Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum peccata sint propria materia huius sacramenti Whether sins are the proper matter of this sacrament? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccata non sint propria materia huius sacramenti. Materia enim in aliis sacramentis per aliqua verba sanctificatur, et sanctificata effectum sacramenti operatur. Peccata autem non possunt sanctificari, eo quod contrariantur effectui sacramenti, qui est gratia remittens peccata. Ergo peccata non sunt materia propria huius sacramenti. 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. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de poenitentia, nullus potest inchoare novam vitam nisi eum veteris vitae poeniteat. Sed ad vetustatem vitae pertinent non solum peccata, sed etiam poenalitates praesentis vitae. Non ergo peccata sunt propria materia poenitentiae. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says in his book De Poenitentia: 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. Praeterea, peccatorum quoddam est originale, quoddam mortale, quoddam veniale. Sed poenitentiae sacramentum non ordinatur contra originale peccatum, quod tollitur per Baptismum; neque etiam contra veniale, quod tollitur per tunsionem pectoris, et aquam benedictam, et alia huiusmodi. Ergo peccata non sunt propria materia poenitentiae. Obj. 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 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. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, II Cor. XII, non egerunt poenitentiam super immunditia et fornicatione et impudicitia quam gesserunt. 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. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est materia, scilicet proxima et remota, sicut statuae proxima materia est metallum, remota vero aqua. Dictum est autem quod proxima materia huius sacramenti sunt actus poenitentis, cuius materia sunt peccata, de quibus dolet, et quae confitetur, et pro quibus satisfacit. Unde relinquitur quod remota materia poenitentiae sunt peccata, non attentanda, sed detestanda et destruenda. 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de proxima materia sacramenti. Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the proximate matter of a sacrament. Ad secundum dicendum quod vetus et mortalis vita est obiectum poenitentiae, non ratione poenae, sed ratione culpae annexae. Reply Obj. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod poenitentia quodammodo est de quolibet peccatorum genere, non tamen eodem modo. Nam de peccato actuali mortali est poenitentia proprie et principaliter, proprie quidem, quia proprie dicimur poenitere de his quae nostra voluntate commisimus; principaliter autem, quia ad deletionem peccati mortalis hoc sacramentum est institutum. De peccatis autem venialibus est quaedam poenitentia proprie, inquantum sunt nostra voluntate facta, non tamen contra haec principaliter est hoc sacramentum institutum. De peccato vero originali poenitentia nec principaliter est, quia contra ipsum non ordinatur hoc sacramentum, sed magis Baptismus, nec etiam proprie, quia peccatum originale non est nostra voluntate peractum; nisi forte inquantum voluntas Adae reputatur nostra, secundum modum loquendi quo apostolus dicit, Rom. V, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Inquantum tamen accipitur poenitentia large pro quacumque detestatione rei praeteritae, potest dici poenitentia de peccato originali, sicut loquitur Augustinus in libro de poenitentia. Reply Obj. 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). Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum haec sit forma huius sacramenti, ‘ego te absolvo’ Whether the form of this sacrament is: “I absolve thee”? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec non sit forma huius sacramenti, ego te absolvo. Formae enim sacramentorum ex institutione Christi et usu Ecclesiae habentur. Sed Christus non legitur hanc formam instituisse. Neque etiam in communi usu habetur, quinimmo in quibusdam absolutionibus quae in Ecclesia publice fiunt, sicut in prima et completorio et in cena domini, absolvens non utitur oratione indicativa, ut dicat, ego vos absolvo, sed oratione deprecativa, cum dicit, misereatur vestri omnipotens Deus, vel, absolutionem tribuat vobis omnipotens Deus. Ergo haec non est forma huius sacramenti, ego te absolvo. 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. Praeterea, Leo Papa dicit, indulgentia Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequit obtineri. Loquitur autem de indulgentia Dei quae praestatur poenitentibus. Ergo forma huius sacramenti debet esse per modum deprecationis. Obj. 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. Praeterea, idem est absolvere a peccato quod peccatum remittere. Sed solus Deus peccatum remittit, qui etiam solus interius a peccato mundat, ut Augustinus dicit, super Ioan. Ergo videtur quod solus Deus a peccato absolvat. Non ergo debet dicere sacerdos, ego te absolvo, sicut non dicit, ego tibi peccata remitto. Obj. 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. Praeterea, sicut dominus dedit potestatem discipulis absolvendi a peccatis, ita etiam dedit eis potestatem curandi infirmitates, scilicet ut Daemonia eiicerent et ut languores curarent, ut habetur Matth. X et Luc. IX. Sed sanando infirmos apostoli non utebantur his verbis, ego te sano, sed, sanet te dominus Iesus Christus. Ergo videtur quod sacerdotes, habentes potestatem apostolis a Christo traditam, non debeant uti hac forma verborum, ego te absolvo, sed, absolutionem praebeat tibi Christus. Obj. 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 (Matt 10:1; Luke 9:1). Now the apostles, in healing the sick, did not use the words: I heal thee, but: The Lord Jesus Christ heal 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. Praeterea, quidam hac forma utentes sic eam exponunt, ego te absolvo, idest, absolutum ostendo. Sed neque hoc sacerdos facere potest, nisi ei divinitus reveletur. Unde, ut legitur Matth. XVI, antequam Petro diceretur, quodcumque solveris super terram, erit etc., dictum est ei, beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed pater meus, qui in caelis est. Ergo videtur quod sacerdos cui non est facta revelatio, praesumptuose dicat, ego te absolvo, etiam si exponatur, idest, absolutum ostendo. Obj. 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 Matt. 16:19 before it was said to Peter: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, etc., it was said to him (Matt 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. Sed contra est quod, sicut dominus dixit discipulis, Matth. ult., euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos, ita dixit Petro, Matth. XVI, quodcumque solveris. Sed sacerdos, auctoritate illorum verborum Christi fretus, dicit, ego te baptizo. Ergo, eadem auctoritate, dicere debet in hoc sacramento, ego te absolvo. On the contrary, As our Lord said to His disciples (Matt 28:19): Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them, etc., so did He say to Peter (Matt 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. Respondeo dicendum quod in qualibet re perfectio attribuitur formae. Dictum est autem supra quod hoc sacramentum perficitur per ea quae sunt ex parte sacerdotis. Unde oportet quod ea quae sunt ex parte poenitentis, sive sint verba sive facta, sint quaedam materia huius sacramenti, ea vero quae sunt ex parte sacerdotis, se habent per modum formae. 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. Cum autem sacramenta novae legis efficiant quod figurant, ut supra dictum est; oportet quod forma sacramenti significet id quod in sacramento agitur, proportionaliter materiae sacramenti. Unde forma Baptismi est, ego te baptizo, et forma confirmationis, consigno te signo crucis et confirmo te chrismate salutis, eo quod huiusmodi sacramenta perficiuntur in usu materiae. In sacramento autem Eucharistiae, quod consistit in ipsa consecratione materiae, exprimitur veritas consecrationis, cum dicitur, hoc est corpus meum. Now since the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify, as stated above (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. Hoc autem sacramentum, scilicet poenitentiae, non consistit in consecratione alicuius materiae, nec in usu alicuius materiae sanctificatae, sed magis in remotione cuiusdam materiae, scilicet peccati, prout peccata dicuntur esse materia poenitentiae, ut ex supra dictis patet. Talis autem remotio significatur a sacerdote cum dicitur, ego te absolvo, nam peccata sunt quaedam vincula, secundum illud Proverb. V, iniquitates suae capiunt impium, et funibus peccatorum suorum quisque constringitur. Unde patet quod haec est convenientissima forma huius sacramenti, ego te absolvo. 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 (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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ista forma sumitur ex ipsis verbis Christi quibus Petro dixit, quodcumque solveris super terram, et cetera. Et tali forma utitur Ecclesia in sacramentali absolutione. Huiusmodi autem absolutiones in publico factae non sunt sacramentales, sed sunt orationes quaedam ordinatae ad remissionem venialium peccatorum. Unde in sacramentali absolutione non sufficeret dicere, misereatur tui omnipotens Deus, vel, absolutionem et remissionem tribuat tibi Deus, quia per haec verba sacerdos absolutionem non significat fieri, sed petit ut fiat. Praemittitur tamen etiam in sacramentali absolutione talis oratio, ne impediatur effectus sacramenti ex parte poenitentis, cuius actus materialiter se habent in hoc sacramento, non autem in Baptismo vel in confirmatione. Reply Obj. 1: This form is taken from Christ’s very words which He addressed to Peter (Matt 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. Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum Leonis Papae est intelligendum quantum ad deprecationem quae praemittitur absolutioni. Non autem removet quin sacerdotes absolvant. Reply Obj. 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod solus Deus per auctoritatem et a peccato absolvit et peccata remittit. Sacerdotes autem utrumque faciunt per ministerium, inquantum scilicet verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento instrumentaliter operantur, sicut etiam in aliis sacramentis; nam virtus divina est quae interius operatur in omnibus sacramentalibus signis, sive sint res sive sint verba, sicut ex supra dictis patet. Unde et dominus utrumque expressit, nam Matth. XVI dixit Petro, quodcumque solveris super terram, etc.; et Ioan. XX dixit discipulis, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis. Ideo tamen sacerdos potius dicit, ego te absolvo, quam, ego tibi peccata remitto, quia hoc magis congruit verbis quae dominus dixit virtutem clavium ostendens, per quas sacerdotes absolvunt. Quia tamen sacerdos sicut minister absolvit, convenienter apponitur aliquid quod pertineat ad primam auctoritatem Dei, scilicet ut dicatur, ego te absolvo in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti, vel, per virtutem passionis Christi, vel, auctoritate Dei, sicut Dionysius exponit, XIII cap. Caelest. Hier. Quia tamen hoc non est determinatum ex verbis Christi, sicut in Baptismo, talis appositio relinquitur arbitrio sacerdotis. Reply Obj. 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 (Q. 62, A. 4; Q. 64, AA. 1, 2). Wherefore our Lord expressed both: for He said to Peter (Matt 16:19): Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, etc., and to His disciples (John 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 Spirit, 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. Ad quartum dicendum quod apostolis non est data potestas ut ipsi sanarent infirmos, sed ut ad eorum orationem infirmi sanarentur. Est autem eis collata potestas operandi instrumentaliter, sive ministerialiter, in sacramentis. Et ideo magis possunt in formis sacramentalibus exprimere actum suum quam in sanationibus infirmitatum. In quibus tamen non semper utebantur modo deprecativo, sed quandoque etiam modo indicativo et imperativo, sicut Act. III legitur quod Petrus dixit claudo, quod habeo, hoc tibi do. In nomine Iesu Christi, surge et ambula. Reply Obj. 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. Ad quintum dicendum quod ista expositio, ego te absolvo, idest, absolutum ostendo, quantum ad aliquid quidem vera est, non tamen est perfecta. Sacramenta enim novae legis non solum significant, sed etiam faciunt quod significant. Unde sicut sacerdos, baptizando aliquem, ostendit hominem interius ablutum per verba et facta, non solum significative, sed etiam effective; ita etiam cum dicit, ego te absolvo, ostendit hominem absolutum non solum significative, sed etiam effective. Nec tamen loquitur quasi de re incerta. Quia sicut alia sacramenta novae legis habent de se certum effectum ex virtute passionis Christi, licet possit impediri ex parte recipientis, ita etiam est et in hoc sacramento. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de Adult. Coniug., non est turpis nec difficilis post patrata et purgata adulteria reconciliatio coniugii, ubi per claves regni caelorum non dubitatur fieri remissio peccatorum. Unde nec sacerdos indiget speciali revelatione sibi facta, sed sufficit generalis revelatio fidei, per quam remittuntur peccata. Unde revelatio fidei dicitur Petro facta fuisse. Reply Obj. 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. Esset autem perfectior expositio, ego te absolvo, idest, sacramentum absolutionis tibi impendo. It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, I absolve thee mean: I grant thee the sacrament of absolution. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum impositio manuum sacerdotis requiratur ad hoc sacramentum Whether the imposition of the priest’s hands is necessary for this sacrament? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod impositio manuum sacerdotis requiratur ad hoc sacramentum. Dicitur enim Marc. ult., super aegros manus imponent, et bene habebunt. Aegri autem spiritualiter sunt peccatores, qui recipiunt bonam habitudinem per hoc sacramentum. Ergo in hoc sacramento est manus impositio facienda. Objection 1: It would seem that the imposition of the priest’s hands is necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (Mark 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. Praeterea, in sacramento poenitentiae recuperat homo spiritum sanctum amissum, unde ex persona poenitentis dicitur in Psalmo, redde mihi laetitiam salutaris tui, et spiritu principali confirma me. Sed Spiritus Sanctus datur per impositionem manuum, legitur enim Act. VIII, quod apostoli imponebant manus super illos, et accipiebant spiritum sanctum; et Matth. XIX dicitur quod oblati sunt domino parvuli ut eis manus imponeret. Ergo in hoc sacramento est manus impositio facienda. Obj. 2: Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit 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 Spirit; and (Matt 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. Praeterea, verba sacerdotis in hoc sacramento non sunt maioris efficaciae quam in aliis sacramentis. Sed in aliis sacramentis non sufficiunt verba ministri, nisi aliquem actum exerceret, sicut in Baptismo, simul cum hoc quod dicit sacerdos, ego te baptizo, requiritur corporalis ablutio. Ergo etiam, simul cum hoc quod dicit sacerdos, ego te absolvo, oportet quod aliquem actum exerceat circa poenitentem, imponendo ei manus. Obj. 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. Sed contra est quod dominus dixit Petro, quodcumque solveris super terram, erit etc., nullam mentionem de manus impositione faciens. Neque etiam cum omnibus apostolis simul dixit, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis. Non ergo ad hoc sacramentum requiritur impositio manuum. On the contrary, When our Lord said to Peter (Matt 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 (John 20:23): Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament. Respondeo dicendum quod impositio manuum in sacramentis Ecclesiae fit ad designandum aliquem copiosum effectum gratiae, quo illi quibus manus imponitur, quodammodo continuantur per quandam similitudinem ministris, in quibus copia esse debet. Et ideo manus impositio fit in sacramento confirmationis, in quo confertur plenitudo spiritus sancti; et in sacramento ordinis, in quo confertur quaedam excellentia potestatis in divinis ministeriis; unde et II Tim. I dicitur, resuscites gratiam Dei quae est in te per impositionem manuum mearum. 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 fullness of the Holy Spirit 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. Sacramentum autem poenitentiae non ordinatur ad consequendum aliquam excellentiam gratiae, sed ad remissionem peccatorum. Et ideo ad hoc sacramentum non requiritur impositio, sicut etiam nec ad Baptismum, in quo tamen fit plenior remissio peccatorum. 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. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa manus impositio non est sacramentalis, sed ordinatur ad miracula facienda, ut scilicet per contactum manus hominis sanctificati etiam corporalis infirmitas tollatur. Sicut etiam legitur de domino, Marci VI, quod infirmos impositis manibus curavit; et Matth. VIII legitur quod per contactum leprosum mundavit. Reply Obj. 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 (Mark 6:5) that He cured the sick, laying His hands upon them, and (Matt 8:3) that He cleansed a leper by touching him.