. 3; de Augustinis, th. 23; Palmieri, th. 12; Billot, th. 3.

³ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3.

This indeed is the form used today in the Western Church; but since in antiquity other forms were employed, it will not be beside the matter 1° to describe these briefly, and afterward to weigh 2° what is required in the present form for validity and lawfulness, 3° whether a conditional form is valid and lawful.

167. 1° The facts are set forth. (A) In each Church, through the first ten centuries, the forms of absolution used were deprecatory, namely: "God, pardon him, absolve him, etc."; but not indicative: "I absolve you, I pardon you, etc."

This is clear: (a) from the testimony of the Fathers, who, with St. Leo, say that in the sacrament of penance the indulgence of God is obtained by the supplications of priests;¹ (b) but especially from the Sacramentaries and Penitentials, where only deprecatory formulas are found. Thus, in the Gelasian Sacramentary, for publicly reconciling a penitent, this prayer is pronounced: "Almighty everlasting God, for Thy mercy relax this servant of Thine confessing to Thee, that the guilt of conscience may not harm him more unto punishment than the indulgence of Thy mercy unto pardon."² And afterward various prayers are recited over him. In the same place, for reconciling privately a penitent near death, various prayers are poured forth, which are thus concluded: "Look propitiously upon this servant of Thine, asking for himself the remission of all sins with the whole confession of his heart."³ - The same is clear from the various Penitentials cited above, n. 114. Similar formulas are found in Halitgar (+831),⁴ and in authors of a later age, up to the tenth century. Yet, in the eighth and ninth centuries, imperative formulas are also found joined with deprecatory ones, for example: "May you indeed be absolved by God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, from all your sins."⁵

¹ St. Leo, ep. 108 to Theodore, P. L., t. LIV, p. 1011.

² In Migne, P. L., t. LXXIV, p. 1097.

³ Ibid., p. 1098.

⁴ P. L., t. CV, pp. 697, 704.

⁵ Thus in the Penitential of Egbert, archbishop of York (around the year 732), in Morinus, op. cit., Appendix, p. 19.

168. (B) From the eleventh century, in the Latin Church, the transition from deprecatory formulas to indicative ones begins, and both are found together in the same documents. Thus, in a certain order of Penance, to the deprecatory formulas this is added:⁶ "We also, according to the authority committed to us unworthy ones by God, absolve you from every bond of your offenses, etc." Likewise, in the order of the Church of Reims, in the twelfth century, the form of absolution is read as deprecatory and indicative at once:⁷ "May almighty God, who gave to blessed Peter His apostle and to His other disciples His license of binding and loosing, Himself absolve you from every bond of offenses; and, insofar as it is permitted to our frailty, may you be absolved before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may you have eternal life..." - Even at the beginning of the thirteenth century the deprecatory form still flourished; for William of Paris writes these things:⁸ "Nor, after the manner of forensic judges, does the confessor pronounce, we absolve you, but rather makes prayer over him, that God may grant absolution and remission and the grace of sanctification." The same is likewise clear from Opuscule 18 of St. Thomas, ch. 5; for when the adversary had said: "scarcely thirty years have passed since all used this deprecatory form alone," the Angelic Doctor does not deny this absolutely, but only corrects it in this way: "How can he bear witness concerning all, who did not see all?" - But a little afterward the indicative form was commonly received in the Latin Church; nevertheless, before it is pronounced, the prayers "May He have mercy," "May the Lord grant indulgence," "May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you," are recited, which are like a commemoration of the ancient discipline.

⁶ Magna Bibliotheca Patrum, Cologne, 1618, t. VIII, p. 423-424.

⁷ In Morinus, op. cit., p. 48; cf. p. 71.

⁸ De sacram. Paenit., ch. 19, Venice, 1591, p. 472, col. 2.

169. (C) In the Eastern Church, after the thirteenth century, the form remained deprecatory; indeed even today it remains among certain persons. Thus, when Morinus asked a certain Greek priest, who presided over the Greek youths being educated in the Roman College, he answered that the form of absolution customarily used by the Greeks was this: "Lord, remit, dismiss, pardon the sins of this N., because Thine is the power, etc."¹ Today certain Orientals, such as the Syrians and Maronites united to the Roman Church, have borrowed the indicative form from the Latin Church; but others retain the deprecatory form. - The Ruthenians, however, although schismatics, use a form which is at once deprecatory and indicative.

¹ Morinus, l. VIII, ch. 12, n. 7, p. 547. - Thus also Denzinger (Ritus Orient., t. I, p. 101): "The form of absolution among the Orientals (Catholics and non-Catholics), if only the Armenians are excepted, is deprecatory." - Cf. Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 205-214, where the various forms of the Orientals are described.

170. 2° Conclusions to be deduced from the facts. (A) With Hurter (n. 626) we hold without doubt that the deprecatory form was valid wherever it prevailed in a general way; for we do not judge that absolutions given in a great part of the Church, through many centuries, were invalid. Moreover the deprecatory form, with the intention of absolving, and with attention given to the circumstances, shows that the priest is the minister of God and absolves only by His authority, but it does not prevent the priest from being a judge and truly absolving ministerially. Nor can this change in the form be reconciled with difficulty with the opinion set forth in the Treatise on the Sacraments (n. 84), namely that not all the forms of the sacraments were determined by Christ in the lowest species; for, if the Church has the right of determining forms of this kind in species, nothing prevents a deprecatory form, with the intention of passing a judicial sentence, from being valid. But let those who think otherwise see how they can reconcile their theory with the facts.

(B) Whatever may be the case, since already for several centuries the Western Church has prescribed the use of the indicative form, deservedly there would be doubt concerning the value of the deprecatory form in the Latin Church. Besides, we confess that the indicative form is more fitting for the judicial power which belongs to the ministers of the Church. Therefore in practice the formula which is found in the Roman Ritual should be carefully used.

The question can be weighed with respect to the words themselves, and with respect to the mode in which they must be pronounced.

¹ In these and the following things, we set forth not only speculative but also practical questions concerning the form, lest we be forced to discuss the same subject twice.

171. (A) For validity. (a) So that the value of the sacrament may certainly be clear, these words are required and suffice: "I absolve you from your sins." For those words are required and suffice for validity which sufficiently declare the effect of the sacrament, the mode by which it is effected, and the subject receiving; but the aforesaid words distinctly declare the effect, that is, the removal of sin, since sins are bonds by which sinners are bound, and the words I absolve you from sins dissolve bonds of this kind; besides, they clearly manifest that sins are remitted in the manner of a judgment, since they are nothing other than an absolving sentence; likewise they indicate the subject, "you, your"; therefore the aforesaid words are required and suffice.¹

² The form of absolution, according to the Roman Ritual, is this: After the penance has been enjoined, the priest says: May He have mercy on you, etc. Then, with the right hand raised toward the penitent, he says: - May almighty and merciful Lord grant you indulgence, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen.

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, insofar as I can and you need; then, I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father + and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints, whatever good you shall have done, and whatever evil you shall have sustained, be unto you for the remission of sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen.

The prayers May He have mercy and Indulgence "are not to be omitted except for a just cause" (Codex, c. 885). The same must be said of the prayer The Passion of the Lord. It is indeed expedient that it not be omitted, since, according to St. Thomas and not a few others, this prayer raises all the good works of the penitent to the dignity and efficacy of sacramental penance (St. Thomas, Quodlibet 3, quest. 13, a. 28). - The word suspension is omitted if there is question of lay persons, since they cannot be suspended.

¹ St. Thomas, 3, q. 84, a. 2.

(b) It is commonly asserted that the words "I absolve you" alone suffice for validity, since these, after the confession of sins, are understood clearly enough of sins; and in reality many Greeks use this simple formula: "I hold you absolved." Yet, according to Lacroix (n. 633) and a few others, the words "from sins" are required, so that the sense of the form may be more clearly determined; and, since there is question of validity, in practice these are not to be omitted, and, if they have been omitted, the form is to be repeated under condition. - Much more probably the word your is not required, when it has already been said I absolve you; but because, according to some, it is required, in practice it likewise must never be omitted.

172. (c) From this it follows that I is not required for validity, if the priest speaks Latin, because it is already contained in the word absolvo. - Likewise the words "in the name of the Father, etc." do not belong to the essence of the sacrament, because they are neither prescribed by Christ nor found in the ancient formulas.

(d) The essential words can be supplied as to validity, though not as to lawfulness, by other equivalent words; for example, you by you plural, or Your Excellency, etc.; I absolve by I pardon or I remit to you your sins.

173. (B) For lawfulness. The form prescribed by the Roman Ritual must be carefully observed in the Latin Church. But for judging the gravity of the sin of a voluntary omission or change in the form, these two things, taken from the Treatise on the Sacraments, n. 33-34, must be noted:

(a) A voluntary omission or substantial corruption of an essential word, or of a word which is probably held as such, is always a mortal sin, because it makes the sacrament invalid, or at least exposes it to danger of nullity, and besides deprives the penitent of sacramental grace; thus to omit you, I absolve, from sins, etc. would be mortal.

(b) But the voluntary omission or corruption of a non-essential word, without sufficient reason, is a grave or light sin, according as the change itself is judged grave or light by the judgment of prudent persons; for, although it does not invalidate the sacrament, it imports an act of irreverence toward the sacrament. For example, omission of the words "in the name of the Father and of the Son, etc." is judged a light sin, while omission of the prior part of the form concerning absolution from censures can be grave, namely if the confessor certainly knows that the penitent is bound by censures.

(c) But in a case of necessity non-essential words can be omitted. Thus, according to the Roman Ritual, in danger of death it will be possible to say briefly: "I absolve you from all censures and sins. In the name of the Father, etc."

174. Corollary. Here theologians ask what the words I absolve you signify. They do not signify: I declare you absolved from sins;¹ for since, from the things said, the ministers of the Church are endowed with true power of absolving the faithful, their words are not merely declaratory, but effect what they signify. But according to the common opinion, the sense of these words is: I absolve you from the bond of sins, or I remit your offenses to you, conferring grace remissive of sin;² consequently, according to the opinion which we judge more probable, the remission of sin is signified directly, sanctifying grace indirectly, since in the present order a grave offense is not remitted except through the infusion of grace. This is the proper sense of the word I absolve according to human usage, which must also be retained in the sacraments.

¹ Peter Lombard and a few other theologians had taught that this is the genuine sense; but this opinion was commonly rejected. Cf. Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 196.

² According to Suarez, disp. XIX, sect. 11, n. 13-20, I absolve you signifies: "I confer upon you sanctifying grace remissive of sin"; but this does not please Cardinal de Lugo, disp. XIII, n. 69-74, who rightly notes that the words of absolution do not of themselves directly signify the conferral of grace, although they produce it from the institution of Christ. - Cf. Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 194.

The form must be 1° uttered by mouth; 2° directed to one present.

175. (A) Uttered by mouth, that is, not by writing or by nods, but by the living voice. - This indeed cannot be proved from the very nature of the thing, since in the civil forum a judgment can validly be pronounced in writing; but the reason is taken from the positive will of Christ, which is clear not indeed from Scripture, but from the use and practice of the Church, and also from the Decree to the Armenians declaring that the form of this sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest pronounces: for this is understood of words uttered by mouth. The matter is not, however, of faith, nor absolutely certain; whence, according to Sporer, in a case of extreme necessity, a mute priest could, if every other priest were lacking, give absolution by a nod or in writing.

It is not necessary that the words be heard, but it suffices that they be audible. Prudence requires that they be pronounced not in a loud, but in a low voice, lest, if someone is dismissed not absolved, those standing about notice it.

176. (B) Directed to one present. (A) For the words of the form "I absolve you" suppose the penitent to be morally present. But moral presence is that within which men speaking with a common, although somewhat raised, voice can speak with and be heard by one another. St. Alphonsus (n. 429), with many others, thinks that such presence can be extended to about 20 paces, especially where the penitent has not yet gone out from the sight of the confessor.¹ But if the penitent and confessor are in different rooms which in no way communicate with each other, absolution will be doubtful, because it is doubted whether they are morally present.

¹ Speaking speculatively, it could be said, with certain persons, that moral presence can extend even farther, for example to 40 or 50 paces, because even within this distance the human voice is usually heard; but in practice, outside a case of necessity, the safer part is to be followed.

177. (B) Hence, in practice, (a) if the penitent leaves the confessional before absolution is given, as sometimes happens, he can safely be absolved if he is certainly known to be within a few paces; otherwise, let him kindly be called back to the sacred tribunal; but if he is already far away and cannot be found, the matter is to be committed to God; but afterward, if he returns to the same confessor, let him be admonished to grieve over all his sins, even past ones, and let him be absolved.

(b) Likewise a dying man can be absolved already from the door of the room. - In battle a multitude of soldiers can be absolved, although some are at a great distance, because they form one moral whole, which is sufficiently present.

(c) Besides, in a case of necessity, all those who are perceived by some sense, even confusedly, can be absolved under condition, for example those falling from a roof, slipping into a river or sea, even if they are only seen from afar, because it is probable that those who are in some sensible way before the confessor are morally present.

178. 3° Corollaries. (A) Invalid and illicit is absolution given to an absent person, who confesses his sins sacramentally either by letters or through a messenger. This is clear from this proposition condemned by Clement VIII, June 20, 1602:¹ "It is lawful to confess sacramentally by letters or through a messenger to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent confessor." Moreover Paul V, on July 14, 1605, in a congregation of the Holy Office, declared that this decree is valid also in the divided sense, that is, concerning confession or concerning absolution separately. Consequently absolution is invalid (a) if someone present confesses and is absolved while absent; (b) if someone absent confesses and is absolved while present. - I said that the absolution is not only illicit, but invalid; for Clement VIII prohibited the condemned proposition from ever being brought into practice in any way; but he could not have prohibited this for the article of death, unless such absolution were invalid.

¹ In Denzinger, n. 962. - Here there is question only of absolution from sins, and not of absolution from censures, which can be granted by letters, a messenger, telegraph, telephone, and other means of this kind, as will be explained in the Treatise on Censures; for when there is question of merely ecclesiastical punishments, the Church can absolve from them in every way that seems good to her.

Yet Clement VIII declared by an oracle of the living voice that he did not intend the case of a dying person destitute of the senses, whom those standing by testify to have previously sought absolution; for he is to be absolved, not indeed by force of a confession made in absence, but because, as one destitute of the senses, he is dispensed from explicit confession. - Likewise not invalid, nor illicit, if a just cause exists, is the absolution given to a penitent who confessed by letters and afterward, being present, says in a general way that he confesses the sins already set forth by letter; for in this way the confession is sufficiently repeated.

179. (B) Absolution given by telephone is very doubtful. Among theologians of today, some hold that it is not clear that this absolution is certainly invalid;² for those who speak by the help of a telephone, although they are physically distant, can be said to be morally present, because they truly speak with each other, and the very voice of the one speaking is truly heard by the other, so that it can be recognized as the voice of this or that person. - Others think that it is invalid;¹ for the sacraments were so instituted that they must be administered in a human and natural way; but conversation by telephone is an artificial mode of speaking with one absent, and those speaking thus, in the moral estimation of men, are not considered present, but absent. - The matter was referred to the Sacred Penitentiary, but to the proposed doubt "whether in a case of extreme necessity absolution can be given by telephone?" it replied on July 1, 1884, that "nothing is to be answered"; this indeed can signify that the solution of the doubt does not belong to the Sacred Penitentiary, whose office is only to solve particular cases, but to the Holy Office.

² Ballerini P., n. 1155, Notanda quaedam circa ritum; Genicot, n. 267; Sabetti, n. 728, q. 7°; Berardi, Praxis Confess., n. 1132, who nevertheless changed his opinion, in Nouv. Rev. Theol. XIX, 393 sq. and 655; Ciolli, Directoire, I, p. 180-182.

¹ Eschbach, in N. R. T., XIX, 393; XX, 305; Noldin, n. 236; Haine, III, p. 218-219. Cf. Vacant, Diction. de Theol., I, 242-243.

Whence in practice, outside a case of extreme necessity, to absolve by telephone is altogether illicit, lest the sacrament be exposed to the danger of nullity. But in a case of extreme necessity, a priest is not to be condemned who conditionally absolves by telephone a penitent who, suddenly seized by a most grave illness, should seek absolution from his sins.²

² Sabetti, n. 728. - The matter can be practical in regions where telephones are found in many private houses, especially if there are few priests and they are distant from certain parishioners.

Thus far concerning the absolute form, which regularly must be used. Sometimes, however, it is expedient to use a conditional form, namely one which is pronounced not absolutely, but under some condition.

180. 1° On its validity. Gerson (fifteenth century) seems to be the first who explicitly defended the validity of conditional absolution;³ Cajetan sharply attacked his opinion;⁴ yet the more common and morally certain opinion has become that this absolution, the things to be posited having been posited, is valid.

³ De Schismate tollendo, among Opera omnia, Antwerp, 1706, t. II, p. 79; De Unitate Ecclesiae, p. 118.

⁴ Summula de peccatis, Lyons, 1551, p. 3.

The general principle is that that form is invalid which leaves the effect of the sacrament in suspense, but that form is valid which by no means suspends the effect.¹

¹ We proved this in the Treatise on the Sacraments, n. 101.

Now a condition concerning an uncertain future, for example, I absolve you, if within a month you shall make restitution, suspends the effect of the sacrament; for at the time when the sacrament is conferred, the effect is not produced, since the execution of the condition is uncertain, and moreover the intention itself of the Priest remains suspended; but at the time when the condition is verified, the sacrament no longer exists, and consequently cannot obtain its effect.

But a condition concerning the past or the present, for example, I absolve you if you have already made restitution, or if you are living, does not suspend the effect of the sacrament, and consequently does not render absolution invalid; for at the time when the sacrament is effected, the condition is already verified or not. If the former, absolution immediately produces its effect; if the latter, it is immediately invalid.

Nor should it be said that a conditional form stands in the way of the nature of this sacrament, which is administered in the manner of a judgment. For even in human judgments, a conditional sentence is not rarely passed, for example, you will go to prison unless within three days you pay the debt; or I condemn you to prison, but, if you do not fall again into fault, for a time you will be immune from punishment. Moreover civil judgment is committed to execution by men, while the sentence of the confessor God Himself executes: therefore it suffices that God knows whether the condition has been fulfilled or not.

181. Yet a few theologians, such as the Louvain theologians and Collet,² have said that a condition even concerning the present invalidates the sacrament, if it is not a condition of fact (for example, if you are living, if you are capable), but of law (for example, if you are disposed, if you will to make restitution); for through a condition of this kind the nature of judgment is destroyed, since it belongs to the confessor himself to pass judgment concerning these dispositions of the penitent. - But this reason does not hold; for the confessor certainly must judge concerning the dispositions of the penitent, but in a human mode, insofar as can be done; now sometimes he judges that the matter is doubtful, and consequently, if a grave reason is added, absolution is to be granted under condition.

² Collet, in Migne, Theol. Cursus, t. XXII, 732.

Moreover, so that every doubt may be removed, it suffices that the confessor, doubting concerning the dispositions of the penitent, intend to absolve him according to the intention of Christ and of the Church under the tacit condition: if you are capable, which is held by all as valid.

182. 2° On its lawfulness. (A) Conditional absolution is lawful when these two things concur at the same time: (a) a grave reason for judging that the form pronounced absolutely would expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity; (b) a notable utility for the penitent of receiving absolution immediately.

For (a) the very nature of the sacrament requires that it be administered in the manner of a judgment; but, regularly speaking, a judgment ought to be absolute, especially in the sacred tribunal. For either the confessor is morally certain that the penitent is capable and disposed, and then he must absolve absolutely; or he judges certainly that he is incapable or indisposed, and then absolution must be denied; or he doubts, and then regularly absolution must be deferred, unless a special reason is present for receiving the sacrament immediately. (b) Moreover, if conditional absolution were given easily, both penitents and the confessor himself would easily fall into a certain negligence, and would not much care about arousing the necessary dispositions; from which it would also happen that sacrileges would gradually be multiplied.

183. (B) The chief causes on account of which conditional absolution can be given are:

(a) On the part of the confessor: if he positively doubts whether he absolved or not, - whether he omitted an essential word or not; then let him say, or rather intend (for it is better to conceive the condition in the mind alone): if you are not absolved, I absolve you. - But if he doubts whether he has jurisdiction, or whether the jurisdiction given to him has expired, is extended to such a penitent, or to such a case, and at the same time a grave reason is present for absolving the penitent immediately, then (from can. 209) the Church supplies jurisdiction, and therefore absolution can be given without condition.

(b) On the part of the penitent: in a case of necessity, if the dying person presents doubtful matter or doubtful dispositions, or if it is doubted whether he is still living or capable of absolution.

Also, outside a case of necessity, if those doubtfully disposed are about to contract marriage, or to leave the place, or wish, for a grave reason, for example, to avoid infamy, soon to receive holy communion; - or if there is a founded fear that those doubtfully disposed, if they are dismissed without absolution, will not return to the sacred tribunal, or will fall into despair; - or if there is question of the half-witted, of children whose use of reason is doubtful, and who otherwise would be deprived for a long time of the benefit of the sacrament; - or of the pious, who provide only doubtful matter, and from whom certain matter cannot be obtained, on account of their peculiar dispositions; for these can sometimes be absolved conditionally, lest they lack absolution for too long. For in these and similar cases the two conditions stated above are verified: on the one hand, the absolute pronouncing of the form exposes the sacrament to the danger of nullity; and on the other, there is a sufficient reason for absolving the penitent immediately.

184. (C) Corollaries. (a) A penitent absolved under condition must regularly abstain from communion, since otherwise he exposes himself to the danger at least of material sacrilege. Hence the confessor cannot positively tell such a penitent to receive holy communion. But if he is asked by the penitent, let him answer prudently according to the various circumstances; for example, let him say: "follow the dictate of your conscience."

(b) But there is not given a strict obligation of accusing again sins conditionally absolved, as will be better understood from the things to be said where we treat of confession. For it can prudently be judged that they were remitted; moreover, if the penitent is in good faith, as is supposed, they will be remitted in the following confession.

185. That the sacrament of Penance produces grace ex opere operato is sufficiently clear from the Treatise on the Sacraments.

(A) When the penitent is in mortal sin: (a) the grace proper to this sacrament is first sanctifying grace, or grace remissive of sin. It is called by various names, by which this effect is more clearly declared: grace of resurrection, by which the spiritually dead recover the life of grace; of healing, by which their wounds, with their cooperation, are cured; of reconciliation, by which, the injury inflicted upon God having been repaired, they are received into divine friendship. (b) To this there is annexed a right to receiving actual graces at a suitable time, by which the penitent may be able to satisfy for past sins and to avoid future ones afterward. (c) Moreover eternal punishment is remitted, and the temporal punishment due to sin is diminished. (d) But merits mortified by sin revive.

(B) But when the penitent is already in the state of grace: (a) he receives an increase of sanctifying grace with the right to actual graces, as above; (b) he obtains remission of venial sins more safely and efficaciously; (c) and also partial pardon of temporal punishment.

Since several of these things have already been declared, it will suffice to treat briefly: 1° of the remission of mortal sins; 2° of the remission of the punishment due to sin; 3° of the reviviscence of merits. - We shall add a few things concerning the remission of venial sin, whether within or outside the sacrament.

186. 1° From the things said above concerning the power of the keys (n. 20 sq.), it is already permitted to infer that through the sacrament of penance all sins committed after baptism are truly pardoned before God, and that no sin is irremissible. We have already proved this from many testimonies, while at the same time explaining the texts of Scripture and of the Fathers from which the adversaries propose difficulties. - That the same sins are truly blotted out and not merely scraped away, so that they do not return on account of a subsequent sin, was proved in the Treatise on Grace, where we treated of justification.

Here it is enough to solve the difficulty which Protestants and Rationalists today propose, and which in the time of Augustine was already being urged by heretics and pagans: "You," they said, "make men sin, since you promise them pardon if they do penance." Augustine eloquently refutes this, showing that by the promise of pardon souls are induced to penance, while, on the contrary, if this hope is removed, they fall into despair, and consequently into the mire of vices: "If the entrance to penance were closed, would not that sinner add sins to sins all the more, the more he despaired of being forgiven? For he would say to himself: Behold, I have sinned, behold, I have committed a crime, now there is no place of pardon for me; penance is fruitless; I must be damned; why now do I not live as I will? Since I do not find charity there, here at least I shall feed cupidity. Why then should I abstain? Every place there is closed to me: here, whatever I do not do, I lose, because the life which is to be after this will not be given to me. Why therefore do I not serve my lusts, so that I may fulfill and satiate them?... Therefore, if you take away the harbor of penance, they will increase sins by despair." But he who has hoped for pardon cannot increase sins as he wishes; for Scripture admonishes him not to defer penance and not to be hardened in sin; for suddenly he can be struck by death and fall into the hands of the living God. Thus therefore he concludes: "Behold, the providence of God has watched over us for both things. Lest by despairing we should increase sins, the harbor of penance has been proposed; again, lest by hoping we should increase them, the day of death has been given as uncertain."¹

¹ St. Augustine, sermon 352, n. 9; P. L., t. XXXIX, p. 1559-1560.

187. Corollary. From this it follows that one mortal sin cannot be remitted without another. For (a) sin is not taken away except through the infusion of habitual grace; but any mortal sin is directly contrary to habitual grace and excludes it; therefore one lethal sin cannot be remitted without another: for, if one remains in the soul, it totally excludes grace. (b) Sin cannot be remitted without true penance, to which it belongs to detest sin insofar as it is an offense against God; but the same reason applies to one as to the other lethal sins, all of which truly offend God; therefore someone cannot truly be penitent concerning one sin without repenting of all the others, if he actually thinks of them.¹

¹ St. Thomas, 3, q. 86, a. 3.

188. The sacrament of penance, like the other sacraments, produces its effects ex opere operato, and consequently not only declares that sins have been remitted, but truly causes this remission. Trent openly defined this against the Protestants, who contended that sins are remitted by faith, and that the absolution of the priest is nothing other than a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins have been remitted:² "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 that he is absolved... let him be anathema."

² Trent, sess. XIV, can. 9.

But before the matter was defined, certain Scholastics held, with Peter Lombard, that by the absolution of the priest sins are not properly dismissed, but are shown to have been remitted (above, n. 131). Yet their opinion differed greatly from the errors of the Protestants. For they did not teach that sins are remitted by faith alone or confidence, but at the same time through contrition and the ministry of priests. Nevertheless they had not rightly understood what part the sacrament of penance has in the remission of sins; according to them, God worked this remission with the priest, but not through the priest.³ Afterward, the matter having been better examined, St. Thomas and Scotus and their disciples understood, from the sayings of Scripture and of the Fathers, that the sacraments are not only conditions without which not, but also secondary and instrumental causes of grace, as has been set forth in the Treatise on the Sacraments, n. 44-45.

³ Richard of St. Victor (de potest. ligandi atque solv., ch. 12) had already refuted this opinion: "There exists an opinion of certain persons concerning the power of binding and loosing so frivolous that it seems rather to be laughed at than refuted. For they think and preach that priests do not have the power of binding and loosing, but of showing men to be loosed or bound. But surely does the Lord say: whatever you shall show bound will be bound, and whatever you shall show loosed will be loosed? They say that apostolic men do not have the power of remitting or retaining sins, when the Lord says this. They say that they have only the power of showing, when the Lord does not say showing." Yet he himself did not think rightly; for he said that sins are remitted through contrition, before absolution is given, but only conditionally, that is, on this condition, that absolution afterward be received: therefore this was not the cause of remission, but only a condition without which not. Cf. Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 174.

189. (A) The sacrament of penance always remits eternal punishment together with the fault. It is certain; (a) for Trent teaches¹ that a penitent, after receiving absolution, is bound to satisfy through fastings, alms, and prayers, "not indeed for eternal punishment, which is remitted either by the sacrament or by the intention of the sacrament together with the fault; but for temporal punishment, which, as the sacred letters teach, is not always wholly dismissed for them, as happens in Baptism"... (b) The reason is clear from the things said; for the remission of mortal sin occurs through the infusion of habitual grace; but habitual grace makes us sharers in the divine nature, friends of God, and His adoptive children with a right to eternal beatitude, as we demonstrated in the Treatise on Grace (n. 139 sq.); therefore it remits eternal punishment.

¹ Trent, sess. VI, ch. 14.

190. (B) The Sacrament of Penance also diminishes the temporal punishment due to sin, and indeed in a twofold way:

(a) By reason of absolution; for, as Lugo says,² since it is certainly for God, when He commutes eternal punishment into temporal punishment, to be able to change it into a graver and more lasting temporal punishment. Therefore we ought to give thanks to God, both because He has remitted eternal punishment, and because He has not commuted it into some other greater temporal punishment, as He most justly could; and in this sense eternal punishment is never remitted without some temporal punishment being remitted at the same time, into which it could have been commuted.

² Lugo, disp. VIII, n. 64.

(b) By reason of satisfaction, or of the penance imposed by the Priest; for, according to Trent (ch. 3), satisfaction is one of the three parts which pertain to the integrity of the sacrament and concur toward the full and perfect remission of sins; but satisfaction does not directly concur toward the remission of fault, since this is remitted before satisfaction is completed; therefore it concurs toward the remission of punishment. This indeed it accomplishes ex opere operato, according to the common opinion, which holds that the three acts of the penitent are the proximate matter of the sacrament.

(C) The Sacrament of Penance does not always take away the whole temporal punishment, as we have already proved, but sometimes it does accomplish this, namely if contrition is most intense. For since temporal punishment of this kind is finite, contrition can be so intense that it remits it adequately and totally.

191. State of the question. When someone is justified by the sacrament of Penance, he receives, together with habitual grace, the infused virtues which he had lost through sin: for since virtues of this kind flow from grace, as properties from essence, when grace is restored, the virtues are likewise restored, and indeed with an intensity proportioned to the perfection of the subject's disposition. But besides this, the question is whether merits mortified by sin revive.

¹ St. Thomas, 3 p. q. 89; Suarez, Opusc. V, De meritis mortificatis; Salmantic., de Merito, disp. V; Billuart, diss. III, a. 5; Palmieri, th. 19; de Augustinis, p. I, art. 10; Billot, p. 94-108.

For the understanding of this, a few things must be noted beforehand concerning various works in relation to merit. (a) Living works are called those which are done in the state of grace, with actual grace stirring and assisting, both because they are from a spiritually living principle, and because they merit eternal life. (b) Dead works are those which, although good and supernatural, are done in the state of sin, and consequently are not meritorious of eternal life. (c) Death-bearing works are those which deprive a man of the life of grace, such as mortal sins. (d) Mortified works are called those works which, done in the state of grace, are hindered from their effect by subsequent mortal sin, insofar as they are no longer able to lead a man to eternal life. Now the question is whether merits thus mortified can revive. Theologians commonly answer affirmatively, but there is controversy concerning the mode and degree in which they revive.

192. Thesis: When sin has been remitted through penance, works previously done in charity and mortified by subsequent sin revive. Thus commonly.

(a) The matter cannot be proved by Scripture alone; but the Fathers use two texts to propose their doctrine concerning reviviscence. First they allege these words of the epistle to the Hebrews: "For God is not unjust, that He should forget your work and the love which you have shown in His name, you who have ministered to the saints and do minister";¹ but, as the Fathers and theologians argue, here there is question of works done in grace and mortified; for the Apostle addresses the Hebrews, some of whom had fallen into sin; therefore God does not forget the good works of those who do penance, but remunerates them. To the point St. Epiphanius says:² "In this you see how he pronounced that that second restoration could by no means be made, and yet he did not exclude from salvation those who repented of their sin; but he also said that they were near to salvation, and that God is rightly the receiver of the things done by those who take up absolute penance for their offenses." The Fathers deduce the same from another place:³ "So great things have you suffered without cause, if nevertheless without cause"; for Jerome says on this place:⁴ "Whoever has labored on account of faith in Christ and afterward has fallen into sin, just as he is said to have suffered the former things without cause while he sins, so again he does not lose them, if he returns to his former faith."

¹ Heb. 6:10.

² St. Epiphanius, Haeres., 59, n. 2; P. L., XLI, 1019.

³ Gal. 3:4.

⁴ Comment. on Gal., l. I, ch. 3; P. L., t. XXVI, p. 350.

(b) From Trent also the thesis can be gathered: for it declares that the good works of the just "truly merit an increase of grace and the attainment of eternal life, provided, however, that he has departed in grace";⁵ but there it is not required that someone persevere without interruption from first justification until death, but only that he depart in grace; therefore, if someone has sinned mortally and afterward repents, his merits revive.

⁵ Trent, sess. VI, can. 32.

(c) It is recommended by reason. Works done in charity, if they are considered according to themselves, always remain in divine acceptance, and therefore they are said to be mortified only because through sin they are hindered from their effect, insofar as one sinning mortally is unworthy of eternal life; but such an impediment is taken away through penance; therefore works previously mortified, through penance, recover the force of leading to eternal life the one who performed them.¹ Moreover God does not will to punish a remitted sin with any eternal punishment; but if merits previously acquired were not restored, once the fault has been remitted, sin would be punished with an eternal punishment; for the privation of glory corresponding to those merits would be a true punishment, and indeed an eternal one; therefore.

¹ St. Thomas, 3, q. 89, a. 5.

193. But concerning the mode and degree in which merits revive, there is dispute among theologians, and nothing certain can be defined:

(a) The first opinion holds, with Banez (2. 2. q. 24, a. 6), that mortified works revive only in this sense, that glory will be given to a just man rising again from sin by a twofold title, namely both on account of the preceding merits and on account of the new ones acquired from the last justification, yet not a greater glory than is due to these latter merits; nevertheless there will be some accidental reward for the preceding works, insofar as the elect will rejoice concerning their reviviscence. Yet this opinion is deservedly rejected, since it seems to deny the reviviscence itself: for what does it profit to receive the same quantity of glory by a twofold title?

(b) The second opinion teaches that all mortified works are indeed restored immediately after penance, with respect to the merit of eternal life, but not with respect to the quantity of habitual grace previously had; namely the habitual grace itself previously lost will not be restored except at the instant of death, or after death, at the first instant of glorification. The reason is that grace in justification is not given except according to each one's disposition and cooperation;² but not according to merits previously acquired. Thus Scotus and the Salmanticenses.

² This principle St. Thomas explains thus, q. 89, a. 2: "Forms which can receive more and less are intensified and remitted according to the diverse disposition of the subject... And from this it is that according as the motion of free will in penance is more intense or more remiss, according to this the penitent obtains greater or lesser grace."

(c) According to the third opinion, which Dominic Soto and Ledesma defend, merits so revive according to the degree of the present disposition, that if someone elicits an act of contrition as five, he receives ten degrees of grace, five by reason of preceding merits, and five by reason of the actual disposition.

(d) But Suarez (op. cit., disput. II), with many moderns, holds that all merits acquired before are immediately restored to the penitent sinner, both with respect to the right to glory and with respect to grace. For merits of this kind, from the things said, always remain in the acceptance of God, and are hindered from their effect only by mortal sin; therefore, when sin has been remitted, the impediment is immediately removed, and nothing prevents past merits from immediately obtaining their whole effect. We freely embrace this opinion as the more benign, but at the same time we confess that the solution of this question depends on the will of God alone, which is not sufficiently known to us from Scripture and Tradition.

194. Thus far we have directly treated of the remission of mortal sin; yet it is expedient to add a few things concerning the remission of venial sins.

¹ St. Thomas, 3 p. q. 87; Suarez, disp. XI-XII; de Augustinis, p. I, a. 9.

(A) Venial sin cannot be remitted without grace; for, from the things said in the Treatise on Grace, nothing supernatural can be accomplished without grace; but the remission of venial sin is something supernatural, since it removes an impediment by which we are delayed from the supernatural end. Hence in the Second Council of Orange, can. 14 (Denzinger, n. 157), it is read: "No wretched man is freed from any wretchedness unless he is forestalled by the mercy of God."

195. (B) Venial sin joined with mortal sin cannot be remitted without the infusion of habitual grace. For the remission of any fault supposes divine friendship; for it is a favor granted gratuitously, not owed; but divine friendship is not restored to the sinner except through the infusion of habitual grace. But venial sin in one who is already in the state of grace can be remitted of itself without the infusion of habitual grace; for, as St. Thomas says (q. 87, a. 2), each thing is taken away by its opposite; but the opposite of venial sin is not habitual grace, which is not lost through it, but the fervor of charity; therefore venial sin can be taken away of itself through a fervent act without the infusion of grace. This is illustrated by a comparison: for just as a body can happen to be stained in two ways, by the privation of beauty or by the superaddition of mud or dust, so also the soul is stained in two ways, by the privation of the beauty of grace or by a disordered inclination to temporal things, or venial sin: the former stain can be taken away only by the infusion of grace, but the latter is removed by this very fact, that by an act of fervor the disordered adherence to temporal things ceases.

196. (C) Venial sins of the just can be remitted ex opere operato and ex opere operantis: (a) ex opere operantis, namely through an act of contrition or of perfect charity, according to all, indeed more probably through an act of attrition. The Angelic Doctor (q. 87, a. 1) thus proves that some contrition is required for the remission of venial sin: venial sin, although it is not aversion from God as last end, contains some disorder, insofar as it delays the affection of man, lest it be borne promptly toward God; but such disorder cannot be taken away except by a contrary disposition, namely detestation and retraction of sin: for if the will perseveres in that disordered adherence to temporal things, the sin itself will adhere to the soul, since, while the cause remains, the effect remains.

Surely the best disposition is perfect contrition, since it takes away even mortal sin; but more probably attrition also suffices; for venial sins, if they are compared with mortal ones, are light, and consequently the same disposition is not required for the remission of venial sins as for mortal sins; therefore less perfect contrition, or attrition, suffices. Moreover the one attrite concerning venial sin immediately becomes contrite through habitual charity, as was said concerning the attrite person receiving the sacrament of penance, above n. 142.

Nor is it necessary that this attrition be formal; virtual is enough, for example when someone is borne toward God in such a way that whatever would occur to him that might delay him from this motion would displease him, and he would grieve that he had committed it, even if he does not actually think of it.

(b) Ex opere operato, through the reception of the sacraments, provided that there is no obstacle, that is, virtual or actual complacency in venial sin; this indeed is certain concerning Baptism, Penance, and Extreme Unction, which have the remission of sins as their proper effect; it is also asserted more probably concerning the others, which were instituted for the sanctification of souls, and therefore for fostering the fervor of charity, to which venial sins are opposed. But sacramentals, as we said elsewhere, remit venial sins indirectly, by stirring up sentiments of contrition and charity in the soul.

197. (D) One venial sin can be remitted without the others, namely if someone truly grieves over one, but not over the rest. Whence only then is full remission of all venial sins obtained when no affection for venial sins is retained. For from the things said, venial sin is not remitted unless it is at least virtually detested, and moreover one can be retracted without the others displeasing.

198. 1° Christ truly instituted the sacrament of Penance by handing over to the Church the power of the keys, or the power of remitting and retaining sins, and at the same time by imposing upon the Christian sinner the duty of submitting himself to this power by confession of grave sins, which contrition and the intention of satisfying must accompany.

2° Therefore the Sacrament of Penance flourished from the beginning, with all its essential parts, but the manner itself of administering it was diverse according to diverse times.

3° The present penitential discipline gradually prevailed from a twofold cause especially, namely from a clearer understanding both of divine mercy toward sinners and of the efficacy of absolution.

199. From the things said in the dogmatic part of this Treatise, it can be inferred in what the virtue and the sacrament of penance agree and in what they differ: -

(a) By reason of nature. The virtue and the sacrament are concerned with one and the same object, namely personal sin insofar as it is to be retracted and expiated by congruous satisfaction. Wherefore they consist substantially in the same acts, confession, contrition, and satisfaction, yet to be elicited in a diverse way. The confession which the virtue requires is only confession before God, and therefore can be merely internal; confession, in the sacrament, must be made before a priest, and therefore must be manifested by some visible sign. - Contrition, in each case, imports detestation and sorrow concerning sin committed, and also a firm purpose of not sinning henceforth; but, in the sacrament, it must be manifested by some sensible sign, while, in the virtue, it can be merely internal. With the sacrament attrition suffices, while the virtue alone does not remit mortal sin without contrition. Satisfaction, in order to be sacramental, must be determined by the confessor himself; outside the sacrament, it can be chosen by the sinner himself, provided that it is morally proportioned to the sin committed.

The sacrament embraces more elements than the virtue; for, besides the three acts set forth above, it requires the absolution of the priest, which regularly must be preceded by an integral manifestation of mortal sins made to the minister. Moreover, however, not so perfect a contrition is required when absolution is received.

The virtue and the sacrament can be repeated indefinitely, whether with respect to the same sins or with respect to different sins.

200. (b) By reason of effect. In each case, the intended effect is the same, namely the remission of sin through the infusion of sanctifying grace; and so each can be called the second plank after shipwreck. But the mode of operating is diverse: the virtue is only a disposing cause, which does not produce, but obtains the remission of sin ex opere operantis; the sacrament is truly an efficient cause, although secondary and instrumental, insofar as, from the power of the passion of Christ, it truly confers grace remissive of sin ex opere operato.

(c) By reason of necessity. Each is necessary once grave sin has been posited, yet in a diverse way. The virtue is necessary by necessity of means, and indeed by natural law, not only in intention, but also in reality; the sacrament, as a positive institution, is necessary indeed by necessity of divine precept, indeed, according to some, by necessity of means, but only in intention. Therefore one who cannot actually receive absolution can be saved through perfect contrition with the intention of the sacrament.

(d) By reason of subject. The subject of the virtue is any sinner, even a pagan; while the subject of the sacrament is only a baptized sinner, since baptism is the gate of all the sacraments.

(e) By reason of antiquity. The virtue, which is required by natural law, was necessary at every time, as soon as any mortal sin had been committed; the sacrament, as something positively instituted, was not necessary except at the time when the necessity of it was sufficiently promulgated.

These are the chief differences; the others are already clear from the things said, or will be better understood from the things to be said in the moral Part.

201. Once those things chiefly to be believed concerning the sacrament of Penance have been declared in the dogmatic part, there remain to be set forth the things which have more regard to practice.

All those who have the care of souls know how great is the importance of applying themselves diligently to the study of this matter: for frequently they sit in the sacred tribunal, and there, whether for raising sinners from the mire of vices, or for raising pious persons to higher perfection, they ought to be endowed with accurate and abundant knowledge, all the more because they have manifold and intricate questions concerning every matter that pertains to the spiritual life, which must be solved alone and frequently without delay.

Now the practical doctrine concerning the sacrament of penance is referred to two heads, namely the duties of the penitent, and also the power and duties of the confessor.

Duties of the penitent:
  Contrition.
  Confession.
  Satisfaction.

Confessor:
  Power:
    Approbation.
    Jurisdiction.
  Duties:
    With respect to all penitents.
    With respect to different penitents.
    With respect to abuses to be avoided.