Bellarmine counters ( De poenit ., 3, ch. 18):
Arguments against the necessity of Papist auricular confession: First, it lacks mandate, promise, and examples.
§ 104. With the following arguments, we prove that such a specific enumeration of sins before a priest is unnecessary. (I) Anything that lacks God’s mandate and promise and, in addition, has no examples from the truly repentant cannot and ought not be imposed on consciences under peril of salvation. Yet the specific enumeration of sins before the priest lacks God’s mandate and promise and, in addition, has no examples from the truly repentant. Therefore it cannot and ought not be imposed on consciences under peril of salvation. The major premise is clear from the perfection of Scripture, from the quality of traditions and self-made worship, and even from the nature of the new testament. The new testament is the covenant of grace and freedom. But now, it is clear that in the old testament the specific enumeration of sins was unnecessary, which even our adversaries concede. Therefore it is improbable that so onerous and difficult a precept (as Scotus says about confession) was first established by Christ in the new testament. Now, the points that are set forth from the Scriptures to establish the necessity of this confession will have their own place below [§§ 111–14]. Indeed, not only is there no mandate about the necessity of this specific enumeration of sins in Scripture, but we also have examples of those whose sins were forgiven without first making an enumeration of sins. Christ (in Matt. 9:2) announces the forgiveness of sins to the paralytic, but he had not yet made a specific confession of those sins. In the same way the sins of the sinful woman are forgiven her (Luke 7:48). The prodigal son is accepted freely after making a general confession of sin and a promise of correction (Luke 15:18). So also among truly penitent sinners as a whole there is no need for a specific enumeration of sins. Rather, a general confession is enough if it proceeds from a penitent and faithful heart. Christ was content with the general confession of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8) and pronounces His absolution: “Today salvation has come to your house” [v. 9]. But Christ did not send the apostles and their successors in a way different from the way in which He was sent (John 20:21). Thus blessed Peter requires repentance (Acts 2:38) but does not require a specific confession of sins: “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Bellarmine counters (De poenit., 3, ch. 18):
The words “As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you” [John 20:21] must not be taken to mean that the apostles should do all things in the same way as Christ was doing them. For otherwise they would not have had to baptize for the remission of sins, since Christ remitted sins without Baptism. They would not have had to give the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands, since Christ gave the Holy Spirit not by laying on His hands but by breathing upon people. Therefore Christ sent the apostles just as the Father had sent Him in that He gave them the power to bind and loose as He Himself had received this from the Father. But He Himself had received this power as a Son, and thus He had so much and so great a power that He could even justify without the sacraments. But the power Christ gave to the apostles and to ministers is certainly a much lesser power, a power bound to the sacraments and to the other means which He instituted.
We respond. (1) It is certain that Christ acted not only ministerially but also autocratically in the works of His ministry—or He certainly could have acted in those two ways because He is true God and because to Him was given all power in heaven and on earth as Son of Man [John 5:27], and thus also the absolute power to forgive sins. However, when He says to the apostles: “As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you” [John 20:21], He is not speaking about the authentic and autocratic power but about His ministerial power which He Himself used in His works of ministry, which He entrusted to the apostles and to their successors.
(2) Therefore just as Christ forgave the sins of the penitent in His own ministry without first having heard a specific enumeration of sins, so also the apostles and their successors in the ecclesiastical ministry divinely assigned to them conformed to the example of Christ and did not impose new laws on the consciences of people.
(3) For this reason, in the account of the Acts of the Apostles no trace is found of the apostles demanding a specific enumeration of sins from any of the truly repentant.
(4) There is a great difference between Baptism and the specific enumeration of sins. The apostles had received a clear and express mandate about administering Baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15), but there is no word about demanding a specific enumeration of sins. Besides this, though Christ Himself did not baptize, nevertheless He did administer it through the apostles (John 4:2). Therefore they had not only a mandate but also an example of Baptism, something which cannot be proved about the specific confession of sins. Finally, the sacrament of Baptism is “very easy to perform, very venerable in understanding, very pure in observation” (Augustine, De doctr. Christ., 3, ch. 9). But the specific enumeration of sins, imposed under the peril of salvation, is a wretched torment of souls.
(5) In the function of their office the apostles freely used the imposition of hands as a very ancient ceremony which Christ Himself used. But who does not see that there are many miles of difference between this and the specific enumeration [of sins], which certainly was not used in the Old Testament nor demanded by Christ?
(6) Therefore this escape attempt of Bellarmine would have a place only if he had provided proof that the apostles had received from Christ a special command to demand a specific enumeration of sins from the repentant, which prevented them from forgiving sins in the same way as Christ had forgiven the truly penitent.