Part I: The Power of the Church to Forgive Sins

Before treating of Penance as a Sacrament we must show: (1) that the Catholic Church has the power to forgive sins, (2) in what this power consists, and (3) what are its attributes.

Chapter 1: The Catholic Church Has the Power to Forgive Sins

That the Catholic Church has the power to forgive sins can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The Tridentine Council bases its argument “principally” on the Gospel of St. John, ch. XX, v. 20 sqq., thus intimating that there are other Scriptural texts from which the thesis can be proved. Such additional texts are Matth. XVI, 19 and XVIII, 18. They contain our Lord’s promise to impart to His Apostles the power of forgiving sins. The actual bestowal of this power is recorded in John XX, 20 sqq.

Section 1: Proof from Sacred Scripture

Article 1: The Promise

1. The Texts. In the Gospel of St. Matthew Christ promises to grant His Church the power of forgiving sins. He makes this promise first to St. Peter alone (Matth. XVI, 19) and later to all the Apostles (Matth. XVIII, 18).

In the latter passage the Apostles are promised the power of binding and loosing (potestas ligandi et solvendi), which virtually comprises that of forgiving sins.

St. Peter, in the former passage, is told that he is to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven (potestas clavium), which is evidently a more comprehensive power even than that of forgiving sins. After assuring St. Peter that he is the rock upon which the Church will be built, our Divine Saviour continues (Matth. XVI, 19): “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (claves regni caelorum). And whatsoever thou shalt bind (quodcunque ligaveris) upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose (quodcunque solveris) upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Upon a later occasion Christ said to all His Apostles together (Matth. XVIII, 18): “Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind (quaecunque alligaveritis) upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose (quaecunque solveritis) upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Though these two texts are almost identical in terms, there is a vast difference between them. The power to bind and loose bestowed upon all the Apostles is not commensurate with the power of the keys conferred upon St. Peter alone. The power of the keys includes the primacy of the Holy See. However, this aspect of the matter does not concern us here; it belongs to fundamental theology or apologetics. We have simply to show that the power of forgiving sins is included in both texts. The future tense of the verbs employed proves that we are dealing with a promise.

2. The Power of the Keys Conferred on St. Peter Includes the Power to Forgive Sins. What did our Lord mean when He promised St. Peter that He would give him “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”? Evidently He meant that He would make him the head of His Church, with full power to govern all who belong to it.

In the twenty-second chapter of Isaias the prophet laments the devastation of Juda. Foretelling the deprivation of Sobna and the substitution of Eliacim, a figure of Christ, he says: “I will drive thee [Sobna] out from thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim, the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.”¹ From this and similar texts it follows that the power of the keys in Biblical parlance means supreme power of legislation as well as jurisdiction.

Therefore, in giving to St. Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” Christ gave him supreme power to govern the Church, to admit into and exclude from it, to make and execute laws, to impose and remit penalties — in a word, the plenitude of jurisdiction over his fellow Apostles and all the faithful.² Whatever Peter does in his capacity of supreme bearer of the keys (claviger), God will ratify. So comprehensive a power must necessarily include the faculty of forgiving sins. St. Peter has all the keys, not only one or two. Now, there is nothing that so effectively excludes men from the kingdom of heaven as sin. If Peter lacked the power of forgiving sins, he would not possess all the keys to the kingdom of heaven, because he could not bind or loose, open or shut unconditionally, and God would not ratify all his official acts, and consequently the words of Christ would be untrue. Since the power of forgiving sins must be coterminous with the primacy bestowed upon St. Peter in the same passage, it follows that his successors, i.e., the Roman pontiffs, possess the power of forgiving sins in the Church.

3. The Power of Binding and Loosing Conferred on the Apostles Signifies the Forgiveness of Sins. To bind and to loose are figurative terms, just as “opening” and “shutting” in the text we have quoted from Isaias. Now what did our Lord mean when He gave to His Apostles the power of binding and loosing? That the phrase cannot refer to physical bonds is plain from the context. Hence the power bestowed must be spiritual or moral.

a) In the moral sphere there is a threefold bond that permits of binding or loosing:

1. The bond of the law (vinculum legis);
2. The bond of sin (vinculum peccati);
3. The bond of punishment (vinculum poenae).

From the physical analogy implied we may and must infer that to bind in moral matters signifies to command or forbid (ligare = prohibere), whereas to loose means to allow or permit (solvere = permittere).

In regard to sin, therefore, to bind must mean to withhold absolution or forgiveness; to loose, to grant forgiveness. The same holds good, analogously, in regard to the bond of punishment. To bind, in this sense, evidently signifies to condemn; to loose, to remit the penalty.

Now the grant of power made by our Lord to His Apostles is unlimited: “quodcunque,” “quaecunque.” Consequently, the promise made to them in the texts quoted above from St. Matthew must comprise the power to forgive sins, as this is but a part of the whole. This power was not a personal privilege, destined to cease with the death of the Apostles, but it was granted to them in their official capacity and hence intended as a permanent institution in the Church. Consequently, the Church must have the power to forgive sins, and when she binds or looses, her acts are ratified by God.

b) Protestants contend that this power can be exercised only in foro externo, but is utterly ineffective in the court of conscience (in foro interno). This is an untenable assertion. We have Christ’s assurance that God ratifies the decisions of His earthly representatives; what else can this mean than that He forgives when they forgive and that He retains when, for grave reasons, they withhold absolution? Were He to “bind,” i.e., to refuse forgiveness in any case in which His Church on earth had “loosed,” i.e., given absolution, our Lord’s promise in the Gospel of St. Matthew would be false — an impossible assumption.

Impressed by the force of this argument, some Protestant controversialists deny that the texts under consideration have any reference to sin at all. But this is doing violence to the context. A glance at Matth. XVIII shows that the argument of our Saviour’s discourse runs as follows: if thy brother who has offended thee refuses to listen to fraternal correction, bring the matter before the church authorities. They have the power of binding and loosing, of expelling sinners and readmitting them to the communion of the faithful, and whatever decision they make shall be ratified in heaven. It follows that not only has the Church the power to forgive and retain sins, but the sins with which this power is concerned are those committed after Baptism. Therefore the power to forgive sin is not simply the power to baptize. Unbaptized persons cannot be expelled from the Church for the simple reason that they are not members of it.

Article 2: The Grant

The promise recorded in St. Matthew’s Gospel was fulfilled by our Divine Lord when, after His Resurrection, He miraculously appeared in the midst of His Apostles, breathed upon them, and said: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” This important text, which has been rightly called the Magna Carta of the Church’s prerogative of forgiving sins, is found in John XX, 22 and 23. The Vulgate renders the passage as follows: “Accipite Spiritum sanctum: Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis: et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt.”

The power thus conferred by Christ upon His Apostles (1) refers to sins; (2) is not limited to the declaration, “God pardons you,” but implies actual forgiveness; (3) is distinct from the power of baptizing; and (4) was to be transmitted from the Apostles to their successors and to be exercised as long as there are sinners in the Church, which means to the end of time.

1. The Power Conferred by Christ upon His Apostles Applies to Sin. The word “sin” (peccatum) is used in Holy Scripture in four different meanings: (a) the guilt accruing to sin in the eyes of God, (b) the punishment due to evil deeds, (c) concupiscence, and (d) a sin-offering. In John XX, 23, it is used in the first of these meanings.

a) When our Lord said to His Apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven,” etc., He cannot possibly have meant “sin offerings” (sacrificia pro peccato). This is evident from the text itself. A sin-offering could not be “forgiven,” much less could it be “retained.” Moreover, Christ definitively abolished the sin-offerings of the Old Testament, and there would be no sense in His mentioning them in connection with His future Church.

b) The term “sins” in John XX, 23, cannot signify concupiscence (fomes peccati, concupiscentia). It is true, St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans³ calls concupiscence “sin,” inasmuch as “it is of sin and inclines to sin.” But here the term is used in the plural, and, moreover, concupiscence never leaves man in this life but remains with him even in the state of sanctifying grace, and consequently is not “remitted.”⁴

c) But may not the term mean punishments due to sin? Guilt and punishment are correlative terms, and punishment can be forgiven or retained in much the same way as guilt. This interpretation is not to be rejected offhand. But we maintain that it must not be applied to our text in a one-sided way and exclusively. We prove this by the following trilemma. Our Lord’s words apply to the mere guilt of sin (reatus culpae), or to the punishment due thereto (reatus poenae), or to both guilt and punishment. If they apply to mere guilt, there is question of genuine sins. If they apply to both, the same is true. If, however, they apply to the reatus poenae, it must mean either eternal punishment or temporal punishment. If it means eternal punishment, the nature of things demands that there be a true remission of mortal sin, for eternal punishment and mortal sin are reciprocal notions. Hence to admit that our Lord gave His Apostles the power to remit eternal punishment is tantamount to admitting that He gave them the power to forgive mortal sins. The case is different if “sin” be understood as meaning the temporal punishment of wrongdoing. In that case the power to forgive sins could not be proved from John XX, 23. But this interpretation is inadmissible. The Apostles received a twofold power with regard to “sins” — to forgive them or to retain them, and if they found it prudent to retain them, to retain them as long as they deemed it necessary, possibly forever; for Christ’s words are general and unlimited: “Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” Now temporal punishments by their very nature cannot be retained forever, else they would become eternal, and hence it is evident that the word “sins” in the Johannine text must be taken in its ordinary and plain acceptation.

d) The interpretation we have given derives great plausibility from the solemn manner in which our Saviour conferred this prerogative upon His Apostles. He said: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” Then He “breathed on them,” and continued: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” This solemn procedure would hardly be intelligible unless He wished to grant the Apostles power to forgive mortal sins.

Moreover, there is the analogy between His own mission and that of the Apostles, expressed in the phrase: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” For what purpose had the Father sent Him? To forgive sins and thereby enable men to reach Heaven. Thus He spoke to the palsied man: “Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.”⁵ And when some of the scribes thought in their hearts, “Why doth this man speak thus? He blasphemeth; who can forgive sins, but God only?”⁶ Christ, knowing their thoughts, declared, “That you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.”⁷ It was this power which He conferred upon His Apostles.⁸

2. The Power to Forgive Sins Implies True Forgiveness by God. To forgive sins is more than merely to declare or announce that they are forgiven.

a) It is evident from the context that our Lord sent His Apostles to forgive sins in the same sense in which He Himself had been sent by His Heavenly Father. He forgave grievous sins in foro interno; hence His Apostles must have the same power.

The validity of this conclusion is not impaired by the fact that the power to forgive sins differs as exercised by God, by Christ, and by His ministers. In God it is a potestas auctoritatis; in the Godman, a potestas ministerii. The meaning of these terms is explained in our treatise on the Sacraments in General.⁹ Though the power bestowed upon the Apostles was intrinsically inferior to that exercised by Christ (being derived from Him, conditional and dependent), it is nevertheless real and adequate.

b) According to the Greek text, the forgiveness of sins by God is so intimately conditioned upon the exercise of the Apostolic power that the former immediately follows the latter. Conversely, where there is no exercise of that power, there is no forgiveness of sins (retenta sunt), and hence this conditional relation is truly causal. The power of the Apostles is not limited to a mere announcement of the fact that God has pardoned the sinner; it actually signifies and effects forgiveness.

c) This interpretation is in perfect conformity with the nature of the New Testament, which is infinitely superior to the Ancient Covenant. While the latter with its ceremonial laws could effect no more than a legal sanctification of the flesh,¹⁰ the former really and truly sanctifies the soul by the infusion of grace. Hence, wherever in the New Testament there is question of the forgiveness of sins, it must mean a true forgiveness before God.

3. The Power to Forgive Sins Not Identical with the Power to Baptize. Though the power to forgive sins and the power to baptize were conferred upon the Apostles in similar circumstances, the two are entirely separate and distinct.

a) Leaving the detailed analysis of the respective scriptural texts to the exegetes, we will confine ourselves to pointing out the great difference existing between the two powers. The power to baptize is essentially simple: “Baptizate,” whereas the power to forgive sins is twofold, inasmuch as it may forgive or retain: “Remittite et retinete.”

True, the refusal of Baptism in a certain sense signifies a retentio peccati, because everyone who is not baptized remains steeped in sin. But to refuse to baptize an applicant is plainly not a judicial act.

It is equally true that Baptism, like Penance, remits mortal sin. But between the manner of remission in either Sacrament there is as great a difference as between the simple cancellation of a debt and a judicial release from the duty of paying the same.

b) Another important distinction between Baptism and the power of forgiving sins is that the former can be administered only once, whereas the latter can be exercised as often as it is appealed to. Baptism is incapable of repetition for the reason that it is essentially a spiritual rebirth. The power to forgive sin is subject to no such limitation.

Protestants assert that the power to forgive sins, as recorded by St. John, is nothing more than the power to preach the Gospel. This is a perfectly logical deduction from the Lutheran theory of justification. If it were true that man is justified by faith alone, the forgiveness of sins would ultimately depend on preaching, for it is through preaching the Gospel, in the Protestant view, that fiduciary faith is born in the soul. But such teaching is absolutely unscriptural, as may be seen by a reference to John XX, 23. If “remittere peccata” were synonymous with “praedicare fidem,” as the Protestants allege, what would “retinere peccata” mean? Mere non-forgiveness? But that would involve a contradiction. Or the omission or neglect of preaching the forgiveness of sins? But that would be opposed to the spirit of the Gospel. The Gospel must be preached to all men.¹¹ No wonder the attempt to square the Johannine text with the Protestant doctrine of justification has led to strange distortions. It is ridiculous to assert that Christ meant to say to the palsied man: “Be of good heart, son, the faith is being preached to thee.” It is equally ridiculous to distort our Lord’s dictum, “If you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences,”¹² by making it read: “If you preach to men the Gospel, your heavenly Father will preach the Gospel also to you.”¹³

4. The Power to Forgive Sins a Permanent Institution in the Church. The very nature and purpose of the Catholic Church make it plain that the power to forgive sins was not a personal prerogative of the Apostles, but was granted to them in their official capacity, and hence intended as a permanent institution.

The Church, with her divine mission, her Apostolic succession, the primacy, the power to baptize, etc., is destined to endure for all time. The power to forgive sins, too, must be available and exercised as long as there are sinners, and that means to the end of the world. If the Church lacked this power or failed to exercise it, she could not possibly be the true Church of Christ.

The authentic interpretation of John XX, 23, has been fixed by the Tridentine Council: “If anyone saith that those words of the Lord the Saviour, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost, 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 forgiving and retaining sins in the Sacrament of Penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them, but wrests them … to the power of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema.”¹⁴ The same Council defines that the power to baptize is distinct from the power to forgive or retain sins: “If anyone, confounding the Sacraments, saith that Baptism is itself the Sacrament of Penance, as if these two Sacraments were not distinct, … let him be anathema.”¹⁵

Readings: Billuart, De Poenitentia, diss. 1, art. 1 (ed. Lequette, Vol. VII, pp. 9 sqq.). — Palmieri, De Poenitentia, thes. 8, Prati 1896. — Manzoni, De Natura Peccati eiusque Remissione, S. Angeli Laudensis 1890. — Oswald, Dogmatische Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten der kath. Kirche, Vol. II, 5th ed., pp. 29 sqq., Münster 1894. — Tepe, Institutiones Theologicae, Vol. IV, pp. 357 sqq., Paris 1894. — Scheeben-Atzberger, Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 3, pp. 672 sqq., Freiburg 1903.

For the historical development of the dogma see Chardon, Histoire du Sacrement de Pénitence (Migne, Theol. Curs. Complet., Vol. XX). — Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, 2nd ed., §§ 102–103, Freiburg 1895. — G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 153 sqq., St. Louis 1913. — M. J. O’Donnell, Penance in the Early Church, With a Short Sketch of Subsequent Development, Dublin 1907. — J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, 3 vols., St. Louis 1910 sqq. — Charles Coupe, S.J., “The Power of the Keys in the Primitive Church,” in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, Vol. XXIX (1904), No. 116, pp. 625–644.

Footnotes

1. Is. XXII, 19 sqq. ↩

2. Cfr. Palmieri, De Romano Pontifice, 2nd ed., Rome 1891. ↩

3. Rom. VII, 7 sqq. ↩

4. Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. V, can. 5. — See Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, p. 245. ↩

5. Matth. IX, 2: “Confide fili, remittuntur tibi peccata tua.” ↩

6. Mark II, 7 sqq. ↩

7. Mark II, 10, 11. ↩

8. That He did not mean original sin is shown below, no. 3. ↩

9. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 98 sqq., St. Louis 1919. ↩

10. Cfr. Hebr. XI, 33; IX, 13. ↩

11. Matth. XXVIII, 19; Mark XVI, 16. ↩

12. Matth. VI, 14. ↩

13. Cfr. Matth. VI, 12; Luke VII, 47 sqq.; XI, 4; XXIV, 47. ↩

14. Sess. XIV, can. 3: “Si quis dixerit, verba illa Domini Salvatoris: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis, etc., non esse intelligenda de potestate remittendi et retinendi peccata in sacramento poenitentiae, sicut Ecclesia catholica ab initio semper intellexit, detorserit autem … ad auctoritatem praedicandi evangelium, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 913). ↩

15. “Si quis sacramenta confundens ipsum baptismum poenitentiae sacramentum esse dixerit, quasi haec duo sacramenta distincta non sint, … anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 912). ↩