Sect. 270The MinisterThe Minister
I. The power of the keys—of opening and shutting, binding, loosing, forgiving, and retaining—was conferred by Christ upon the Apostles and their successors, the bishops and priests, as will be shown further on when we come to speak of the sacrament of Order. Hence bishops and priests alone are the ministers of the sacrament of Penance (Council of Trent, sess. xiv. chap. 6.). The passages already quoted from the Fathers leave this beyond doubt. The practice of confessing to lay persons, when a priest could not be had, was common in the Middle Ages, and continued until recent times. It was recommended by some of the greatest of the Schoolmen—Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas himself (In iv. Sent. dist., 17, q. 3, a. 3). This, however, did not imply that laymen could absolve. The act of confessing was looked upon as a humiliation, and as an endeavour on the part of the sinner to conform as far as in him lay to Christ’s ordinance. Hence the confession would tend to appease the offended God, and would be a means of moving the hearer to pray for him who had acknowledged his sins. In accordance with the general principle that the validity of the sacraments does not depend upon the moral worth of the minister, the Council defined that “even priests who are in mortal sin exercise—through the power of the Holy Ghost which was bestowed in ordination—the office of forgiving sins as the ministers of Christ” (ib.).
II. Every priest receives at ordination the power of the keys. “Receive the Holy Ghost,” says the ordaining bishop, imposing his hands on the candidate; “whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained.”
1. As, however, the exercise of this power is an act of judicial authority, it can be performed only upon such subjects as are assigned to the priest. In other words, he must have jurisdiction over the penitent before he can absolve him (Council of Trent, sess. xiv. chap. 7). This jurisdiction may be either “ordinary” (in virtue of office) or “delegated.” The Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over all the world; the bishops over their dioceses; the parish priests over their parishes. Hence the Pope can absolve any of the faithful; the bishops those of their dioceses; the parish priests the members of their flock.
3. Priests belonging to religious Orders obtain delegated jurisdiction from the Pope. This privilege gave rise to so much opposition during the Middle Ages, that the Council of Trent decided that no priest, even though he be a religious, should hear the confession of a secular person without the approbation of the bishop of the diocese (sess. xxiii., De Ref., cap. 15.)
3. It was the custom from the earliest times for those who had been guilty of certain grave crimes to be absolved only by the bishops, or even by the Sovereign Pontiff. For wise reasons the person conferring jurisdiction can rightly limit it as to time, place, person, or case. This power of “reservation,” as it is called, can be exercised by the Pope over the world, and by the bishops in their dioceses, “unto edification, but not unto destruction.” “Lest, however,” adds the Council of Trent (sess. xiv. chap. 7), “any one should perish on this account, it hath always been very piously observed in the Church of God that there be no reservation at the point of death (in articulo mortis), and that, therefore, all priests can absolve any penitents whatsoever from any kind of sins and censures whatsoever (omnes sacerdotes quoslibet pænitentes a quibusvis peccatis et censuris).”
III. The form of the sacrament of Penance, in which the efficacy of the sacrament chiefly resides, is the priest’s absolution. This word is used to denote the act of “loosing” (solvere, solutio), in accordance with the power conferred by Christ (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). In Roman Law absolutio meant acquittal. Like so many other legal expressions, it was adopted by Tertullian (De Pœnit., 10) to signify release or acquittal from the guilt and punishment of sin.
1. The priest’s absolution has been defined to be a judicial act, and not a mere pronouncing or declaring that the penitent’s sins are forgiven (Council of Trent, sess. xiv. chap. 6, can. 9). This is clear from the words of Christ: “Whose sins ye shall forgive” etc.; “Whatsoever ye shall loose” etc.
2. The exact formula to be used was not expressly stated by Christ or His Apostles. It is certain that for upwards of a thousand years a precatory form (“May Christ absolve thee,” or similar words) was in general use, as indeed is still the case in the East. The indicative form (“I absolve thee”) came into use in the Western Church during the early Middle Ages, and gradually supplanted the other. The two are found side by side in Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure; St. Thomas, however, was strongly in favour of the indicative form (3, q. 84, a. 3), and this was afterwards adopted by the Council of Trent (sess. xiv. chap. 3). At the present day a priest of the Western Church using the precatory form alone would grievously sin, and would expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity. Various explanations have been given of the difficulties connected with the variation of the formula of absolution. The best would seem to be to hold that where Christ Himself and His Apostles have not specifically determined the form of a sacrament, He left it to be determined by their successors; and that the Church in such cases may vary this form at different times and places, so as to bring out more clearly the exact force and significance of the sacrament. Thus, in the present case there can be no doubt that the indicative formula of absolution brings out the judicial character better than the precatory formula would do. The latter, however, does not altogether exclude the judicial character of the act of the minister, for it leaves him to decide whether the penitent is disposed for absolution, and also leaves him to determine the penance to be imposed.
3. The old Sacramentaries and Penitential books enjoin the imposition of the priest’s hands while he is giving absolution. So, too, the Roman Ritual at the present day contains the rubric, “Deinde dextra versus pœnitentem elevata dicit, ‘Misereatur,’ “ etc.; this lifting up of the hand being a sort of survival of the more ancient custom. Hence some of the Fathers speak of imposition of hands as a synonym for the sacrament of Penance, and attribute to it the forgiveness of sins. We have already (§ 254) spoken of the meaning of this rite. Its connection with the sacrament of Penance arose from our Lord’s words (Mark 16:18), “They shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover;” and from His practice of healing the sick by touching them (ibid. 6:5; Matt. 8:3). But, as St. Thomas points out, the laying on of hands there spoken of is not sacramental, but is ordained for the working of miracles; that by the touch of the hand of Christ, or of a sanctified man, even corporal infirmities may be taken away (3, q. 84, a. 4). No mention is made of it by the Council of Trent. It is therefore only an accidental adjunct, and not a part of the sacrament.
In addition to the works mentioned on p. 464, see also Batiffol, Études d’Histoire et de Théologie Positive, tom, i., Les Origines de la Penitence; Vacandard, La Confession Sacramentale dans l’Eglise Primitive; Turmel, Histoire de la Théologie Positive, pp. 141 sqq., 317 sqq., 453 sqq.
I. The power of the keys—of opening and shutting, binding, loosing, forgiving, and retaining—was conferred by Christ upon the Apostles and their successors, the bishops and priests, as will be shown further on when we come to speak of the sacrament of Order. Hence bishops and priests alone are the ministers of the sacrament of Penance (Council of Trent, sess. xiv. chap. 6.). The passages already quoted from the Fathers leave this beyond doubt. The practice of confessing to lay persons, when a priest could not be had, was common in the Middle Ages, and continued until recent times. It was recommended by some of the greatest of the Schoolmen—Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas himself (In iv. Sent. dist., 17, q. 3, a. 3). This, however, did not imply that laymen could absolve. The act of confessing was looked upon as a humiliation, and as an endeavour on the part of the sinner to conform as far as in him lay to Christ’s ordinance. Hence the confession would tend to appease the offended God, and would be a means of moving the hearer to pray for him who had acknowledged his sins. In accordance with the general principle that the validity of the sacraments does not depend upon the moral worth of the minister, the Council defined that “even priests who are in mortal sin exercise—through the power of the Holy Ghost which was bestowed in ordination—the office of forgiving sins as the ministers of Christ” (ib.).
II. Every priest receives at ordination the power of the keys. “Receive the Holy Ghost,” says the ordaining bishop, imposing his hands on the candidate; “whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained.”
1. As, however, the exercise of this power is an act of judicial authority, it can be performed only upon such subjects as are assigned to the priest. In other words, he must have jurisdiction over the penitent before he can absolve him (Council of Trent, sess. xiv. chap. 7). This jurisdiction may be either “ordinary” (in virtue of office) or “delegated.” The Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over all the world; the bishops over their dioceses; the parish priests over their parishes. Hence the Pope can absolve any of the faithful; the bishops those of their dioceses; the parish priests the members of their flock.
3. Priests belonging to religious Orders obtain delegated jurisdiction from the Pope. This privilege gave rise to so much opposition during the Middle Ages, that the Council of Trent decided that no priest, even though he be a religious, should hear the confession of a secular person without the approbation of the bishop of the diocese (sess. xxiii., De Ref., cap. 15.)
3. It was the custom from the earliest times for those who had been guilty of certain grave crimes to be absolved only by the bishops, or even by the Sovereign Pontiff. For wise reasons the person conferring jurisdiction can rightly limit it as to time, place, person, or case. This power of “reservation,” as it is called, can be exercised by the Pope over the world, and by the bishops in their dioceses, “unto edification, but not unto destruction.” “Lest, however,” adds the Council of Trent (sess. xiv. chap. 7), “any one should perish on this account, it hath always been very piously observed in the Church of God that there be no reservation at the point of death (in articulo mortis), and that, therefore, all priests can absolve any penitents whatsoever from any kind of sins and censures whatsoever (omnes sacerdotes quoslibet pænitentes a quibusvis peccatis et censuris).”
III. The form of the sacrament of Penance, in which the efficacy of the sacrament chiefly resides, is the priest’s absolution. This word is used to denote the act of “loosing” (solvere, solutio), in accordance with the power conferred by Christ (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). In Roman Law absolutio meant acquittal. Like so many other legal expressions, it was adopted by Tertullian (De Pœnit., 10) to signify release or acquittal from the guilt and punishment of sin.
1. The priest’s absolution has been defined to be a judicial act, and not a mere pronouncing or declaring that the penitent’s sins are forgiven (Council of Trent, sess. xiv. chap. 6, can. 9). This is clear from the words of Christ: “Whose sins ye shall forgive” etc.; “Whatsoever ye shall loose” etc.
2. The exact formula to be used was not expressly stated by Christ or His Apostles. It is certain that for upwards of a thousand years a precatory form (“May Christ absolve thee,” or similar words) was in general use, as indeed is still the case in the East. The indicative form (“I absolve thee”) came into use in the Western Church during the early Middle Ages, and gradually supplanted the other. The two are found side by side in Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure; St. Thomas, however, was strongly in favour of the indicative form (3, q. 84, a. 3), and this was afterwards adopted by the Council of Trent (sess. xiv. chap. 3). At the present day a priest of the Western Church using the precatory form alone would grievously sin, and would expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity. Various explanations have been given of the difficulties connected with the variation of the formula of absolution. The best would seem to be to hold that where Christ Himself and His Apostles have not specifically determined the form of a sacrament, He left it to be determined by their successors; and that the Church in such cases may vary this form at different times and places, so as to bring out more clearly the exact force and significance of the sacrament. Thus, in the present case there can be no doubt that the indicative formula of absolution brings out the judicial character better than the precatory formula would do. The latter, however, does not altogether exclude the judicial character of the act of the minister, for it leaves him to decide whether the penitent is disposed for absolution, and also leaves him to determine the penance to be imposed.
3. The old Sacramentaries and Penitential books enjoin the imposition of the priest’s hands while he is giving absolution. So, too, the Roman Ritual at the present day contains the rubric, “Deinde dextra versus pœnitentem elevata dicit, ‘Misereatur,’ “ etc.; this lifting up of the hand being a sort of survival of the more ancient custom. Hence some of the Fathers speak of imposition of hands as a synonym for the sacrament of Penance, and attribute to it the forgiveness of sins. We have already (§ 254) spoken of the meaning of this rite. Its connection with the sacrament of Penance arose from our Lord’s words (Mark 16:18), “They shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover;” and from His practice of healing the sick by touching them (ibid. 6:5; Matt. 8:3). But, as St. Thomas points out, the laying on of hands there spoken of is not sacramental, but is ordained for the working of miracles; that by the touch of the hand of Christ, or of a sanctified man, even corporal infirmities may be taken away (3, q. 84, a. 4). No mention is made of it by the Council of Trent. It is therefore only an accidental adjunct, and not a part of the sacrament.
In addition to the works mentioned on p. 464, see also Batiffol, Études d’Histoire et de Théologie Positive, tom, i., Les Origines de la Penitence; Vacandard, La Confession Sacramentale dans l’Eglise Primitive; Turmel, Histoire de la Théologie Positive, pp. 141 sqq., 317 sqq., 453 sqq.
Seção 94% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.