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.