Papist auricular confession.
Papist auricular confession.
§ 102. Besides these salutary and useful kinds of confession, the Romanists urge and fight for still another sort, following the sanction of the Council of Trent (session 14, ch. 5) and the decree of the pontifex ([Ius canonicum,] De poenit., c. Omnis utriusque sexus). They include this [sort of confession] on the bases of these hypotheses. (1) That confession requires the telling of each and every mortal sin which has come to mind after diligent meditation and careful examination by everyone who has reached the age of discretion. This must be done annually at a certain time in the ears of a priest.
** Petrus à Soto (Cont. conf. Wirteb.): “True faith acknowledges that a tearful confession of all sins is necessary.” **
(2) That not only mortal sins but also the circumstances which change the type of sin and even aggravate it must be recounted. [Petrus a Soto] (Meth. confess., p. 216):
Who, what, where, through whom, how often, why, how:
When you have sinned, speak these that your confession may be true.
(3) That the specific enumeration of sins is necessary by divine Law and thus must be made for salvation itself, such that a sin whose confession is not made before the priest is not forgiven.
(4) That such a confession is meritorious, and that it wipes away sin, and that this insignificant consternation suffered by those who confess before the priest redeems the gigantic consternation which they eventually would have suffered on Judgment Day.
(5) That such a confession before the priest is necessary since priests have been appointed as spiritual judges so that they may know about each and every sin and impose satisfactions in proportion to the crimes; and so whoever dies without the priest’s absolution can by no means be reconciled to God. They describe this judiciary power, as they call this power of the priests, in these main points: (a) Each and every sin must be enumerated before the priests. (b) Without their sentence and judgment no fallen person, however penitent, can be reconciled to God. (c) They impose certain satisfactions on the penitent. (d) Some cases they reserve for the judgment of the supreme pontiff. Consequently, they consider the absolution invalid when the priest gives it to someone over whom he does not have ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. This, they assert, comes from the pope alone to other bishops and priests.
This is a brief synopsis of all the points which they argue about confession and the judiciary power of priests, as is clear from the Council of Trent (session 14, can. 6ff.), the Catech. Rom. (part 2, ch. 5), and Bellarmine (De poenit., bk. 3, throughout).
§ 103. We deny that this specific enumeration of all sins before the priest is either necessary by divine Law or meritorious. In fact, we say that such an enumeration is impossible, and we assert that such a wretched torture of souls is nowhere commanded in Scripture. But before we listen to Bellarmine’s arguments from the Scriptures, we shall recount the debates of the doctors of canon law and of the Scholastics. In these they, along with us, clearly deny that this auricular confession, which includes the enumeration of all sins, is a matter of divine Law.
Gratian ([Ius canonicum,] De poenit., dist. 1, c. Quamvis) cites statements of the ancients on both sides. Yet a good part of these speak about a solemn confession. But ultimately he appears to leave it in doubt whether or not one is obligated to confess, since he concludes his detailed discussion with these words: “In the middle of our discussion we briefly explained upon what authorities and circumstances of reason each of the two sides depend. We leave the question as to which of them must be adhered to for the judgment of the reader, for both sides have scrupulous supporters and prudent men.”
Bishop Theod. of Canterbury [Cantuariensis] (quoted by Gratian): “Some people, like the Greeks, teach that confession should be made only to God.”
The glossator ([Ius canonicum,] De poenit., dist. 5, at the beginning of summary de poenit.) asks when this confession was instituted. After listing the opinions of others, he adds this: “It is better stated that such a confession was established by a tradition of the entire church rather than on the basis of the authority of the Old and New Testaments.” And a little later: “Confession is necessary in mortal matters among us but not among the Greeks, because the tradition did not spread to them.”
** They say that the glossator is Bartholomaeus Brixiensis. See the gloss of distinction 5 at the words In poenitentia autem ipsius judicium. **
Panormitanus and Felinus (on ch. Omnis utriusque sexus) claim that it was not a tradition of God but of people which instituted auricular confession.
In the same place John Scotus steps quite slowly and hesitantly. He says:
It appears to hold quite reasonably that confession falls under a positive divine command. But it behooves us to see whether it was given explicitly in the Gospel and immediately by Christ, since it is clear that it is not in the ancient Law, and whether or not it was given by Him explicitly in some apostolic doctrine or, rather, if it was given by Christ but promulgated by the apostles of the church vocally. It would be more convenient to hold the first of these, if it could be thought that such a precept clearly came from the Gospel. Nor will it do at this point to bring forth Matt. 16[:19]: “I will give you the Keys of the kingdom of the heavens,” since this is a promise only of future giving. If anything in the Gospel has value for this, it seems to be the statement of John 20[:23]: “Whose sins you remit,” etc.
And a little later:
If you contend wholeheartedly that we have not proved that it was given from the words of the Gospel with the reasons posited in this point, we shall never say that the second is true, namely, that such a precept is held on the basis of any apostle’s words. It is said to be so on the basis of the passage from James 5[:16]: “Confess your sins to one another,” etc. But in saying this, it does not seem to me that James gave this command nor published a precept which came from Christ. It is not the first, for from what source did he assume the authority to obligate the entire church, given that he was the bishop of the church at Jerusalem?—unless you are saying that this church was foremost in the beginning and, as a consequence, that its bishop was the chief patriarch, something which the Romans would not concede. Nor is it because the authority was properly taken from him at that time. It is also not the second case, since any time the apostles would publish a command of the Lord in their writing, they would use a way of speaking by which it could become clear that they were Christ’s heralds. This is clear from those words of 1 Cor. 7[:10], because, when [Paul] wishes to publish the command of the Lord about not putting away one’s wife, he says, “It is not I who command, but the Lord.” But when he wants to make his own persuasion about the cohabitation of a husband converted to the faith with an unbelieving wife or vice versa, he says, “I am speaking, not the Lord” [v. 12], because even though this occurs without insult to Christ, nevertheless it is unnecessary. “I am speaking, not the Lord.” Otherwise the church could not be sure that he, as a herald, was making known a command unless he would make it clear either from what came before or from what followed that he was the herald in that publication. Both parts are also proved at the same time through the added words. For when he says, “Confess to each other,” he is not saying that we must make the confession to a priest rather than to someone else, for he adds: “Pray for each other that you be saved” [James 5:16]. Here no one would say that he was instituting or promulgating a divine command, but his meaning is just as it is in that passage: “Confess to each other.” This is an attempt to persuade them to be humble, namely, that we confess to our neighbors generally that we are sinners according to these words: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1[:8]). Thus through the second passage he is persuading them to love fraternally, namely, that we come to the aid of each other. Therefore it is clear that this is not a matter of a divine law published through an apostle’s writing. Thus either the first position must be held to—namely, that it is a matter of a divine law promulgated through the Gospel—or it must be as it is declared in the second or third positions. Or if this is insufficient, then the third must be stated, namely, that it is a matter of a positive divine law which Christ promulgated to the apostles, but which the apostles published to the church without any Scripture, in just the way that the church holds many other things given to it orally by the apostles without Scripture, etc.
Those are the words of Scotus.
Nicolaus de Orbellis (Sent., 4, dist. 17) admits that this confession cannot be proven from the Scriptures.
But Biel, the compiler of the Scholastics, discusses this matter in an especially broad manner. We shall listen to him (Sent., 4, dist. 17, q. 9):
In various ways various people try to show that confession is a necessary act, though very many do so insufficiently. Indeed, it cannot be proven sufficiently from the necessity of the remission of sins, even though the remission of sins is necessary for salvation. Nevertheless it cannot be inferred from this that the confession which we are discussing is necessary for salvation since there is another sufficient mode for the remission of sins without a confession in act, namely, contrition of the heart through which sin is forgiven before it is confessed before a priest. And since, according to a more probable opinion, confession requires the previous remission of sins through the earlier contrition—“If you speak, it is required in desire”—therefore [confession] is [required] sometimes in act. Response: this proof begs the question, for anyone can have sufficient contrition without a desire for confession.
Others try to show the necessity of confession from the necessity of command, but opinions vary as to what sort of a command this might be. It is not from the natural law, for thus it would have been necessary in the case of any and every [system of] law. And it cannot be proved that a man must make this secret confession of sins either from any aspect of the natural law or anything consonant with it. Therefore of what law is it? There are different opinions. (1) One opinion holds that it is of a positive law of the church (gloss on [Ius canonicum,] De poenit., dist. 5, c. 1): “It is better said that it comes from a general or universal tradition of the church instead of from the authority of the Old or New Testament.” Panormitanus (De poenit. et remis., ch. Omnis) follows the gloss. Scotus argues against this opinion as follows: “It does not seem right that the church as a devout mother would impose so difficult and burdensome a commandment on all Christians unless it would be a divine command.” (2) It cannot be discovered where the church instituted this. Theologians commonly say that confession has its source in a positive divine law, but they do not have the same opinion as to who instituted it and when. Bonaventure says that Christ made it known and James promulgated it. Scotus does not approve of this opinion, for only Christ can institute the sacraments, because no one can institute sacraments except one who can also give them efficacy. [Scotus] explains the words of James such that they do not address sacramental confession but rather are a persuasion to humility through which we admit in general that we ourselves are sinners and long for each other’s prayers. Scotus proves that it is a matter of divine Law in another way: The recovery of grace takes place through the sacrament of penance. But anyone who has lost grace is bound by the necessity of command to love to do whatever he has the power to do for the recovery of grace. Therefore if you say that sins are also remitted through contrition, Scotus answers that the way to recover grace through the sacrament of penance is easier and safer. However,
the response is quite clear, if the opinion of Scotus were true, that sin would be forgiven through the sacrament of penance without contrition, if only the obstacles were removed. But the opposite opinion is more common and more in harmony with the statements of the saints. Richard (Sent., 4, dist. 17) holds that sacramental confession is from a divine law expressed in the Gospel of John (20[:23]), where Christ gives the apostles and their successors the power of judgment and also the power to remit sins ministerially. But they are given the power of judgment [potestas judicandi] and [thus] also the power to know [potestas cognoscendi], but knowing takes place through the accusation of sins. If you say the apostles were given the power to judge but that sinners were not given the necessity of confessing, Richard responds: “No one is my judge in any matter in which I am not bound to participate except to the extent that I will it.” However,
says Biel,
this solution does not exclude the reply that an arbitrating judge is frequently established for the parties, and yet a necessity is not imposed upon the parties for submitting themselves [to such a judge]. Finally, it must be said,
says Biel,
that a command about sacramental confession was published by Christ and the apostles and was published through the apostles to the church by word and deed without any writing, just as the church holds many other ideas published orally through the apostles apart from Scripture.
All this is from Biel, and it can illuminate this entire controversy. What B. Rhenanus writes (in his notes on Tertullian, p. 542) pertains here:
Tertullian mentions a public confession, that is, an act of repentance before the church (which Pope Leo also mentions, [Ius canonicum,] De poenit., dist. 1), and he elegantly places it before our eyes. It is evident that our forefathers used it very severely immediately after the beginning of the newborn church. Unless we are greatly deceived, secret confession originated from this, etc.
And later:
Some not unknown interpreters of the pontifical law do not shrink from this idea when they teach that the church established confession. For the secret, private confession of hidden sins seems to have been born from public confession, that is, from the public act of repentance before the church, derived from the Old Testament.
Page 544:
The secret confession of sins committed, as far as we conjecture, was born from the public confession through the voluntary devotion of the people so that the confession of secret sins might also be secret; for not even once have we read that it was commanded.
Erasmus (Annot. on Acts 19, p. 227): “From this it can be gathered that in the old days there was a confession of an ill-spent life, but I think it was an open and general one which we do not read was exacted by anyone. Furthermore, the secret confession which is now accepted and which takes place in the ear seems to have been born from private consultations which used to be made before bishops, if any scrupulous person would burden his mind.” [Erasmus] again (Letter de concord. eccles.): “It has not yet been persuasively proven that the sacramental confession of today was instituted by Christ Himself.”
The Jesuit Maldonatus (Summ., q. 18, art. 4): “Even among Catholics there are some who do not think that there is a divine command about confession. These include all the interpreters of the decretals, and Scotus among the Scholastics.” He adds later: “But nevertheless this opinion has either already been declared as quite heretical, or it would be worthwhile for the church to declare that it is heretical.” (But these two ideas cannot stand together: either this opinion has been declared as heresy, or it is going to be. The former is claimed by Bellarmine, De poenit., bk. 3, ch. 1, and he declares that it was condemned in the Audians. Maldonatus appears to claim the latter, for to him the explanation of the Council of Trent does not seem very clear.)
Valentia (De missa, bk. 2, ch. 4) writes: “Panormitanus and Gerson contend that secret confession is unnecessary.”