The Required Power

335. Minister of Penance. The priest alone is the minister of the sacrament of penance: for Christ said to the apostles alone and to their successors in the priesthood: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them."¹ Therefore the Council of Trent condemns with anathema those who say that priests are not the sole ministers of absolution.²

From these things it follows: a. He who has been invalidly ordained a priest cannot absolve from sins. b. The Church cannot grant the power of absolving from sins to one who is not a priest, because the Church cannot change the things which have been instituted by Christ. c. It is false that deacons ever, from a grant of the Church, had the power of absolving from sins.³ d. A sinner in no case whatever is bound to confess his sins to one who is not a priest, because he cannot be absolved by him.

¹ John 20:22, 23.

² Sess. 14, c. 6, can. 10. Cf. on this dogmatic question Pesch, VII, n. 410 ff.

³ On non-sacramental confession made to deacons, cf. Benedict XIV, De synodo l. 7, c. 16, n. 4 ff.; Pesch VII, 415 ff.; Gillmann, Zur Frage der Laienbeicht (Katholik, 1909), p. 435.

336. Power Required in the Minister of Penance. For valid absolution in the minister of penance there are required: the power of order or sacramental power, and the power of jurisdiction or judicial power, whether ordinary or delegated, over the penitent, Cn. 872.

a. The power of order is required because penance is a sacrament which, from the will of Christ, can be administered by priests alone.

b. The power of jurisdiction is required because the remission of sins in this sacrament is produced through a judicial sentence; but jurisdiction is necessary for passing judgment.

The power of order necessary for validly absolving is of divine law; the power of jurisdiction is of natural law. The priest receives the power of order in ordination itself, which power is indeed the true power of remitting and retaining sins, but it cannot yet be exercised by the priest unless jurisdiction is added. The power of jurisdiction is conferred outside the sacrament of order through the external grant of the ecclesiastical superior.

In the minister of Penance a twofold power is required, namely the power of order and the power of jurisdiction (can. 872). That the power of order is required follows from the fact that, as was proved above, the priest alone is the minister of this sacrament. The power of jurisdiction, that is, sacramental jurisdiction, must be treated more fully: first, sacramental jurisdiction generally; then jurisdiction over some classes of persons specifically; finally, the limitation of jurisdiction with respect to sins, or the reservation of sins.

537. Three things are required for the adequate power of the Minister of Penance, namely: 1. the power of Order; 2. the power of jurisdiction; 3. approval.

I. The power of Order is required, that is, that which belongs to the Minister by force of ordination and is intrinsically annexed to the priestly character. The reason is that to Priests alone it was said by Christ: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. John 20:22. - It is established elsewhere by manifold definition of the Church.

II. The power of jurisdiction is required, that is, the power by which the Priest as judge can render sentence upon certain persons as his subjects. It is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 7.

III. Approval is required for hearing confessions both licitly and validly, or a public judgment concerning the fitness of the Priest for hearing confessions. - Trent, sess. 23, ch. 15, On Reformation.

We must treat: 1. of approval; 2. of jurisdiction; 3. of the reservation of cases.

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.

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.

Utility. - For the sake of greater order, we have separated the canonical norms from the moral ones. But since the matter concerns the internal forum, which exists for the spiritual good of the faithful, a confessor who did not know the canonical sanctions very accurately would be ignorant of many means of helping the penitent, and would become not only less useful to him, but easily even positively harmful. First of all he ought to know how far his power extends, and what, when power is lacking, is nevertheless available to him for the good of the penitent.

Two things are required for the power of the Minister of Penance, 1°. power of order, 2°. power of jurisdiction. Thus Can. 872: "Besides the power of Order, for valid absolution of sins there is required in the minister power of jurisdiction, whether ordinary or delegated, over the penitent"; and Can. 871: "The minister of this Sacrament is the priest alone."