To what end penance is established as a sacrament.
To what end penance is established as a sacrament.
§ 20. But to what end the Papists argue that penance is a sacrament, properly so called, can be concluded from Ludovicus Granatensis (Memoriale, bk. 2, ch. 1, p. 61):
Although our grief is not as much as it ought to be, nevertheless it is sufficient for salvation when it has been united with the power of a sacrament (which confers grace to achieve this, provided no one place an obstacle against it). This is what theologians generally and commonly say: that sacraments of the new Law make a contrite person out of an attrite one. 2 Just as a recently extinguished candle which is still smoking is again lighted and revived from death with a gentle blowing, so also the soul which is smoking from the power of attrition, even though it is not lighted, is soon completely alight and revived again after being dead by the coming of a breathing, powerful sacrament.
Therefore, on the basis of these words, it is clear that they established penance—that is, the exterior actions connected with the word of absolution—as a sacrament to carry the point that we are freed from our sins and are again reconciled to God by the power and virtue of those actions both properly and as partaken from a sacrament. Therefore there is no reason for Bellarmine (De poenit., bk 1, ch. 8) to accuse Chemnitz of not having shaped the status of the controversy correctly, in this way: “Whether sinners who after Baptism seek reconciliation with God should be led away from faith in Christ’s obedience, suffering, and satisfaction to confidence in one’s own act of contrition, confession, and satisfaction, so that those acts become a sacrament and the efficient cause3 for the remission of sins when the word of absolution comes to them.” Chemnitz was correct in writing this, for if the acts of a repentant person are a sacrament, they will also be a means of grace and of remission of sins.
From this, Bellarmine (De poenit., bk. 2, ch. 12) himself tries to prove that contrition is the cause of the remission of sins. He explains it in this way: “Contrition is to delete, wash away, erase sins, to cleanse oneself, to please God, to make satisfaction to Him, to obtain His mercy, and in this way to merit it.” All this Bellarmine says in the same words. Indeed, he denies (De poenit. bk. 1, ch. 8) that this doctrine draws people away from faith in Christ’s obedience, Passion, and satisfaction to confidence in one’s own action, because the power of the sacrament of penance depends on the merit of Christ and because the actions of the penitent come together to produce the forgiveness of sins according as they partake of sacramental power from the word of absolution. However, this is to make contrary ideas subordinate4 and to beg the question at the same time, for either we receive the free remission of sins by faith, or we earn it with our works. Scripture always sets these against each other, for if our actions come together to effect and earn forgiveness of sins, the forgiveness of sins will no longer be free by faith in Christ. In turn: “If it is from grace, it is no longer from works” (Rom. 11:6), and if we are justified by believing, we are not justified by working (Rom. 4:5); so, then, we obtain forgiveness of sins by faith and not by our works. Therefore in this way Bellarmine is taking those things which Scripture sets against each other as contradistinct and is making them subordinates, and at the same time he is begging the question. For this is the matter in question, and it is clearly denied by us that the word of absolution confers a sacramental power on our actions and works so that from it they are formed to effect5 and earn the remission of sins.