Seventh, it was repealed by Nectarius.
Seventh, it was repealed by Nectarius.
§ 110. (VII) “Bishop Nectarius of Constantinople repealed auricular confession because of a disgraceful act committed in the church by a deacon with a noble woman,” according to Socrates (bk. 5, ch. 19), Sozomen (bk. 7, ch. 16), Tripartita (bk. 9, ch. 35), Nicephorus (bk. 12, ch. 28). Therefore he did not judge that it was simply necessary by divine Law. Bellarmine (De poenit., 3, ch. 14) tries to prove that only public confession was abrogated by Nectarius, but he departs from Thomas Waldensis who he otherwise thinks is of great value. He (vol. 2, ch. 14) admits that confession was simply repealed. He departs from Petrus Soto who writes (Schol. conf. Wirteb.): “At some time Nectarius will give God an account of this matter.” He departs from Socrates and Sozomen, who write clearly: “The presbyter was appointed to keep secrets.” (And yet that would be unnecessary in the matter of public confession.) Also: “It was permitted by Nectarius for each person to come to participate in the sacred mysteries according to his own conscience.” Furthermore, the disgraceful act was committed in private confession. So it remains that this [private] confession and not the public confession of public sins was the thing abrogated.
Finally, by whatever right Nectarius was allowed to remove the rite of public penance due to a scandal, with the same right we can repeal the specific enumeration of sins which was introduced outside of divine Law and which is liable to many perils. Therefore whatever the case may be concerning Nectarius’s act, there must be a most diligent inquiry as to whether a specific enumeration of sins is necessary according to divine Law. Thus let us listen to Bellarmine on this subject.