Question Four. Whether Guilt is Deleted by the Sacrament of Penitence

188. Fourth I ask whether guilt is deleted by the sacrament of penitence.

189. It seems that it is not:

Because in Psalm 31.5 is said, “I have spoken, I will confess my injustice to the Lord.” Cassiodorus, Exposition of the Psalms, 31.5, says there, “The great piety of God is that he dismisses sin for promise alone; for the wish is judged enough for the deed.” And Augustine on the same place, Narratives on the Psalms, Ps.31 nar. 2 n.15, “He does not yet pronounce [his confession], but he promises that he will pronounce it, and God dismisses [his sin]” [But without pronunciation [of confession] penitence is not a sacrament. [Citations taken from Lombard’s text, Sent. IV d.17 ch.1, and Gratian, Decretum p.2 cause 33 q.3.]

190. Again, Augustine, Sermon 67 ch.1 n.1, on John 11.43-44, about the resuscitation of Lazarus: “No one can confess unless raised up.” And he proves it in three ways [Narrations on the Psalms, psalm 87 n.10-11]: first from the raising of Lazarus, who is raised before led out of the tomb; second by Ecclesiastes 17, “From among the dead,” as from him who is not, “confession perishes;” the third by Psalm, “Will the cured rise and confess to you?”

191. Again, if sin is dismissed by the sacrament of penitence then, since the priest ministers the sacrament, the priest would dismiss sin. The consequent is false, from Jerome On Matthew III, 16.19, “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom etc.;” he says, “Some, not understanding this place, take something from the pride of the Pharisees, so as to think the innocent are condemning or the guilty paying [sc. some priests in the confessional think they, as innocent, are judging the guilty penitent, and imposing payment], although with the Lord not the judgment of the priests but the life of the condemned is what is asked for.” And the proof of this he points to when he adds, “In Leviticus [14.2] the leprous were bidden to show themselves to the priests; and the priests do not make them leprous or clean but discriminate those who are clean and those who are unclean.” So also here [in the sacrament of penitence. - Texts taken from Lombard, Sent.IV d.18 ch.6 n.2.]

192. Matthew 16.19, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”

193. Again, John 20.23, “Whose sins you remit, they are remitted.”

I. To the Question

194. Here three things need to be seen: first, the idea of this name ‘sacrament of penitence’; second, that there is something contained under this name; third, the solution of the question.

A. About the Idea of the Name ‘Sacrament of Penitence’

195. About the first point [n.194] I set down this idea of the name: ‘Penitence is the absolution of a penitent man, carried out in certain words, with due intention, pronounced by a priest, who possesses jurisdiction from divine institution, signifying the absolution of the soul from sin’.

B. Something is Contained under the Idea of the Aforesaid Name

196. As to the second point [n.194], I show, first, that it is possible for something to be contained under this idea of the name; second, that it is fitting for something to be contained under it; and third, that something is contained under it.

1. It is Possible for Something to be Contained under the Idea of the Name

197. The first is shown by this, that it is possible for God to absolve from sin, according to the article in the Apostles’ Creed ‘remission of sins’. And consequently it is possible to institute some sign for the absolution, and this an efficacious sign, the way ‘efficacious’ was expounded before in the material about the sacraments in general [Ord. IV d.2 nn.14, 27-32]; and, by parity of reason, to institute whatever words, and pronounced by whatever minister; and then the total possibility of the name is clear.

2. It is Fitting for Something to be Contained under the Idea of the Name

198. The proof of the fittingness [n.196] as to the individual particulars is: First, that it is fitting for something to be a sensible sign of this absolution from sin, for the same reasons as those for which the fittingness of a sacrament in general was spoken of, in Ord. IV d.1 nn.225-234.

199. And for the same reasons is it fitting that the sign is a sign instituted by God, because this will move and lead the intellect more to certitude, and incline the affection more to promptitude in taking up the sign.

200. It is fitting too that, in the issue at hand, the sign of interior absolution is instituted in words signifying absolution, the way a sign represents the thing signified. This then is what is meant in the idea that penitence is an ‘absolution’ [n.195], that is, a certain definitive sentence absolving the guilty party. But it is not a sentence of the Principal Judge, but of a secondary judge or commissary; for someone can take cognizance of a cause by commission, and so by commission pronounce sentence either for condemnation of the guilty party (if he is unworthy) or for his absolution (if he is worthy).

201. It is also fitting that this exterior absolution be done by a priest, because it is fitting to bring extremes through the middle back to the extreme;Sc. the extremes are sinners on the one side, alienated from God, the extreme on the other side, to whom the sinners, through the middle of the priest, are brought back. ¹⁹ and so, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the extremes, namely sinners, are brought to God through the hierarch, that is, the priest, as is in the Church triumphant.

202. It is fitting too that it be done by one having jurisdiction, because a sentence not passed by the judge of it is null.

203. From this follows a corollary, that the doctrine about the sacrament of penitence is like or sub-alternate to the doctrine about judgments and also to the doctrine about sentences. For to the extent there is in the Church a double forum, to that extent there is a double judgment; and as concerns rules of justice, there must be acceptability on this side and that, just as each definition on this side and that is an act of justice. And to that extent can the sacrament of penitence be called a judicial sacrament or a sacramental judgment, and from this that the sacramental one is firmer and more irrevocable than the other public judgment.

204. Hence appears the reason why it is not necessary that here the words in this sacrament are as precise as in baptism or the Eucharist, because it is enough that the act of the absolving sentence be expressed, just as also in a public judgment it is not necessary that the words are limited; for one judge says about the Martyr Theodore “I command you to be committed to the flames;” another says of St. Cyprian, “It pleases us to turn attention to the sword” [Acts of the Martyrs, Augustine, Sermon 309 ch.4 n.6].

However commonly the words “I absolve you” are appropriate, whatever other words precede or follow, according to diverse custom in diverse Churches.

205. It is fitting too that due intention be required, as was expounded above in the other sacraments [Ord. IV d.6 nn.102-112, d.7 n.7, d.13 n.185].

206. It is fitting too that, on the part of the recipient, he be penitent, that is, have some disposition about the sin committed; for this we see also in secular judges, that they condemn the impudent in their sentencing, but the penitent they in their own way absolve, that is, they pass sentence or judge as if about someone not guilty or not to be punished.

3. Something is Really Contained under the Idea of the Name

207. Third [n.196], I say that this has been done.

208. The foundation for this is taken from the authorities adduced for the opposite [nn.192-193].

209. And that it can be dispensed by a priest only is had from Gregory IX, Decretals, I tit.1 ch.1.

210. And from this follows a corollary, that nothing pertaining to the sacrament of penitence can be dispensed by a layman, just as neither can the confection of the Eucharist; and therefore confession (which is preparatory to the sacrament of penitence, as will be said later [d.16 n.26]), when made to a layman, has no value by virtue of the work worked.

212. And further, it is doubtful but that this be to the detriment of salvation, because this revelation [sc. to a layman] cannot be confessional.

C. Solution of the Question

213. As to the third article [n.194], the opinion of the Master [Sent. IV d.18 ch.6 n.3] seems to be: “In pardoning and retaining guilt,” he says, “the Gospel priest works and judges as the priest of the law [of Moses] did in the case of those who were infected with leprosy, which signifies sin.” And he proves it from the remark of Jerome, which is there adduced [n.191].

214. But this seems to take too much from the sacrament of penitence. For, according thereto, sin would never be deleted by the sacrament of penitence but it would have to be deleted by confession first so that the sacrament of penitence might be worthily received, because no one is shown to be clean of sin unless he is free from it first. And a further unacceptable result would follow, that never could the sacrament of penitence be a second plank [n.13], because the one shipwrecked would never be free from danger of sinking.

215. Therefore is it said that thus does God require a disposition by congruity, so that he may confer grace on the sinner - and this such that he not bind his power to the sacraments, but that it may, without the preparatory and fitting disposition that would suffice, confer grace through the sacrament. And this is a mark of greater mercy, namely to institute a double way by which the sinner may be justified, than to restrict it to one way. Just as therefore an adult can have the first grace, which destroys original sin, in a double way, namely from a good movement disposing him for grace by congruity, or from receiving baptism, so also in the issue at hand.

216. This is made clear as follows: that for the first reception of grace [sc. in baptism] there is required in adults some motion meritorious by congruity [sc. being a catechumen]; but for the second [sc. in penitence] there is required only a [sc. preceding] reception of baptism, voluntary and without pretense, and with the intention of receiving what the Church confers, and without will or act of mortal sin; so that in the first way there is required some intrinsic work that is somehow accepted as meritorious by congruity; in the second way there is only required an extrinsic work, with removal of exterior impediment.

217. Not only, then, does someone exercising attrition for some time up to a certain instant receive, in the final instant, the grace that destroys sin committed (as if by virtue of merit by congruity, as was made clear in the preceding solution [nn.134-138]), but he who does not have such an act as may suffice for merit by congruity, but has only the will of receiving the sacrament of the Church and without obstacle of mortal sin inhering in him either in fact or in will - he receives the effect of this sacrament, not by merit but by divine pact [Ord. IV d.1 n.308, 315, 323, d.4 n.103, d.8 n.146], as thus having done little attrition, even with the attrition that does not have the idea of merit for remission of sin.

218. He however who wants to receive the sacrament of penitence as it is dispensed in the Church, and without obstacle and will of mortal sin in act at the last moment of the pronouncing of the words (wherein is the force of the sacrament) - he will receive the effect of the sacrament, namely penitential grace; not indeed by merit (because this interior disposition was not enough by way of merit), but by pact of God who aids his sacrament to this effect for which he instituted the sacrament. Otherwise it would not appear how the sacrament of penitence is ‘a second plank’ [n.13], if through it (as it is a sacrament) can never be recovered a lost second grace, but only through attrition as a preparatory disposition, and through contrition as through a completive disposition.

219. If you ask whether penitence is a sacrament, I say that what you want is done in the word ‘penitence’ if this word is taken as it is in the two preceding questions, namely for actual ‘holding a penalty’ according to any of the above significations [nn.62-65]; or also taken for habitual ‘holding a penalty’, which is a certain special virtue whose act is actual ‘holding a penalty’ [nn.120-126]. According to the first signification penitence is not a sacrament, because it is not a sensible sign; but in the latter ways it could be called a sacrament of penitence, when taking that in a transitive and not intransitive sense [n.189] the way ‘creature of salt’‘Creature of salt’ in the intransitive sense is, ‘creature that is salt’, and in the transitive sense, ‘creature that comes from salt’. In several rites, including that of baptism, the words ‘I exorcize you, creature of salt’ are used for blessing salt. One could speak instead here of objective and subjective genitive, as in the case of ‘love of God’, which in the objective sense means the love we have for God, and in the subjective sense the love God has for us. So ‘sacrament of penitence’ in the transitive or objective sense is the sacrament that has penitence for object (namely the penitent sinner receiving forgiveness), and in the intransitive or subjective sense it means the sacrament that penitence is (namely the sacrament in which the penitent, by confessing, receives the sacramental grace). ²⁰ is taken, unless the name ‘penitence’ is here used equivocally.

II. To the Initial Arguments

220. To the first argument [n.189] I concede (according to the authorities from Augustine and Isidore) that sin is frequently dismissed by some motion of attrition or contrition, as through merit by congruity, before reception of the sacrament of penitence, just as in an adult original sin is frequently dismissed before reception of baptism. But it does not follow that it not be dismissed through the sacrament, because if that other dismissal sometimes not be present, this one does not fail; and this one requires less, namely the intention alone of receiving baptism or the sacrament of penance without any obstacle in the way of its effect.

221. To the second argument [n.190] I say that confession is double: of praise or of crime. No one confesses worthily by confession of praise unless he is first raised up -from Jerome in the Epistle ‘You think that I’ [in fact Paschasius Radbert, Epistle on the Assumption of the Holy Virgin Mary, n.36], “Praise in the mouth of a sinner is not seemly” [Ecclesiasticus 15.9]. But confession of crime in the mouth of a sinner is accepted, that is, of a sinner who is still a sinner in the way that, in the first question of this distinction [nn.28-34], exposition was given how sin remains after the act - provided, however, that the sinner not be a sinner in desire (whether in interior or exterior act). I concede therefore that, before worthy reception of penitence, the sinner must be raised up: either simply so, and then the sin is not destroyed by penitence as sacrament [sc. because it was already destroyed in the ‘raising up’, n.220], but the grace that was there before is increased; or raised up in a certain respect, so that he have some displeasure about his sins and a proposal to be wary as to the rest, and should want to receive the sacrament of penitence, wherein attrition becomes contrition and he is, through the sacrament, simply raised up - and this indeed is necessary, as will be stated in d.17 n.50, just as was also said above that for someone justified by the baptism of desire the baptism of water is necessary [Ord. IV d.5 nn.43, 48-51].

222. When argument is made about Lazarus [n.190], that he was raised up first before being loosed of his chains, I reply: the guilty party is obligated to the debt of an eternal penalty, and when this chain is loosed he is obligated to a temporal penalty. But he is raised up first before the first obligation is commuted to the second; or, what is truer, he is raised up first before he is loosed from the second obligation. And in this way does it belong to the priests to loose, not simply, but on the part of the penalty, which they can relax by virtue of the keys (which will be spoken of below [dd.18-19 nn.107-110]). And thus Lazarus, having been vivified by Christ (that is, the sinner is resuscitated by grace from the death of guilt), and having been loosed from the prison of the tomb (that is, the sinner is loosed from the debt of the penalty of hell), is left to the disciples for being loosed from the grave-clothes (that is, from the temporal penalties to which the eternal penalty is commuted, which temporal penalties the priest can relax, the key not being in error).

223. As to the final argument [n.191], I concede that the priest dismisses sin in penitence just as in baptism, and so he absolves just as he baptizes, because on both sides it is simply true that he administers the sacrament; and he causes the effect of the sacrament ministerially, because he causes something on which (according to the disposition or pact of God [cf. n.217]) the effect of the sacrament according to rule follows.

224. To the comment of Jerome [n.191] I say that the affirmative is true, that just as the priest of the Mosaic Law made manifest lepers who were cleansed, so the Gospel priest makes manifest sinners who are justified. But the negative, namely that the Gospel priest is not disposed differently to the spiritually leprous than the priests of the Mosaic Law were to the bodily leprous (namely by making uncleanness manifest on this side as on that), is false. And the reason is that God did not in the Old Law give a ceremony or purification, which, when administered by a suitable minister, he would, as a matter of rule, be present to for cleansing bodily leprosy. But he did in the New Law give a sacrament, which, as a matter of rule, he is by pact present to for cleansing the spiritually leprous, unless the obstacle of a contrary will stand in the way.