Adolf Harnack · 15 of 17

3. On the History of Ecclesiastical Science.. · Part 6

Q. 7 treats of the “quidditas confessionis,” i.e., of its nature, as “disclosure of the latent disease in the hope of pardon” (aperitio latentis morbi spe veniæ); and also as an “ exercise of virtue” (actus virtutis) and as an “exercise of the virtue of penitence” (actus virtutis pænitentiæ). Q. 8 is specially important, for it develops the doctrine as to the administrator (“minister”) of confession. Here it is at once said in Art. 1: “The grace that is conferred in the Sacraments descends from the head to the members, and so he only is the minister of the Sacraments in which grace is given, who has a ministry in connection with the true body of Christ (qui habet ministerium super corpus Christi verum), which belongs only to the priest who is able to consecrate the Eucharist, and therefore as in the Sacrament of Penance grace is conferred, the priest only is minister of this Sacrament, and therefore to him only must be made the sacramental confession (sacramentalis confessio) which ought to be made to the minister of the Church.” But in Art. 2 it is conceded, that “in case of necessity a layman supplies the place of the priest, so that it is possible to make confession to him” (in necessitate etiam laicus vicem sacerdotis supplet, ut ei confessio fieri possit). The necessity of confessing venial sins to the priest is denied (Art. 3), and this view continued to be held, as even Duns assented to it. Confession must take place before the Parochus (priest of the parish); only by authority of one of higher rank (“ex superioris privilegio”) and in case of death (“in casu mortis”) (Art. 4-6) may this be departed from. In Q. 9, on the “quality of confession,” Art. 2, which treats of the “integrity of the confession,” and Art. 3, which forbids confession “through another or in writing,” are specially important. Q. 10 deals with the effect of confession, and 11 with the reticence of the minister, which is very strongly accentuated (“God covers the sin of him who surrenders himself in penitence; hence this also should be indicated in the Sacrament of Penance (hoc oportet in sacramento pænitentiæ significari), and thus it is of the essence of the Sacrament (de necessitate sacramenti), that one conceal confession, and he sins as a violator of the Sacraments who reveals confession” (et tanquam violator sacramenti peccat, qui confessionem revelat).

These definitions of Thomas underwent, indeed, many modifications in the Scotist School, but in substance they became permanent.

Confession is made before the priest; it is followed by absolution. We have already pointed out how much time elapsed before the new ideas became currently accepted, (1) that confession must be made to the priest, (2) that the priest confers absolution as proceeding from himself (in the exercise of divine authority) and as effectual (Matth. 16, John 20). The power of absolution, which is given to every priest, appears complicated because it is connected with the power of jurisdiction (in its application), which, as is well known, was graded. Here also Thomas was the first to furnish the theory; for even for Halesius and Bonaventura there are still points of uncertainty, which were due to the continued influence of the older view. In the Summa P. III., Suppl. Q. 17-24, Thomas has developed the doctrine of the power of the keys (potestas clavium), and has shown that the priest’s absolution is the “causa instrumentalis” (in a physical sense) of the forgiveness of sin. But in the Scotist School, which in general relaxed the connection between the Sacrament and the res sacramenti, only a moral communication, through absolution, of forgiveness of sin was assumed, the priest being held as moving God by means of his absolution to fulfil his “covenant.” The priests’ power of jurisdiction has also been dealt with by Thomas, and from his time it was always treated in connection with the theory of absolution, although it leads in a quite different direction, is really calculated indeed to weaken confidence in the power of every priest to absolve. It was asserted, that is to say, by the majority, though not by all, that the power of jurisdiction is also ex jure divino (by divine authority), and that the restrictions therefore on the permissible conferring of absolution were not merely ecclesiastical regulations, but had divine right. But in the Middle Ages there had by this time developed itself an immense system of special permissions, reservations, etc., which had their basis in arbitrary decisions of the Popes. The position, though vigorously contested, continued to be held as valid, that ecclesiastical superiors “in conveying judicial power in foro interno can by reservation make any kind of restrictions in respect of duration, place, and object.” Was it not inevitable that by such procedure, in dealing with which it was impossible for the layman to find his way, confusion and uncertainty should arise about the Sacrament?

Absolution is preceded by the appointment of satisfactio, if such has not already been made. Here the priest acts as a skilled physician (medicus peritus) and impartial judge (judex aequus). The practice of satisfactions (Church-penances) is very old (see vol. v., p. 268 f., 324 ff.), the giving it a mechanical form and the over-estimation of it — by putting it alongside contritio as a part of penance — are in theory comparatively new. The idea is now this, that satisfactio, as a portion of the Sacrament of Penance, is the necessary manifestation of sorrow through works that are fitted to furnish a certain satisfaction to the injured God (and thereby become the occasion also for limiting the temporal penalties). In baptism there is forgiveness of the sin, along with the penalty, without any satisfaction; but God requires from the baptised person a certain satisfaction — although both before and now the merit of Christ is the decisive thing — partly because the man can render a certain satisfaction, partly because it serves to make him better, and is fitted to protect him against further sins. But this satisfaction is only of real value when it is rendered in a state of grace (caritas). Hence the man guilty of mortal sin must first be absolved, that he may then furnish the satisfaction which is required of him, and which he has promised to render prior to absolution. But there is a certain value also in works that are not performed in a state of grace (caritas); even they are not without their weight as satisfactions, and can abridge the temporal penalties of sin. The satisfying works are especially prayer, fasting, and alms; for they deliver man from his natural disposition. But the Schoolmen also justified the practice that originated in the wilder times of the Germanic Church, according to which satisfaction can, under certain circumstances, be rendered by others, because Christians are united to one another as members of one body. And this leads us to the subject of indulgences.

Indulgences. The doctrine of indulgence stands inwardly in closest relation to the doctrine of attritio; outwardly it appears as a consequence of the doctrine of satisfactio. Theoretically it has nothing to do with the reatus culpæ (moral culpability) and the reatus pœnæ æternæ (liability to eternal death); in practice there not only arose, in the Middle Ages, serious irregularities, which the Catholics (see the Council of Trent) admit, but these irregularities still continue, and nothing is done to check the over-estimation of indulgences.

Scholasticism found indulgences already in existence, a great increase of them having taken place especially in the period of the Crusades. It simply framed its theory according to the practice. If the doctrine of satisfaction was already an extremely arbitrary one, which, in spite of all saving clauses, necessarily endangered the importance of repentance, the doctrine of indulgence became arbitrariness intensified, and exercised an extremely ruinous influence on religion and morality. The practice and theory of indulgences can, no doubt, be idealised, nay, it is possible indeed to justify, in a certain way, the idealised practice. Were that not possible it would be incredible that so many earnest Christians have defended indulgences. But the scholastic theology by no means idealised them.

The practice of indulgences has its root in the commutations. The exchange of more arduous for easier penitential acts was called indulgence. The penance performances were here taken into consideration in their significance for the expiation of the temporal penalties of sin. The heaviest temporal penalties for sin were those of purgatory: for the earthly penalties for sin were, on the one hand, as experience taught, unavoidable, and on the other hand, even though one thought of year-long penances, they were of no weight as compared with the long and painful penalties in purgatory. It was a refined practice of the Church, which had gradually developed itself, to comfort men in an easy way about hell by means of grace (Sacrament of Penance), and, on the other hand, to terrify them by means of purgatory. Was this purgatory, then, not also a hell? But how skilfully was the whole idea derived from studying the moral feelings of the homines attriti (men practising attrition)! They did not really believe in hell, because the gravity of sin had not been disclosed to them, and because, accordingly, they were not to be constrained to a life in God. Hence the Church shut up hell by means of the Sacrament of Penance. But that at some period in the future it would, for a long time, go very badly with them, and that one day they must expiate all their sins, — that they believed. Therefore the Church opened purgatory. That this purgatory could be made less severe or briefer, these homines attriti were also very ready to believe; for they lived, all of them, in the thought that good performances simply compensate for delinquencies, and even the “gallows contrition” is not so enduring as to constrain men to practise serious repentance — even in the sense of steady self-denial and heroic action. Hence the Church discloses indulgences. In them she shows to the man of lower type her real power; for the magic of the Sacrament of Penance has certainly not yet given him complete rest. He has a remnant of the moral feeling that something must be done on his part in order that forgiveness may become credible and sure. “Faith” and “contrition” he neither can nor will practise, but something he will willingly do. Here the Church now intervenes, and says to him that his poor performance can be converted and transformed by the power of the Church into something so lofty that by means of it the penalties of sin in purgatory are abolished. The man wishes to know no more. What has still to happen can cause him little concern, and the Church itself says to him that if he is well provided with the Sacrament of Penance, what follows will not affect him. Attritio, sacramentum pænitentiæ, indulgentia, — these form the Catholic triad. What was to be done for the indulgence was the only burdensome thing here; but even this was made very easy. Thus the indulgence became a caricature (persiflage) of Christianity as the religion of redemption through Christ.

The theory of the Schoolmen is as follows: After there had been uncertainty till far on in the thirteenth century as to whether the indulgences did not relate merely to the ecclesiastical penalties imposed by the priest, Thomas laid it down that they apply in general to the liability to temporal penalty (reatus temporalis pœnæ) (“on earth and in purgatory”). The righteousness of God demands that no sin shall remain “inordinate” (inordinata), and that man shall also perform what he can perform. He is obliged, accordingly, even as absolved, to discharge the temporal penalties of sin. But what the merit of Christ does not do of itself and directly, inasmuch as in the Sacrament it cancels only the reatus culpæ et pœnæ, it does outwith the Sacrament as merit. Christ, that is to say, has done more by His suffering than was required for redemption, and even many saints have acquired for themselves merit which God’s grace rewards. This surplus merit (thesaurus operum supererogatoriorum [treasury of supererogatory works]) must necessarily fall to the benefit of the Church as the body of Christ, since neither Christ nor the saints can derive further advantage from it. But alongside the Sacrament of Penance it cannot have another effect than to moderate, abridge, or cancel the temporal penalties of sin. It can be applied only to those who, in penitent spirit, have been absolved after making confession, and it is administered in the first instance by the Pope as the head of the Church. Yet by him a partial power of ad-ministration can be conveyed to others. The regular mode of making the application is by requiring for the indulgence a comparatively very small performance (“eleemosynae,” i.e., penance money.)

Now this theory — keeping practice quite out of view — still admitted in detail of very different modifications (nuances). It could also be conceived of more strictly or more laxly. In particular, the demand that one must be in a contrite frame of mind could be lowered to an extraordinary degree. But not only did that happen; the practice, as has already been indicated, struck out on quite different paths. With more or less of design, it left the question in obscurity as to what really was cancelled by the indulgence (see the ambiguous expression “for the salvation of the soul,” and others similar); it substituted for the demand for true sorrow and honest resolution to reform a reference to the Sacrament of Penance, or it was quite silent upon the demand; it gave to the indulgence an interpretation in which the power of the Church and the priest thrust aside the theoretic basis of the merit of Christ, and, finally, it encouraged the shocking folly of believing that, by the means of religion, man can provide himself with temporal advantages, and that beyond this, the spirit and power of religion are summed up in warding off just punishments. With all this there is still unmentioned the ruinous effect that must have been produced by the frequently shameful use of the indulgence money, and by the whole speculative system of the Curia. The Sacrament of Penance culminated unfortunately in these indulgences, and without incurring the charge of deriding, one may state concisely the final word of this system thus: Every man who surrenders himself to the Catholic Church, and who, for some reason, is not quite satisfied with the inner state of his heart, can secure salvation and deliverance from all eternal and temporal penalties — if he acts with shrewdness and finds a skilful priest.

Against this theory there not only was a reaction on the part of the re-invigorated or Augustinian Thomism, in the shape of a strong insistence on the moral and religious requirements for the reception of indulgences, but — keeping the sects out of view — there also arose in the fourteenth century a radical opposition, which had likewise an Augustinian (and biblical) basis. Against no other ecclesiastical practice and theory did Wyclif assume so determined an attitude as against indulgences. He saw in them nothing but arbitrariness, which had only forced its way in of recent times; the Bible knew nothing of indulgences, which encroached upon the prerogative of God, and were therefore positively blasphemous. He also saw clearly the mischief of indulgences in hindering obedience to the law of Christ; still he did not frame a satisfactory theory as to how a distressed conscience can be comforted. For him, and for his scholar Huss, the perniciousness of indulgences lies simply in their unbiblical character, in the pretensions of the hierarchy (the Pope), and in the corruption of morals. But indulgences cannot be rooted out by merely quickening conscience and contending against priestly power.

Not less strenuous than the opposition of Wyclif and Huss to the indulgences were the attacks of Wesel and Wessel. Both likewise wrote from the standpoint of Augustine against the indulgences. They too described the theory as unbiblical and as unsupported by any tradition, and used as weapons for overthrowing it the sole efficiency of God, the majesty of the divine penal righteousness and the gratia gratis data (caritas infusa). The punishments which God decrees man cannot avert; only the penalties of positive law, or the ecclesiastical penalties, can the Pope remit. God infuses His grace without merit (sine merito), but only in the case of those who are perfectly disposed for it. At the same time Wesel relaxes the connection between sacrament and communication of grace (nominalistically: “propter pactum institutum cum sacerdotibus” [on account of an agreement instituted with the priests]). At bottom there is no distinction between his doctrine of the Sacrament and the vulgar one. He is merely unable, from feeling more decidedly the majesty of God, to draw the conclusions from the indulgences, which, along with others, he calls “piæ fraudes.” The Church, in spite of these forms of opposition, went on its way.

5. Extreme unction. Only from Thomas’s time was it asserted that Christ Himself instituted this Sacrament, while the Apostle James (5, 14) only proclaimed it. The Materia is oil blessed by the bishop, while the episcopal consecration was declared “conveniens” by Thomas on the same ground as in the case of confirmation (expression of the higher power of the bishop with respect to the “mystical body of Christ,” see above, p. 231, note; hence the Pope can also give power to ordinary priests to consecrate). The “form” is a deprecatory prayer (the indicative form can at the most be added). The administrator is any priest. The Sacrament can be repeated. The receivers are those under fatal illness and the dying. The purpose (res sacramenti) is the remission of sins (remissio peccatorum), but only of venial sins, or the cleansing away of the remains of sin, or occasionally (per accidens), that is, if no hindrance exists, the full forgiveness of sins. Therefore the Sacrament is also defined as “completion” of the Sacrament of Penance, though it remains quite dark why and how far this Sacrament needs completion. Here also, as in the case of confirmation, we have to do, not with a Sacrament that is the product of a dogmatic theory, but with an observance, the value of which is raised so high on grounds of expediency, while theoretically it is rated very low. Even bodily healing is expected, if it please God, from this Sacrament.

6. Priestly ordination. In connection with this Sacrament the general sacramental theory can be maintained, if at all, only by artifice, because the hierarchical interest created it, and introduced it into the sacramental system of grace simply with a view to self-glorification. The “form” is the words “accipe potestatem offerendi” (receive the power of offering); the “material” cannot be pointed out to the senses with certainty; but Thomas here made a virtue of necessity, and the others followed him; from the very uncertainty the hierarchical nature of the Sacrament is proved. One thought of the vessels or symbols by which the hierarchical functions were represented (Thomas), another of the laying on of hands. The former was asserted by Eugene IV. in the Bull “Exultate” (l.c.). The dispenser is solely the bishop. Here there arose, however, many questions, in some respects entering deep into ecclesiastical law and ecclesiastical practice, indirectly also into dogmatic, which will only be noted here; (1) on the seven orders (ordines), and their relation (the Pope can empower even an ordinary priest to ordain to the lower orders); (2) on the relation of the priestly to the episcopal consecration (in how far is the bishop superior to the priest? in respect of divine right? (jure divino); (3) — and this was the most important question — on the validity of orders that have been conferred by schismatic or heretical bishops. From as far back as the Donatist conflict there prevailed a controversy on this point, which was decided in the Church, as a rule, in a liberal spirit, to the effect, namely, that such ordinations are indeed unpermitted, i.e., are null and void as to their practical effects, but yet are not invalid. On the other hand the Lombard asserted that no heretic can duly celebrate confirmation, the Eucharist and ordination to the priesthood. Thereafter there prevailed among the Scholastic theologians great uncertainty; yet there was a growing leaning to the liberal view. the Sacrament of Penance alone being excepted. But in the Middle Ages the Popes very often declared entirely invalid the ordinations of bishops who were under disfavour and of rival Popes. As regards the effect of this Sacrament, the character was here the chief matter. It consists in the conveyance of the right to dispense the Sacraments, to forgive sins, to officiate as judge, and to be mediator between God and men. But on the other hand, again, all the seven orders were called Sacraments by some (in the case of others they are regarded only as sacramentalia), although it was added, that only the diaconate and the presbyterate have institution by Christ as their basis. The episcopate could not be reckoned as a special ordo, because tradition forbade it; but efforts were made to assign to it a special position, higher than the ordinary priesthood, and given to it by Chi ist, and a basis was found for it, not in sacramental, but in judicial power. Duns Scotus, moreover, laid down the lines of the doctrine, that the episcopal consecration is a special Sacrament.

7. Marriage. Like the former Sacrament, this one also encroaches, in the particular questions connected with it, on the field of ecclesiastical law, only that these questions are tenfold more numerous than in the case of the other. The expediency of declaring marriage a Sacrament, and thereby bringing this foundation of society under ecclesiastical jurisdiction is obvious. Just on that account it was overlooked also that the declaring of marriage a Sacrament implied that breaches had previously been made in the general conception of a Sacrament. Marriage was already instituted by God in Paradise for the propagation of the human race (and therefore as an obligation [ad officium]), and to be indissoluble too; but according to Thomas it was only raised to the position of a Sacrament by Christ, inasmuch as He made it the picture of His union with the Church, thereby established anew its indissoluble character, and also united with marriage a saving gift. So far as it also provides for propagation within the Church, its sacramental character is already justified; but besides its sacramental effect, marriage, since the Fall, has also the character of an indulgence, as “remedium” against the insurgent passions of the flesh. It is further admitted, that among all the Sacraments marriage has the “minimum de spiritualitate,” hence it stands in the last place, and the unmarried life is to be preferred. The examination of the question, whether the “copula carnalis,” or, the right to demand the “debitum conjugale,” belongs to the essence of marriage, was necessarily treated with Joseph’s marriage in view. As there was no wish to exclude that right from the essence of marriage (the assertion of the right does not belong to its essence), one was led to the interesting question whether Mary, when she concluded marriage with Joseph, was not obliged to agree conditionally to a possible assertion of the right of marriage on the part of Joseph. The Lombard still answered this question in the affirmative; but Bonaventura already found another way of solving it. As to “material” and “form,” there prevailed the greatest uncertainty. Yet in the Middle Ages it was not doubted that the decisive external sign is the expressed “consensus” of the parties to the marriage, the priest’s blessing was held to be only “a sacramental,” not the Sacrament. Many Schoolmen, it is true, sought to extract an effectual spiritual character, but the majority recognised only a quite undefined saving grace. On the other hand Durandus denied entirely the opus operatum (the saving grace), saying that marriage only signifies something sacred (union of the Church with Christ). That excessive recognition of saving grace stands in flagrant opposition to the view that was derived from Augustine, that the “copula carnalis” in marriage, because it is not materially different from the “copula carnalis fornicatoria,” is so deeply infected with sin, that sin is committed, not indeed by the partner who consents, but by the partner who demands, even when it is done for the purpose of avoiding adultery. While therefore the Sacrament consists in the expressed “consensus” to enter into marriage with a person of the other sex, and thereby the right of the “debitum conjugale” is implicitly laid down, the assertion of this sacramental right is to be held a sin! In the Bull of Eugene IV. (l.c). there is to be found, again, a short serviceable summing up.”Septimum est sacramentum matrimonii, quod est signum conjunctionis Christi et ecclesiæ secundum apostolum. Causa efficiens matrimonii regulariter est mutuus consensus per verba de præsenti expressus. Adsignatur autem triplex bonum matrimonii. Primum est proles suscipienda et educanda ad cultum dei. Secundum est fides quam unus conjugum alteri servare debet. Tertium indivisibilitas matrimonii, propter hoc quod significat indivisibilem conjunctionem Christi et ecclesiæ. Quamvis autem ex causa fornicationis liceat tori separationem facere, non tamen aliud matrimonium contrahere fas est, cum matrimonii vinculum legitime contracti perpetuum sit.” How strong still in the fourteenth century was the disinclination of the Scotist theologians to regard marriage as a full sacrament, may be seen from Werner, II., p. 424 ff. (against Durandus Aureolus).

In the doctrine of the Sacraments Thomas was the teacher of determining influence in the Middle Ages, and he has remained such to the present day in the Catholic Church. But, so far as the new ecclesiasticism admitted of it at all, Thomas went back to Augustine. Yet how strongly even in him the doctrine of the gratia gratis data (grace graciously bestowed) is affected by a regard to the doctrine, that God treats with us according to our merits; how this latter view, which Augustine had not entirely eradicated, still exercised its influence, Thomas’s doctrine of the Sacraments shows already very plainly. The earnest, truly religious spirit which distinguished him was increasingly weakened and led astray by regard for what was held valid. Yet that, certainly, is not the only weakness. An influence, at least equally pernicious, was exercised by the logical apprehension of grace as a physical, mysterious act, and a communication of objective benefits. That also originated with Augustine, and that also, logically carried out, broke up Augustinianism; the breaking up of Augustinianism was really not occasioned from without; it was in great part the result of an inner development. The three elements which Augustine left standing in and along with his doctrine of grace, the element of merit, the element of gratia infusa and the hierarchical priestly element, continued to work, till they completely transformed the Augustinian mode of thought. But as we have seen, that was already foreshadowed in Gregory the Great, and on the other hand the process did not reach its termination yet in the Middle Ages. The Augustinian reaction of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries which partly embodied itself in the decrees of Trent, was only fully checked again, after a struggle for three hundred years, in the nineteenth century.

C. The Revision of Augustinianism in the Direction of the Doctrine of Merit.

That the grace springing from the passio Christi is the foundation of the Christian religion, and therefore must be the Alpha and Omega of Christian Theology — this fundamental Pauline and Augustinian thought was directly denied by no ecclesiastical teacher of the West. But as in itself it may mean many things, and, without definite interpretation, by no means guarantees the purity of the Christian religion — for what is grace? God Himself in Christ, or divine forces? and what does grace effect? faith, or a mysterious quality? — so also, if the effect of grace is to be held as only “improvement,” for this very reason it is capable of being wrought over in a way that ultimately cancels it.

The Lombard — in accordance with his intention to reproduce tradition — confined himself to repeating with precision the Augustinian propositions about grace, predestination and justification (faith and love). But as soon as he brings forward propositions about free will, these have by no means an Augustinian, but rather a Semipelagian ring; for they are already dominated by a regard to merit. Where this view is taken, that is to say, a point must always be ultimately found, which makes it possible to attribute a value to the independent action of man over against God. But the contradiction which plainly comes out in the Lombard, when his doctrine of grace is compared with his doctrine of freedom, is equally prevalent among the theologians before him, nay, in them it comes out more strongly, most strongly in Abelard. There is still to be observed as noteworthy the specific view taken by the Lombard of saving grace, who simply identifies it with the Holy Spirit. His meaning is, that while all other virtues become man’s own by means of an infused habit (habitus), love arises directly in the soul through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, since it is the indwelling Holy Spirit Himself. In this noteworthy view there lies the approach to a more evangelical position; for “habitus” there is substituted the direct activity of the Holy Ghost. Just on that account this view seldom found followers; quite as few did the other, that in grace the gratia gratis dans (God Himself) and the gratia gratis data ought to be distinguished. The desire was to have, not God, but divine forces that can become human virtues.