Penance as a Sacrament — The Form

Section 2: The Form

The sacramental form of Penance is contained in the words of absolution. This was denied by Dominicus Soto, who regarded absolution merely as a “complement” of confession; but the Tridentine Council expressly defines that “the form of the Sacrament of Penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in those words of the minister, ‘I absolve thee,’ etc.”¹

1. Meaning of the Formula of Absolution. The formula of absolution now used in the Latin Church reads: “Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.”

This formula is ordinarily preceded by some words which aim at freeing the penitent from excommunication, suspension, and the interdict. They have nothing to do with the absolution as such. For the Tridentine Council says that the prayers laudably joined to the formula of absolution “according to the custom of holy Church” “by no means regard the essence of that form, neither are they necessary for the administration of the Sacrament itself.”²

Which are the essential words in the formula of absolution?

Theologians generally hold, against Durandus,³ that the invocation of the Blessed Trinity is not essential. There is nothing in our Saviour’s words of institution, or in the custom of the Church, or in the nature of Penance, which would indicate that the Sacrament is invalid without this invocation.⁴ The words “Absolvo te,” on the other hand, are essential, because they embody the judicial sentence of the priest. The words “a peccatis tuis” are implicitly contained in “absolvo te,” and therefore may be regarded as non-essential.⁵ Of course, we are speaking merely of the validity of the Sacrament; arbitrarily to omit any part of the prescribed formula is forbidden under pain of sin.

a) What is the precise meaning of the formula of absolution? Different writers have expressed different views on this subject. Thus Peter Lombard holds that, as God alone can bind and loose, the Church, in absolving a sinner, merely declares that his sins have been forgiven in Heaven (sententia declaratoria).⁶

α) To say that the formula of absolution simply means “I declare (or announce) that God has forgiven thee thy sins” is to deny that the Church possesses the power of absolving. This inevitable deduction is not modified by the admission that the Church can remit temporal punishments. Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141) is an exception among the writers of this school, inasmuch as he holds that, while the priestly absolution is a mere declaration, it nevertheless has power to free the penitent at least from the eternal punishments due to sin. No matter how we may interpret the teaching of the “Magister Sententiarum,” it is certainly opposed to the true nature of the power of the keys, and we need not wonder, therefore, that Richard of St. Victor (d. about 1173) combated it as frivolous and foolish.⁷

β) It is not at all difficult to prove that the power of the keys is not limited to the punishments due to sin.

If a priest in giving absolution merely remits the punishments due to sin, he remits either the eternal punishment of hell or temporal punishments. If the former, then he eo ipso remits the mortal sins themselves, for the punishment cannot be remitted while the guilt remains. In that case the formula of absolution would mean more than “Absolvo te a poena aeterna.” Indeed, God Himself could forgive mortal sin only on condition of a simultaneous forgiveness of the eternal punishment due to the same. In that case, however, the subsequent sentence of the confessor would not be an effective absolution, but a simple declaration or announcement of a judgment passed in Heaven. This conclusion negatives the assumption with which we started out.

We come to the second assumption, viz.: that the priestly absolution merely affects the temporal punishments due to sin. The power of the keys is twofold — the Church can loose, but she can also bind, and, under certain conditions, she can bind forever. Temporal punishments are not of this kind. To assume that a temporal punishment could become eternal is repugnant, for the moment it became eternal it would cease to be temporal. Hence the formula of absolution means exactly what it says, viz.: I absolve thee from thy sins.

γ) Some of the older Scholastic theologians⁸ explained the formula of absolution thus: “Ego te absolvo ab obligatione subiciendi peccata clavibus.” This is a one-sided and defective interpretation. To release one from an obligation is not to forgive his sins. A penitent guilty of a sin reserved to the bishop or the pope can be (indirectly) absolved therefrom without being released from the obligation of confessing the same sin to another confessor, equipped with larger faculties. Conversely, a penitent who re-submits to the power of the keys a mortal sin from which he has already been absolved certainly does not seek absolution for the purpose of being released from an obligation which no longer exists for him.

Baius taught that a penitent sinner who seeks absolution in the tribunal of Penance receives new spiritual life not through the ministry of the absolving priest, but directly from God, who vivifies and resuscitates his soul by inspiring him to do penance — the ministry of the priest merely lifting the obligation to undergo punishment. This proposition was condemned by Pius V.⁹ It can be refuted with the same arguments which we have adduced against the teaching of Peter Lombard and his school, and is, moreover, open to the objection that it places the efficacy of absolution in the external rite as such and underrates the office of the minister. In matter of fact it is the priest who forgives sins through the absolution. If this were not so, the formula of absolution might be enunciated with equal effect by a parrot or a phonograph.

b) After refuting these erroneous opinions, which, be it noted in passing, must not be confused with the views of the Protestant Reformers, we have to answer the question, in what way the formula of absolution expresses the infusion of sanctifying grace, without which there can be no true forgiveness of sins.

α) The priestly absolution, being an external sign of internal grace, must effect that which it signifies. In the present economy there is no other way in which sin can be forgiven than by the infusion of sanctifying grace.¹⁰ Therefore, the absolution must first effect grace and, through grace, the remission of sins. In order to express both these functions St. Thomas suggests the formula: “Sacramentum absolutionis tibi impendo.”¹¹

Suarez expresses the meaning still more clearly by saying: “Ego tibi gratiam sanctificantem confero remissivam peccati, quantum est ex se.”¹² De Lugo rejects both these interpretations for the reason that they have no immediate reference to the absolution of the penitent from sin, and substitutes the following: “Ego tibi (absolvendo) remitto peccata per infusionem gratiae.”¹³ As explained by Suarez, the accepted formula of absolution could with equal propriety be used in administering Baptism because it does not sufficiently express the judicial character of the act. De Lugo’s formula, on the other hand, enunciating as it does both the remission of sins (direct effect) and the infusion of grace (indirect effect), correctly interprets the mind of the Church.

β) It may be asked: what about sins that are confessed more than once? Are they also forgiven more than once? Or does the formula of absolution lose its true meaning in the so-called devotional confessions now so popular among the faithful? How can a priest forgive sins which no longer exist in the moral order? How can a criminal be released from chains that no longer bind him? Oswald¹⁴ finds it hard to solve this difficulty. Yet the custom of confessing the same sin repeatedly can be justified. A man can obligate himself repeatedly to the performance of a duty to which he is bound anyhow; a creditor can again release a debtor from an obligation from which he has already been freed. If you have been insulted, there is nothing to prevent you from forgiving the offense twice, three times, nay a hundred times, if you like. The example of the chained criminal proves nothing because the physical does not resemble the moral order in all respects. There is no doubt whatever that one and the same sin can be forgiven more than once and that in each case the formula of absolution has the same meaning, viz.: I forgive thee thy sins by the infusion (which in this case means an increase) of sanctifying grace.¹⁵

2. Changes in the Formula of Absolution. The indicative formula of absolution now used in the Latin Church is prescribed by Eugene IV (1439), by the Council of Trent,¹⁶ and by the Roman Ritual. Hence probably no other is now valid, though, of course, the Church could permit or even command the use of a different formula, such as the one formerly employed: “Sis a me absolutus per ministerium meum.”

While the Church is not authorized to alter the form of Penance in any essential respect, there is no doubt whatever that she can withdraw jurisdiction from any priest who refuses to employ the prescribed formula of absolution, thereby making the administration of the Sacrament impossible. Hence we must reject Dominicus Soto’s assertion that if a confessor employed the formula “Absolvit (or absolvat) te Christus,” the absolution would be valid, though the priest would commit a sin.¹⁷

It is rather more difficult to decide the question whether absolution is invalid if pronounced in any other than the indicative form. Theologians differ on this point.

a) Many maintain with St. Thomas¹⁸ and his school that absolution is invalid if clothed in the form of a deprecatory prayer.

This view is held by Billuart,¹⁹ Simonet, Antoine, Munier, and has found a contemporary defender in De Augustinis.²⁰ The subjunctive mood employed in a formula does not necessarily prove that it is deprecative. In the deprecative form the confessor simply prays God to forgive the penitent, without mentioning the power of the keys. When this power is expressly mentioned, even though it be only in the form of a prayer or wish, the formula, whatever its grammatical construction, is logically and theologically indicative, and consequently valid. Such apparently deprecatory but in reality indicative formulas are: “Sis a me absolutus per ministerium meum,” “Deus te absolvat per ministerium meum,” etc. As long as absolution takes the form of a judicial sentence, it is valid, regardless of its grammatical structure.

The case is different with such purely and essentially deprecative formulas as “Deus, remitte peccata huic servo tuo.” Here the question may be rightly raised: can a mere wish or prayer have the effect of a judicial sentence? This is vigorously denied by the Thomists, who maintain that even Almighty God Himself could not forgive sins in the tribunal of Penance by a purely deprecative formula.

b) Nevertheless Morinus²¹ and most modern Church historians hold that the Greek Church has always employed a purely deprecative formula, and that in the Latin Church, too, up to the ninth or possibly the tenth century, absolution invariably took the form of a prayer.²²

α) Henry Charles Lea, in his History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church,²³ asserts that the change took place some time between the eleventh and the thirteenth centuries and that the indicative formula became the only valid one through the powerful influence of the Sorbonne, about the year 1240. Lea’s contention that the Roman Church revolutionized the ancient penitential discipline and misrepresented the teaching of Christ has been refuted by Msgr. P. M. Baumgarten,²⁴ Father P. H. Casey, S.J.,²⁵ and a Protestant writer, Dr. K. Müller.²⁶ But it seems undeniable that an important change took place in the external form of absolution at about the time indicated. The fact that the most ancient rituals, sacramentaries, pontificals, penitentials, etc., all without exception give the deprecative formula only, proves that their authors knew no other. This is confirmed by certain utterances of the Fathers. It will not do to ascribe the absence of the indicative formula from the ancient documents to the Discipline of the Secret or to intentional omission. The disciplina arcani had been abandoned for centuries when the deprecatory formula was still in general use, and the liturgical records in question are very full and complete. As late as the beginning of the thirteenth century William of Paris²⁷ says that priests do not pronounce sentence after the manner of secular judges, “Absolvimus te,” but pray, “Dimittat tibi Deus peccata, quae confessus es mihi.” The anonymous writer whom St. Thomas combats in the eighteenth of his Opuscula²⁸ asserts that the deprecatory formula was in general use up to thirty years before the time of his writing.²⁹ This statement may not be strictly accurate, yet to say that it is without foundation would be unwarranted. Such eminent Catholic theologians as Cardinal Gotti, Tournely, Duhamel, Hurter, Oswald, Palmieri, Frank, and Pesch freely admit that the deprecatory formula was in exclusive use up to the end of the twelfth century.³⁰

β) The ancient euchologia of the Greek Church bear no trace of the indicative formula of absolution,³¹ and even to-day all Oriental churches employ the deprecatory formula. The Armenian Church is a solitary exception to this rule.³² Arcadius with much trouble succeeded in finding one indicative formula (“Habeo te condonatum”),³³ but it undoubtedly originated in the West.³⁴

That the Latin Church does not object to the Greek practice on this point is evident from the famous decree (A.D. 1595) in which Clement VIII allows the pastors of the Greek Uniates in southern Italy to absolve members of the Latin Church on condition that they employ the indicative formula prescribed by Eugene IV, but immediately adds: “Et postea, si voluerint, dicant orationem illam deprecativam, quam pro forma huius absolutionis dicere tantum consueverunt.”³⁵ This pontifical decision proves (1) that the United Greeks ordinarily employed the deprecative formula, and (2) that the Holy See did not object to this practice so long as it was not extended to the Latin rite.

c) Since there is no reason to doubt that the ancient Church employed the deprecative formula in absolving sinners in the tribunal of Penance, we can do no more than attempt to square the dogmatic teaching of the Church, as set forth above, with the historical fact mentioned.

All Catholic theologians, including the Thomists, admit that if the formula employed in giving absolution contains some reference to the ministerial agency of the absolving priest, there is no difficulty, because then the deprecatory formula (deprecatio potestativa, as Palmieri calls it) is equivalent to the indicative.³⁶

The difficulty begins when we have to deal with a formula which is manifestly nothing more than a prayer, pure and simple, e.g., “Deus, remitte peccata huic servo tuo.” These words obviously do not embody a judicial sentence. Are they perhaps equivalent to such a sentence? We must interpret them by the circumstances of the case and as they were understood by the people. If a secular judge were to say to a prisoner, “Let the warden release you,” he would be uttering what is substantially a judicial sentence. The case is similar with a confessor who absolves a penitent by praying that God may absolve him. There can be no reasonable doubt as to the meaning. The priest is sitting as a judge in the tribunal of Penance; he has the power of the keys, which the penitent begs him to employ in his behalf. Consequently, no matter in what words he clothes the formula of absolution, it is a judicial sentence, and was universally so regarded when the priest was wont to say, “Absolvat te Deus per ministerium meum,” just as it is to-day, when he says, “Ego te absolvo.”

3. Absolution Pronounced in the Absence of the Penitent Is Invalid. This proposition cannot be demonstrated from the definition of a Sacrament, for matrimony can be validly administered by proxy; nor does it follow from the judicial character of absolution, for a judicial sentence can be issued in writing; but it can be abundantly proved from Tradition.

a) Every Sacrament consists of matter and form. The form, as a rule, is made up of words. Exceptions, as in the case of matrimony, must be proved as such. Of Penance the dogmatic Decretum pro Armenis says: “The form of this Sacrament is in the words of absolution, which the priest utters when he says: I absolve thee, etc.”³⁷ As the words must be actually uttered to make the Sacrament valid, it follows that the penitent must be physically present, for else the words would be uttered in vain, i.e., affect nobody as a judicial sentence. When the confessor says, “I absolve thee,” he means the person kneeling before him. It is absurd to suppose that his sentence would be valid if shouted across the ocean.

Moreover, absolution must in all cases be preceded by auricular confession. This means confession by word of mouth, which, as a rule, can take place only from person to person. In exceptional cases, it is true, the accusation may be made in writing, but the priest is never allowed to give absolution in writing, precisely for the reason that absolution is the form of the Sacrament and must be uttered in words; much less could he transmit it by letter or messenger.

b) History records no case where absolution was conveyed to an absent penitent by messenger or letter. Oral utterance has ever been regarded as essential for the validity of the Sacrament. Morinus cites a few cases which seem to prove the contrary,³⁸ but the “absolution” conveyed to the absentee was in every instance merely a remission of canonical punishments or a grant of indulgences. The ancient penitential books either expressly state, or presuppose as a matter of course, the necessity of the personal presence of the penitent. This explains the principle governing the once popular practice of confessing to laymen, viz.: “In case of urgent necessity it is better to confess one’s sins to a layman who is present, than to an absent priest.”³⁹

In order to arrive at a fair judicial sentence, the confessor is bound to inform himself regarding the penitent’s state of conscience and disposition. This cannot be done unless the penitent is personally present. If absolution could be given by letter, it might happen that a penitent would experience a change of heart while the absolution was on the way, and consequently be no longer worthy of receiving it when it arrived.

A few Spanish theologians⁴⁰ taught that absolution conveyed to an absent penitent by letter is valid in case of extreme necessity; but their teaching, far from finding acceptance, was officially condemned.

c) Pope Clement VIII, after a hearing granted to both parties, declared it “false, foolhardy, and scandalous” to teach that sins can be confessed and absolution given absente confessore, by letter or messenger.⁴¹ He strictly forbade theologians to defend this opinion or to put it into practice, thereby implicitly declaring that confession and absolution by letter or messenger are both illicit and invalid.

α) Suarez⁴² limited this condemnation to absolution and said that it did not apply to confession. His arbitrary interpretation led Paul V to declare, by a decree of the Holy Office, dated July 14, 1605, that the Clementine decree applied in sensu diviso as well as in sensu copulativo. Hence it is invalid and forbidden for a penitent to confess his sins by letter or messenger to an absent priest, as well as for the priest to send him sacramental absolution. Suarez in reality had not meant to attack the papal decree. He merely expressed himself incautiously. The case he had in mind was that of a dying penitent, already unconscious, who had expressed a desire to receive the Sacrament. Of such a confession in voto (which is really not a “confession” at all in the strict sense of the term) Suarez maintained that it was sufficient for valid absolution.⁴³ This proposition was never censured and is held by all moral theologians. Suarez’s hypothetical case is affected neither by the decree of Clement VIII nor by the authentic interpretation of Paul V.

β) Can sins be validly confessed and absolution given by telephone? Two persons conversing over the telephone cannot strictly be said to be absent from each other. As far as verbal intercourse goes, the telephone brings them so closely together as if there were no space between them. The question as to the validity of confession by telephone has been submitted to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, without, however, eliciting a reply. If we consider that the telephone does not convey the voice by the natural medium of air waves but reproduces it artificially, and that, on the other hand, sacramental absolution and the judicial character of the confessor require a “presence” which enables him to communicate naturally with the penitent, we shall hardly go wrong if we declare invalid the confession and absolution given by telephone.⁴⁴

Footnotes

1. Conc. Trid., Sess. XIV, cap. 3: “Docet praeterea s. Synodus, sacramenti poenitentiae formam, in qua praecipue ipsius vis sita est, in illis ministri verbis positam esse: Ego te absolvo, etc.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 896). ↩

2. L.c.: ”… preces quaedam laudabiliter adiunguntur, ad ipsius tamen formae essentiam nequaquam spectant.” ↩

3. Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 22, qu. 2. ↩

4. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 84, art. 3, ad 3. ↩

5. For further information on this point cfr. De Lugo, De Poenitentia, disp. 13, sect. 1. ↩

6. Sent., IV, dist. 18. ↩

7. De Potest. Ligandi et Solvendi, c. 12: “Exstat quorundam de potestate ligandi atque solvendi sententia tam frivola, ut ridenda potius videatur quam refellenda… . Numquid Dominus dicit: Quodcunque ligatum ostenderis erit ligatum, et quodcunque solutum ostenderis erit solutum?” (Migne, P.L., CXCVI, 1168). ↩

8. See Suarez, De Poenitentia, disp. 19, sect. 2. ↩

9. Prop. Baii damn. a Pio V., a. 1567, prop. 58: “Peccator poenitens non vivificatur ministerio sacerdotis absolventis, sed a solo Deo, qui poenitentiam suggerens et inspirans vivificat eum et resuscitat: ministerio autem sacerdotis solum reatus [scil. obligatio ad poenam; Prop. 56] tollitur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1058). ↩

10. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 322 sqq. ↩

11. Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 84, art. 3, ad 5. — Cfr. De Augustinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. II, p. 287. ↩

12. De Poenitentia, disp. 19, sect. 2, n. 20. ↩

13. De Lugo, De Poenitentia, disp. 13, sect. 3, n. 227. ↩

14. Die dogmatische Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Vol. II, 5th ed., p. 208. ↩

15. Cfr. Palmieri, De Poenit., pp. 124 sq. ↩

16. V. supra, no. 1. ↩

17. Soto, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 3, qu. unica, art. 5: “In sacramento poenitentiae licet quis diceret: Absolvit te vel absolvat te Christus, vere absolveret, quamvis peccaret.” ↩

18. Opusc., 18 (in some editions 22), De Forma Absolutionis. ↩

19. De Poenitentia, diss. 1, art. 3, § 3. ↩

20. De Re Sacramentaria, Vol. II, pp. 294 sqq. ↩

21. Comment. Hist. de Administr. Sacr. Poenit., l. VIII, c. 8 sqq. ↩

22. For the proofs of this assertion see Morinus, op. cit., Append., c. 19; Martène, De Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus, l. I, c. 6, art. 5, 7; Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten der christkath. Kirche, Vol. III, 3, pp. 244 sqq. ↩

23. Vol. I, pp. 129 sqq., Philadelphia 1897. ↩

24. Die Werke von Henry Charles Lea und verwandte Bücher, Münster i. W. 1908 (English tr. New York 1909). ↩

25. Notes on a History of Auricular Confession: H. C. Lea’s Account of the Power of the Keys in the Early Church, Philadelphia 1890. ↩

26. In the Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1897, pp. 463 sqq. ↩

27. De Sacramento Poenit., c. 19. ↩

28. In some editions this treatise is printed as No. 22 of the Opuscula. ↩

29. “Vix triginta anni sunt, quod omnes hac sola forma deprecativa utebantur.” ↩

30. Cfr. Palmieri, De Poenitentia, pp. 127 sqq.; Königer, Burchard I. von Worms und die deutsche Kirche seiner Zeit (1000–1025), pp. 139 sqq., Munich 1905. ↩

31. Cfr. Goar, Euchologion, pp. 673 sqq. ↩

32. Cfr. Denzinger, Rit. Orient., Vol. I, p. 101: “Forma absolutionis apud Orientales catholicos et non catholicos, si solos Armenos excipias, deprecativa est.” ↩

33. “Habeo te condonatum.” ↩

34. The same is true of the indicative formulas in use among the Armenians; cfr. Mansi, Supplem. Conc., Vol. III, p. 488. ↩

35. Bullarium Romanum, ed. Taurin., Vol. X, p. 212. ↩

36. Cfr. De Lugo, De Poenitentia, disp. 13, sect. 4. ↩

37. “Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba absolutionis, quae sacerdos profert quum dicit: Ego te absolvo, etc.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 609). ↩

38. Comment. Hist. de Administr. Sacr. Poenit., l. VIII, c. 25. ↩

39. S. Thomas, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 17, qu. 3, art. 3, qu. 2: “In extrema necessitate utilius est confiteri laico praesenti quam sacerdoti absenti.” On the practice of confessing to lay persons see G. Grömer, Die Laienbeicht im Mittelalter, ein Beitrag zu ihrer Geschichte, Munich 1909. ↩

40. Paludanus, Peter Soto, and John Medina. ↩

41. “Sanctissimus [i.e. Papa] propositionem, scil. ‘licere per literas seu internuntium confessario absenti peccata sacramentaliter confiteri et ab eodem absente absolutionem obtinere,’ ad minus ut falsam, temerariam et scandalosam damnavit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1088). ↩

42. De Poenitentia, disp. 21, sect. 4. ↩

43. See Suarez’s posthumous Opuscula Sex Inedita, ed. I. B. Malou, Bruxelles 1859. ↩

44. On the notion of “physical presence” see the moralists, e.g., St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori, Theol. Moral., VI, n. 429. ↩