No More Learning

Objection 11: Further, the truth ought to be conformable with the
figure. But regarding the Paschal Lamb, which was a figure of this
sacrament, it was commanded that nothing of it should "remain until the
morning. " It is improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be
reserved, and not consumed at once.

Objection 12: Further, the priest addresses in the plural number those
who are hearing mass, when he says, "The Lord be with you": and, "Let
us return thanks. " But it is out of keeping to address one individual
in the plural number, especially an inferior. Consequently it seems
unfitting for a priest to say mass with only a single server present.
Therefore in the celebration of this sacrament it seems that some of
the things done are out of place.

On the contrary, The custom of the Church stands for these things: and
the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost.

I answer that, As was said above ([4708]Q[60], A[6]), there is a
twofold manner of signification in the sacraments, by words, and by
actions, in order that the signification may thus be more perfect. Now,
in the celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things
pertaining to Christ's Passion, which is represented in this sacrament;
or again, pertaining to Christ's mystical body, which is signified
therein; and again, things pertaining to the use of this sacrament,
which use ought to be devout and reverent. Consequently, in the
celebration of this mystery some things are done in order to represent
Christ's Passion, or the disposing of His mystical body, and some
others are done which pertain to the devotion and reverence due to this
sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: The washing of the hands is done in the
celebration of mass out of reverence for this sacrament; and this for
two reasons: first, because we are not wont to handle precious objects
except the hands be washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to
approach so great a sacrament with hands that are, even literally,
unclean. Secondly, on account of its signification, because, as
Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), the washing of the extremities of the
limbs denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according to Jn.
13:10: "He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet. " And such
cleansing is required of him who approaches this sacrament; and this is
denoted by the confession which is made before the "Introit" of the
mass. Moreover, this was signified by the washing of the priests under
the Old Law, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the Church
observes this ceremony, not because it was prescribed under the Old
Law, but because it is becoming in itself, and therefore instituted by
the Church. Hence it is not observed in the same way as it was then:
because the washing of the feet is omitted, and the washing of the
hands is observed; for this can be done more readily, and suffices far
denoting perfect cleansing. For, since the hand is the "organ of
organs" (De Anima iii), all works are attributed to the hands: hence it
is said in Ps. 25:6: "I will wash my hands among the innocent. "

Reply to Objection 2: We use incense, not as commanded by a ceremonial
precept of the Law, but as prescribed by the Church; accordingly we do
not use it in the same fashion as it was ordered under the Old Law. It
has reference to two things: first, to the reverence due to this
sacrament, i. e. in order by its good odor, to remove any disagreeable
smell that may be about the place; secondly, it serves to show the
effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as with a good odor,
according to Gn. 27:27: "Behold, the odor of my son is like the odor of
a ripe field"; and from Christ it spreads to the faithful by the work
of His ministers, according to 2 Cor. 2:14: "He manifesteth the odor of
his knowledge by us in every place"; and therefore when the altar which
represents Christ, has been incensed on every side, then all are
incensed in their proper order.

Reply to Objection 3: The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes use of
the sign of the cross to signify Christ's Passion which was ended upon
the cross. Now, Christ's Passion was accomplished in certain stages.
First of all there was Christ's betrayal, which was the work of God, of
Judas, and of the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign of the
cross at the words, "These gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted
sacrifices. "

Secondly, there was the selling of Christ. Now he was sold to the
Priests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: and to signify this the
threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, "blessed,
enrolled, ratified. " Or again, to signify the price for which He was
sold, viz. thirty pence. And a double cross is added at the
words---"that it may become to us the Body and the Blood," etc. , to
signify the person of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold.

Thirdly, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at the last supper.
To denote this, in the third place, two crosses are made, one in
consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood; each time
while saying, "He blessed. "

Fourthly, there was Christ's Passion itself. And so in order to
represent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there is a fivefold
signing of the cross at the words, "a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a
spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of
everlasting salvation. "

Fifthly, the outstretching of Christ's body, and the shedding of the
blood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signified by the triple
signing of the cross at the words, "as many as shall receive the body
and blood, may be filled with every blessing," etc.

Sixthly, Christ's threefold prayer upon the cross is represented; one
for His persecutors when He said, "Father, forgive them"; the second
for deliverance from death, when He cried, "My God, My God, why hast
Thou forsaken Me? " the third referring to His entrance into glory, when
He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit"; and in order to
denote these there is a triple signing with the cross made at the
words, "Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless. "

Seventhly, the three hours during which He hung upon the cross, that
is, from the sixth to the ninth hour, are represented; in signification
of which we make once more a triple sign of the cross at the words,
"Through Him, and with Him, and in Him. "

Eighthly, the separation of His soul from the body is signified by the
two subsequent crosses made over the chalice.

Ninthly, the resurrection on the third day is represented by the three
crosses made at the words---"May the peace of the Lord be ever with
you. "

In short, we may say that the consecration of this sacrament, and the
acceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, proceed from the virtue
of the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of
these, the priest makes use of the sign of the cross.

Reply to Objection 4: After the consecration, the priest makes the sign
of the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but
only for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of
Christ's suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3).

Reply to Objection 5: The actions performed by the priest in mass are
not ridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to represent
something else. The priest in extending his arms signifies the
outstretching of Christ's arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his
hands as he prays, to point out that his prayer is directed to God for
the people, according to Lam. 3:41: "Let us lift up our hearts with our
hands to the Lord in the heavens": and Ex. 17:11: "And when Moses
lifted up his hands Israel overcame. " That at times he joins his hands,
and bows down, praying earnestly and humbly, denotes the humility and
obedience of Christ, out of which He suffered. He closes his fingers,
i. e. the thumb and first finger, after the consecration, because, with
them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any
particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this
belongs to the reverence for this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 6: Five times does the priest turn round towards the
people, to denote that our Lord manifested Himself five times on the
day of His Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on Christ's
Resurrection ([4709]Q[55], A[3], OBJ[3]). But the priest greets the
people seven times, namely, five times, by turning round to the people,
and twice without turning round, namely, when he says, "The Lord be
with you" before the "Preface," and again when he says, "May the peace
of the Lord be ever with you": and this is to denote the sevenfold
grace of the Holy Ghost. But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival
days, in his first greeting says, "Peace be to you," which was our
Lord's greeting after Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly
represents.

Reply to Objection 7: The breaking of the host denotes three things:
first, the rending of Christ's body, which took place in the Passion;
secondly, the distinction of His mystical body according to its various
states; and thirdly, the distribution of the graces which flow from
Christ's Passion, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). Hence this
breaking does not imply severance in Christ.

Reply to Objection 8: As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in
the Decretals (De Consecr. , dist. ii), "the Lord's body is threefold;
the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ's risen
body," namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other
saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies.
"The part consumed denotes those still walking upon earth," because
while living upon earth they are united together by this sacrament; and
are bruised by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the
teeth. "The part reserved on the altar till the close of the mass, is
His body hidden in the sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints will
be in their graves until the end of the world": though their souls are
either in purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of reserving one
part on the altar till the close of the mass is no longer observed, on
account of the danger; nevertheless, the same meaning of the parts
continues, which some persons have expressed in verse, thus:

"The host being rent---

What is dipped, means the blest;

What is dry, means the living;

What is kept, those at rest. "

Others, however, say that the part put into the chalice denotes those
still living in this world. while the part kept outside the chalice
denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part
consumed means the others.

Reply to Objection 9: Two things can be signified by the chalice:
first, the Passion itself, which is represented in this sacrament, and
according to this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted those
who are still sharers of Christ's sufferings; secondly, the enjoyment
of the Blessed can be signified, which is likewise foreshadowed in this
sacrament; and therefore those whose bodies are already in full
beatitude, are denoted by the part put into the chalice. And it is to
be observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to be given to
the people to supplement the communion, because Christ gave dipped
bread only to Judas the betrayer.

Reply to Objection 10: Wine, by reason of its humidity, is capable of
washing, consequently it is received in order to rinse the mouth after
receiving this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and this belongs
to reverence for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De Celebratione missae,
chap. Ex parte), it is said: "The priest should always cleanse his
mouth with wine after receiving the entire sacrament of Eucharist:
except when he has to celebrate another mass on the same day, lest from
taking the ablution-wine he be prevented from celebrating again"; and
it is for the same reason that wine is poured over the fingers with
which he had touched the body of Christ.

Reply to Objection 11: The truth ought to be conformable with the
figure, in some respect: namely, because a part of the host
consecrated, of which the priest and ministers or even the people
communicate, ought not to be reserved until the day following. Hence,
as is laid down (De Consecr. , dist. ii), Pope Clement I ordered that
"as many hosts are to be offered on the altar as shall suffice for the
people; should any be left over, they are not to be reserved until the
morrow, but let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and
trembling. " Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to be received daily,
whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore necessary for other
hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read in the same
distinction: "Let the priest always have the Eucharist ready, so that,
when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion to him at once, lest he
die without it. "

Reply to Objection 12: Several persons ought to be present at the
solemn celebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says (De Consecr. ,
dist. 1): "It has also been ordained, that no priest is to presume to
celebrate solemn mass, unless two others be present answering him,
while he himself makes the third; because when he says in the plural,
'The Lord be with you,' and again in the Secrets, 'Pray ye for me,' it
is most becoming that they should answer his greeting. " Hence it is for
the sake of greater solemnity that we find it decreed (De Consecr.
dist. 1) that a bishop is to solemnize mass with several assistants.
Nevertheless, in private masses it suffices to have one server, who
takes the place of the whole Catholic people, on whose behalf he makes
answer in the plural to the priest.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the defects occurring during the celebration of this sacrament can
be sufficiently met by observing the Church's statutes?

Objection 1: It seems that the defects occurring during the celebration
of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing the statutes
of the Church. For it sometimes happens that before or after the
consecration the priest dies or goes mad, or is hindered by some other
infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the mass.
Consequently it seems impossible to observe the Church's statute,
whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his own sacrifice.

Objection 2: Further, it sometimes happens that, before the
consecration, the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk
something, or that he is in mortal sin, or under excommunication, which
he did not remember previously. Therefore, in such a dilemma a man must
necessarily commit mortal sin by acting against the Church's statute,
whether he receives or not.

Objection 3: Further, it sometimes happens that a fly or a spider, or
some other poisonous creature falls into the chalice after the
consecration. Or even that the priest comes to know that poison has
been put in by some evilly disposed person in order to kill him. Now in
this instance, if he takes it, he appears to sin by killing himself, or
by tempting God: also in like manner if he does not take it, he sins by
acting against the Church's statute. Consequently, he seems to be
perplexed, and under necessity of sinning, which is not becoming.

Objection 4: Further, it sometimes happens from the server's want of
heed that water is not added to the chalice, or even the wine
overlooked, and that the priest discovers this. Therefore he seems to
be perplexed likewise in this case, whether he receives the body
without the blood, thus making the sacrifice to be incomplete, or
whether he receives neither the body nor the blood.

Objection 5: Further, it sometimes happens that the priest cannot
remember having said the words of consecration, or other words which
are uttered in the celebration of this sacrament. In this case he seems
to sin, whether he repeats the words over the same matter, which words
possibly he has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine which
are not consecrated, as if they were consecrated.

Objection 6: Further, it sometimes comes to pass owing to the cold that
the host will slip from the priest's hands into the chalice, either
before or after the breaking. In this case then the priest will not be
able to comply with the Church's rite, either as to the breaking, or
else as to this, that only a third part is put into the chalice.

Objection 7: Further, sometimes, too, it happens, owing to the priest's
want of care, that Christ's blood is spilled, or that he vomits the
sacrament received, or that the consecrated hosts are kept so long that
they become corrupt, or that they are nibbled by mice, or lost in any
manner whatsoever; in which cases it does not seem possible for due
reverence to be shown towards this sacrament, as the Church's
ordinances require. It does not seem then that such defects or dangers
can be met by keeping to the Church's statutes.

On the contrary, Just as God does not command an impossibility, so
neither does the Church.

I answer that, Dangers or defects happening to this sacrament can be
met in two ways: first, by preventing any such mishaps from occurring:
secondly, by dealing with them in such a way, that what may have
happened amiss is put right, either by employing a remedy, or at least
by repentance on his part who has acted negligently regarding this
sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: If the priest be stricken by death or grave
sickness before the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is
no need for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after
the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been
consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after
both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to
be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii, q.
1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo:
"We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries are
consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness
supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery
begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the
consecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable for
completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be
completed either by the priest who began it, or by the one who follows
him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in
perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the change of
persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy
issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of
natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no minister or
priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he
be absolutely prevented from continuing. If anyone shall have rashly
presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication. "

Reply to Objection 2: Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous
course should always be followed. But the greatest danger regarding
this sacrament lies in whatever may prevent its completion, because
this is a heinous sacrilege; while that danger is of less account which
regards the condition of the receiver. Consequently, if after the
consecration has been begun the priest remembers that he has eaten or
drunk anything, he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and
receive the sacrament. Likewise, if he recalls a sin committed, he
ought to make an act of contrition, with the firm purpose of confessing
and making satisfaction for it: and thus he will not receive the
sacrament unworthily, but with profit. The same applies if he calls to
mind that he is under some excommunication; for he ought to make the
resolution of humbly seeking absolution; and so he will receive
absolution from the invisible High Priest Jesus Christ for his act of
completing the Divine mysteries.

But if he calls to mind any of the above facts previous to the
consecration, I should deem it safer for him to interrupt the mass
begun, especially if he has broken his fast, or is under
excommunication, unless grave scandal were to be feared.

Reply to Objection 3: If a fly or a spider falls into the chalice
before consecration, or if it be discovered that the wine is poisoned,
it ought to be poured out, and after purifying the chalice, fresh wine
should be served for consecration. But if anything of the sort happen
after the consecration, the insect should be caught carefully and
washed thoroughly, then burned, and the "ablution," together with the
ashes, thrown into the sacrarium. If it be discovered that the wine has
been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor administer it
to others on any account, lest the life-giving chalice become one of
death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with the relics:
and in order that the sacrament may not remain incomplete, he ought to
put other wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the consecration
of the blood, and complete the sacrifice.

Reply to Objection 4: If before the consecration of the blood, and
after the consecration of the body the priest detect that either the
wine or the water is absent, then he ought at once to add them and
consecrate. But if after the words of consecration he discover that the
water is absent, he ought notwithstanding to proceed straight on,
because the addition of the water is not necessary for the sacrament,
as stated above ([4710]Q[74], A[7]): nevertheless the person
responsible for the neglect ought to be punished. And on no account
should water be mixed with the consecrated wine, because corruption of
the sacrament would ensue in part, as was said above ([4711]Q[77],
A[8]). But if after the words of consecration the priest perceive that
no wine has been put in the chalice, and if he detect it before
receiving the body, then rejecting the water, he ought to pour in wine
with water, and begin over again the consecrating words of the blood.
But if he notice it after receiving the body, he ought to procure
another host which must be consecrated together with the blood; and I
say so for this reason, because if he were to say only the words of
consecration of the blood, the proper order of consecrating would not
be observed; and, as is laid down by the Council of Toledo, quoted
above (ad 1), sacrifices cannot be perfect, except they be performed in
perfect order. But if he were to begin from the consecration of the
blood, and were to repeat all the words which follow, it would not
suffice, unless there was a consecrated host present, since in those
words there are things to be said and done not only regarding the
blood, but also regarding the body; and at the close he ought once more
to receive the consecrated host and blood, even if he had already taken
the water which was in the chalice, because the precept of the
completing this sacrament is of greater weight than the precept of
receiving the sacrament while fasting, as stated above ([4712]Q[80],
A[8]).

Reply to Objection 5: Although the priest may not recollect having said
some of the words he ought to say, he ought not to be disturbed
mentally on that account; for a man who utters many words cannot recall
to mind all that he has said; unless perchance in uttering them he
adverts to something connected with the consecration; for so it is
impressed on the memory. Hence, if a man pays attention to what he is
saying, but without adverting to the fact that he is saying these
particular words, he remembers soon after that he has said them; for, a
thing is presented to the memory under the formality of the past (De
Mem. et Remin. i).

But if it seem to the priest that he has probably omitted some of the
words that are not necessary for the sacrament, I think that he ought
not to repeat them on that account, changing the order of the
sacrifice, but that he ought to proceed: but if he is certain that he
has left out any of those that are necessary for the sacrament, namely,
the form of the consecration, since the form of the consecration is
necessary for the sacrament, just as the matter is, it seems that the
same thing ought to be done as was stated above (ad 4) with regard to
defect in the matter, namely, that he should begin again with the form
of the consecration, and repeat the other things in order, lest the
order of the sacrifice be altered.

Reply to Objection 6: The breaking of the consecrated host, and the
putting of only one part into the chalice, regards the mystical body,
just as the mixing with water signifies the people, and therefore the
omission of either of them causes no such imperfection in the
sacrifice, as calls for repetition regarding the celebration of this
sacrament.

Reply to Objection 7: According to the decree, De Consecr. , dist. ii,
quoting a decree of Pope Pius I, "If from neglect any of the blood
falls upon a board which is fixed to the ground, let it be taken up
with the tongue, and let the board be scraped. But if it be not a
board, let the ground be scraped, and the scrapings burned, and the
ashes buried inside the altar and let the priest do penance for forty
days. But if a drop fall from the chalice on to the altar, let the
minister suck up the drop, and do penance during three days; if it
falls upon the altar cloth and penetrates to the second altar cloth,
let him do four days' penance; if it penetrates to the third, let him
do nine days' penance; if to the fourth, let him do twenty days'
penance; and let the altar linens which the drop touched be washed
three times by the priest, holding the chalice below, then let the
water be taken and put away nigh to the altar. " It might even be drunk
by the minister, unless it might be rejected from nausea. Some persons
go further, and cut out that part of the linen, which they burn,
putting the ashes in the altar or down the sacrarium. And the Decretal
continues with a quotation from the Penitential of Bede the Priest:
"If, owing to drunkenness or gluttony, anyone vomits up the Eucharist,
let him do forty days' penance, if he be a layman; but let clerics or
monks, deacons and priests, do seventy days' penance; and let a bishop
do ninety days'. But if they vomit from sickness, let them do penance
for seven days. " And in the same distinction, we read a decree of the
(Fourth) Council of Arles: "They who do not keep proper custody over
the sacrament, if a mouse or other animal consume it, must do forty
days' penance: he who loses it in a church, or if a part fall and be
not found, shall do thirty days' penance. " And the priest seems to
deserve the same penance, who from neglect allows the hosts to putrefy.
And on those days the one doing penance ought to fast, and abstain from
Communion. However, after weighing the circumstances of the fact and of
the person, the said penances may be lessened or increased. But it must
be observed that wherever the species are found to be entire, they must
be preserved reverently, or consumed; because Christ's body is there so
long as the species last, as stated above ([4713]Q[77], AA[4],5). But
if it can be done conveniently, the things in which they are found are
to be burned, and the ashes put in the sacrarium, as was said of the
scrapings of the altar-table, here above.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE (TEN ARTICLES)

We must now consider the Sacrament of Penance. We shall consider (1)
Penance itself; (2) Its effect; (3) Its Parts; (4) The recipients of
this sacrament; (5) The power of the ministers, which pertains to the
keys; (6) The solemnization of this sacrament.

The first of these considerations will be two fold: (1) Penance as a
sacrament; (2) Penance as a virtue.

Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Penance is a sacrament?

(2) Of its proper matter;

(3) Of its form;

(4) Whether imposition of hands is necessary for this sacrament?

(5) Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?

(6) Of its relation to the other sacraments;

(7) Of its institution;

(8) Of its duration;

(9) Of its continuance;

(10) Whether it can be repeated?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Penance is a sacrament?

Objection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a sacrament. For Gregory
[*Cf. Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19] says: "The sacraments are Baptism,
Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ; which are called sacraments
because under the veil of corporeal things the Divine power works out
salvation in a hidden manner. " But this does not happen in Penance,
because therein corporeal things are not employed that, under them, the
power of God may work our salvation. Therefore Penance is not a
sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, the sacraments of the Church are shown forth by
the ministers of Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4:1: "Let a man so account
of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the
mysteries of God. " But Penance is not conferred by the ministers of
Christ, but is inspired inwardly into man by God, according to Jer.
31:19: "After Thou didst convert me, I did penance. " Therefore it seems
that Penance is not a sacrament.

Objection 3: Further, in the sacraments of which we have already spoken
above, there is something that is sacrament only, something that is
both reality and sacrament, and something that is reality only, as is
clear from what has been stated ([4714]Q[66], A[1]). But this does not
apply to Penance. Therefore Penance is not a sacrament.

On the contrary, As Baptism is conferred that we may be cleansed from
sin, so also is Penance: wherefore Peter said to Simon Magus (Acts
8:22): "Do penance . . . from this thy wickedness. " But Baptism is a
sacrament as stated above ([4715]Q[66], A[1]). Therefore for the same
reason Penance is also a sacrament.

I answer that, As Gregory says [*Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19], "a
sacrament consists in a solemn act, whereby something is so done that
we understand it to signify the holiness which it confers. " Now it is
evident that in Penance something is done so that something holy is
signified both on the part of the penitent sinner, and on the part of
the priest absolving, because the penitent sinner, by deed and word,
shows his heart to have renounced sin, and in like manner the priest,
by his deed and word with regard to the penitent, signifies the work of
God Who forgives his sins. Therefore it is evident that Penance, as
practiced in the Church, is a sacrament.

Reply to Objection 1: By corporeal things taken in a wide sense we may
understand also external sensible actions, which are to this sacrament
what water is to Baptism, or chrism to Confirmation. But it is to be
observed that in those sacraments, whereby an exceptional grace
surpassing altogether the proportion of a human act, is conferred, some
corporeal matter is employed externally, e. g. in Baptism, which confers
full remission of all sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, and
in Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, and
in Extreme Unction, which confers perfect spiritual health derived from
the virtue of Christ as from an extrinsic principle. Wherefore, such
human acts as are in these sacraments, are not the essential matter of
the sacrament, but are dispositions thereto. On the other hand, in
those sacraments whose effect corresponds to that of some human act,
the sensible human act itself takes the place of matter, as in the case
of Penance and Matrimony, even as in bodily medicines, some are applied
externally, such as plasters and drugs, while others are acts of the
person who seeks to be cured, such as certain exercises.

Reply to Objection 2: In those sacraments which have a corporeal
matter, this matter needs to be applied by a minister of the Church,
who stands in the place of Christ, which denotes that the excellence of
the power which operates in the sacraments is from Christ. But in the
sacrament of Penance, as stated above (ad 1), human actions take the
place of matter, and these actions proceed from internal inspiration,
wherefore the matter is not applied by the minister, but by God working
inwardly; while the minister furnishes the complement of the sacrament,
when he absolves the penitent.
Reply to Objection 3: In Penance also, there is something which is
sacrament only, viz. the acts performed outwardly both by the repentant
sinner, and by the priest in giving absolution; that which is reality
and sacrament is the sinner's inward repentance; while that which is
reality, and not sacrament, is the forgiveness of sin. The first of
these taken altogether is the cause of the second; and the first and
second together are the cause of the third.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether sins are the proper matter of this sacrament?

Objection 1: It would seem that sins are not the proper matter of this
sacrament. Because, in the other sacraments, the matter is hallowed by
the utterance of certain words, and being thus hallowed produces the
sacramental effect. Now sins cannot be hallowed, for they are opposed
to the effect of the sacrament, viz. grace which blots out sin.
Therefore sins are not the proper matter of this sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine says in his book De Poenitentia [Cf.
Serm. cccli]: "No one can begin a new life, unless he repent of the
old. " Now not only sins but also the penalties of the present life
belong to the old life. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of
Penance.

Objection 3: Further, sin is either original, mortal or venial. Now the
sacrament of Penance is not ordained against original sin, for this is
taken away by Baptism, [nor against mortal sin, for this is taken away
by the sinner's confession]*, nor against venial sin, which is taken
away by the beating of the breast and the sprinkling of holy water and
the like. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of Penance. [*The
words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition].

On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:21): "(Who) have not done
penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness, that
they have committed. "

I answer that, Matter is twofold, viz. proximate and remote: thus the
proximate matter of a statue is a metal, while the remote matter is
water. Now it has been stated (A[1], ad 1, ad 2), that the proximate
matter of this sacrament consists in the acts of the penitent, the
matter of which acts are the sins over which he grieves, which he
confesses, and for which he satisfies. Hence it follows that sins are
the remote matter of Penance, as a matter, not for approval, but for
detestation, and destruction.

Reply to Objection 1: This argument considers the proximate matter of a
sacrament.

Reply to Objection 2: The old life that was subject to death is the
object of Penance, not as regards the punishment, but as regards the
guilt connected with it.

Reply to Objection 3: Penance regards every kind of sin in a way, but
not each in the same way. Because Penance regards actual mortal sin
properly and chiefly; properly, since, properly speaking, we are said
to repent of what we have done of our own will; chiefly, since this
sacrament was instituted chiefly for the blotting out of mortal sin.
Penance regards venial sins, properly speaking indeed, in so far as
they are committed of our own will, but this was not the chief purpose
of its institution. But as to original sin, Penance regards it neither
chiefly, since Baptism, and not Penance, is ordained against original
sin, nor properly, because original sin is not done of our own will,
except in so far as Adam's will is looked upon as ours, in which sense
the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12): "In whom all have sinned. " Nevertheless,
Penance may be said to regard original sin, if we take it in a wide
sense for any detestation of something past: in which sense Augustine
uses the term in his book De Poenitentia (Serm. cccli).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the form of this sacrament is: "I absolve thee"?

Objection 1: It would seem that the form of this sacrament is not: "I
absolve thee. " Because the forms of the sacraments are received from
Christ's institution and the Church's custom. But we do not read that
Christ instituted this form. Nor is it in common use; in fact in
certain absolutions which are given publicly in church (e. g. at Prime
and Compline and on Maundy Thursday), absolution is given not in the
indicative form by saying: "I absolve thee," but In the deprecatory
form, by saying: "May Almighty God have mercy on you," or: "May
Almighty God grant you absolution and forgiveness. " Therefore the form
of this sacrament is not: "I absolve thee. "

Objection 2: Further, Pope Leo says (Ep. cviii) that God's forgiveness
cannot be obtained without the priestly supplications: and he is
speaking there of God's forgiveness granted to the penitent. Therefore
the form of this sacrament should be deprecatory.

Objection 3: Further, to absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin.
But God alone remits sin, for He alone cleanses man inwardly from sin,
as Augustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). Therefore it seems that God
alone absolves from sin. Therefore the priest should say not: "I
absolve thee," as neither does he say: "I remit thy sins. "

Objection 4: Further, just as our Lord gave His disciples the power to
absolve from sins, so also did He give them the power "to heal
infirmities," "to cast out devils," and "to cure diseases" (Mat. 10:1;
Lk. 9:1). Now the apostles, in healing the sick, did not use the words:
"I heal thee," but: "The Lord Jesus Christ heal [Vulg. : 'heals'] thee,"
as Peter said to the palsied man (Acts 9:34). Therefore since priests
have the power which Christ gave His apostles, it seems that they
should not use the form: "I absolve thee," but: "May Christ absolve
thee. "

Objection 5: Further, some explain this form by stating that when they
say: "I absolve thee," they mean "I declare you to be absolved. " But
neither can this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by
God, wherefore, as we read in Mat. 16:19 before it was said to Peter:
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth," etc. , it was said to him (Mat.
16:17): "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood have
not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. " Therefore it
seems presumptuous for a priest, who has received no revelation on the
matter, to say: "I absolve thee," even if this be explained to mean: "I
declare thee absolved. "

On the contrary, As our Lord said to His disciples (Mat. 28:19): "Going
. . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them," etc. , so did He say to
Peter (Mat. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc. Now
the priest, relying on the authority of those words of Christ, says: "I
baptize thee. " Therefore on the same authority he should say in this
sacrament: "I absolve thee. "

I answer that, The perfection of a thing is ascribed to its form. Now
it has been stated above (A[1], ad 2) that this sacrament is perfected
by that which is done by the priest. Wherefore the part taken by the
penitent, whether it consist of words or deeds, must needs be the
matter of this sacrament, while the part taken by the priest, takes the
place of the form.

Now since the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify,
as stated above ([4716]Q[62], A[1], ad 1), it behooves the sacramental
form to signify the sacramental effect in a manner that is in keeping
with the matter. Hence the form of Baptism is: "I baptize thee," and
the form of Confirmation is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross,
and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation," because these
sacraments are perfected in the use of their matter: while in the
sacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration of
the matter, the reality of the consecration is expressed in the words:
"This is My Body. "

Now this sacrament, namely the sacrament of Penance, consists not in
the consecration of a matter, nor in the use of a hallowed matter, but
rather in the removal of a certain matter, viz. sin, in so far as sins
are said to be the matter of Penance, as explained above [4717](A[2]).
This removal is expressed by the priest saying: "I absolve thee":
because sins are fetters, according to Prov. 5:22. "His own iniquities
catch the wicked, and he is fast bound with the ropes of his own sins. "
Wherefore it is evident that this is the most fitting form of this
sacrament: "I absolve thee. "

Reply to Objection 1: This form is taken from Christ's very words which
He addressed to Peter (Mat. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth," etc. , and such is the form employed by the Church in
sacramental absolution. But such absolutions as are given in public are
not sacramental, but are prayers for the remission of venial sins.
Wherefore in giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice to say:
"May Almighty God have mercy on thee," or: "May God grant thee
absolution and forgiveness," because by such words the priest does not
signify the giving of absolution, but prays that it may be given.
Nevertheless the above prayer is said before the sacramental absolution
is given, lest the sacramental effect be hindered on the part of the
penitent, whose acts are as matter in this sacrament, but not in
Baptism or Confirmation.

Reply to Objection 2: The words of Leo are to be understood of the
prayer that precedes the absolution, and do not exclude the fact that
the priest pronounces absolution.

Reply to Objection 3: God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins
authoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words
of the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine
power, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power that
works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or words,
as shown above ([4718]Q[62], A[4];[4719] Q[64], AA[1],2). Wherefore our
Lord expressed both: for He said to Peter (Mat. 16:19): "Whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth," etc. , and to His disciples (Jn. 20:23):
"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. " Yet the priest
says: "I absolve thee," rather than: "I forgive thee thy sins," because
it is more in keeping with the words of our Lord, by expressing the
power of the keys whereby priests absolve. Nevertheless, since the
priest absolves ministerially, something is suitably added in reference
to the supreme authority of God, by the priest saying: "I absolve thee
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," or
by the power of Christ's Passion, or by the authority of God. However,
as this is not defined by the words of Christ, as it is for Baptism,
this addition is left to the discretion of the priest.

Reply to Objection 4: Power was given to the apostles, not that they
themselves might heal the sick, but that the sick might be healed at
the prayer of the apostles: whereas power was given to them to work
instrumentally or ministerially in the sacraments; wherefore they could
express their own agency in the sacramental forms rather than in the
healing of infirmities. Nevertheless in the latter case they did not
always use the deprecatory form, but sometimes employed the indicative
or imperative: thus we read (Acts 3:6) that Peter said to the lame man:
"What I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
arise and walk. "

Reply to Objection 5: It is true in a sense that the words, "I absolve
thee" mean "I declare thee absolved," but this explanation is
incomplete. Because the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but
effect what they signify. Wherefore, just as the priest in baptizing
anyone, declares by deed and word that the person is washed inwardly,
and this not only significatively but also effectively, so also when he
says: "I absolve thee," he declares the man to be absolved not only
significatively but also effectively. And yet he does not speak as of
something uncertain, because just as the other sacraments of the New
Law have, of themselves, a sure effect through the power of Christ's
Passion, which effect, nevertheless, may be impeded on the part of the
recipient, so is it with this sacrament. Hence Augustine says (De
Adult. Conjug. ii): "There is nothing disgraceful or onerous in the
reconciliation of husband and wife, when adultery committed has been
washed away, since there is no doubt that remission of sins is granted
through the keys of the kingdom of heaven. " Consequently there is no
need for a special revelation to be made to the priest, but the general
revelation of faith suffices, through which sins are forgiven. Hence
the revelation of faith is said to have been made to Peter.

It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, "I
absolve thee" mean: "I grant thee the sacrament of absolution. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this
sacrament?

Objection 1: It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands is
necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (Mk. 16:18): "They
shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. " Now sinners are
sick spiritually, and obtain recovery through this sacrament. Therefore
an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament.

Objection 2: Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Ghost Whom
he had lost, wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent (Ps.
1:14): "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me
with a perfect spirit. " Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition
of hands; for we read (Acts 8:17) that the apostles "laid their hands
upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost"; and (Mat. 19:13) that
"little children were presented" to our Lord, "that He should impose
hands upon them. " Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in
this sacrament.

Objection 3: Further, the priest's words are not more efficacious in
this than in the other sacraments. But in the other sacraments the
words of the minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action:
thus, in Baptism, the priest while saying: "I baptize thee," has to
perform a bodily washing. Therefore, also while saying: "I absolve
thee," the priest should perform some action in regard to the penitent,
by laying hands on him.

On the contrary, When our Lord said to Peter (Mat. 16:19): "Whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth," etc. , He made no mention of an imposition
of hands; nor did He when He said to all the apostles (Jn. 20:13):
"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. " Therefore no
imposition of hands is required for this sacrament.

I answer that, In the sacraments of the Church the imposition of hands
is made, to signify some abundant effect of grace, through those on
whom the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the ministers in
whom grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition of hands is
made in the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy
Ghost is conferred; and in the sacrament of order, wherein is bestowed
a certain excellence of power over the Divine mysteries; hence it is
written (2 Tim. 1:6): "Stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by
the imposition of my hands. "

Now the sacrament of Penance is ordained, not that man may receive some
abundance of grace, but that his sins may be taken away; and therefore
no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as neither is
there for Baptism, wherein nevertheless a fuller remission of sins is
bestowed.

Reply to Objection 1: That imposition of hands is not sacramental, but
is intended for the working of miracles, namely, that by the contact of
a sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even
as we read of our Lord (Mk. 6:5) that He cured the sick, "laying His
hands upon them," and (Mat. 8:3) that He cleansed a leper by touching
him.

Reply to Objection 2: It is not every reception of the Holy Ghost that
requires an imposition of hands, since even in Baptism man receives the
Holy Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the reception of
the fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to Confirmation that an
imposition of hands is required.

Reply to Objection 3: In those sacraments which are perfected in the
use of the matter, the minister has to perform some bodily action on
the recipient of the sacrament, e. g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and
Extreme Unction; whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use of
matter employed outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part taken
by the penitent: wherefore, just as in the Eucharist the priest
perfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the matter,
so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces over the
penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution. If, indeed, any bodily
act were necessary on the part of the priest, the sign of the cross,
which is employed in the Eucharist, would not be less becoming than the
imposition of hands, in token that sins are forgiven through the blood
of Christ crucified; and yet this is not essential to this sacrament as
neither is it to the Eucharist.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?

Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for
salvation. Because on Ps. 125:5, "They that sow in tears," etc. , the
gloss says: "Be not sorrowful, if thou hast a good will, of which peace
is the meed. " But sorrow is essential to Penance, according to 2 Cor.
7:10: "The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast
unto salvation. " Therefore a good will without Penance suffices for
salvation.

Objection 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth
all sins," and further on (Prov. 15:27): "By mercy and faith sins are
purged away. " But this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging of
sins. Therefore if one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can obtain
salvation, without the sacrament of Penance.

Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin
from the institution of Christ. But according to Jn. 8 Christ absolved
the adulterous woman without Penance. Therefore it seems that Penance
is not necessary for salvation.

On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 13:3): "Unless you shall do
penance, you shall all likewise perish. "

I answer that, A thing is necessary for salvation in two ways: first,
absolutely; secondly, on a supposition. A thing is absolutely necessary
for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it, as, for
example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism, whereby a
man is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is necessary on a
supposition, for it is necessary, not for all, but for those who are in
sin. For it is written (2 Paral 37 [*The prayer of Manasses, among the
Apocrypha]), "Thou, Lord, God of the righteous, hast not appointed
repentance to the righteous, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor to those
who sinned not against Thee. " But "sin, when it is completed, begetteth
death" (James 1:15). Consequently it is necessary for the sinner's
salvation that sin be taken away from him; which cannot be done without
the sacrament of Penance, wherein the power of Christ's Passion
operates through the priest's absolution and the acts of the penitent,
who co-operates with grace unto the destruction of his sin. For as
Augustine says (Tract. lxxii in Joan. [*Implicitly in the passage
referred to, but explicitly Serm. xv de verb Apost. ]), "He Who created
thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee. " Therefore it is
evident that after sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for
salvation, even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous
disease.

Reply to Objection 1: This gloss should apparently be understood as
referring to the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin, for such a
man has no cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited
through sin, it cannot be restored without that sorrow whereby a man
sorrows for his past sin, and which belongs to Penance.

Reply to Objection 2: As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith,
and mercy do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity
demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his
friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his
friend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his
sins through the power of Christ's Passion which operates in the
sacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates that man
should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into which
sin has brought him, according to Prov. 14:34: "Sin maketh nations
miserable"; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 30:24): "Have pity on thy
own soul, pleasing God. "

Reply to Objection 3: It was due to His power of "excellence," which He
alone had, as stated above ([4720]Q[64], A[3]), that Christ bestowed on
the adulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of Penance, viz. the
forgiveness of sins, without the sacrament of Penance, although not
without internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Penance is a second plank after shipwreck?

Objection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after
shipwreck. Because on Is. 3:9, "They have proclaimed abroad their sin
as Sodom," a gloss says: "The second plank after shipwreck is to hide
one's sins. " Now Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them.
Therefore Penance is not a second plank.

Objection 2: Further, in a building the foundation takes the first, not
the second place. Now in the spiritual edifice, Penance is the
foundation, according to Heb. 6:1: "Not laying again the foundation of
Penance from dead works"; wherefore it precedes even Baptism, according
to Acts 2:38: "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you. " Therefore
Penance should not be called a second plank.

Objection 3: Further, all the sacraments are planks, i. e. helps against
sin. Now Penance holds, not the second but the fourth, place among the
sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above ([4721]Q[65],
AA[1],2). Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank after
shipwreck.

On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that "Penance is a second plank
after shipwreck. "

I answer that, That which is of itself precedes naturally that which is
accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some sacraments are, of
themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e. g. Baptism, which is the
spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the spiritual growth, the
Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas Penance is ordained to
man's salvation accidentally as it were, and on something being
supposed, viz. sin: for unless man were to sin actually, he would not
stand in need of Penance and yet he would need Baptism, Confirmation,
and the Eucharist; even as in the life of the body, man would need no
medical treatment, unless he were ill, and yet life, birth, growth, and
food are, of themselves, necessary to man.

Consequently Penance holds the second place with regard to the state of
integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the aforesaid
sacraments, so that it is called metaphorically "a second plank after
shipwreck. " For just as the first help for those who cross the sea is
to be safeguarded in a whole ship, while the second help when the ship
is wrecked, is to cling to a plank; so too the first help in this
life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity, while the second help
is, if he lose his integrity through sin, that he regain it by means of
Penance.