The basis of the sacrament of penance is the power to forgive sins, which was granted to the apostles by Christ. In the actual exercise of this power, other necessities approach. The sacrament as such must have a proper matter and form and produce certain effects; the power of the keys can only be exercised by a minister (confessor) with adequate qualifications, and the effects of the exercise of the power of the keys are manifested in the recipient’s soul, i.e. the penitent, who with certain necessary dispositions must also perform certain actions (confession, satisfaction).
Matter and form
According to St. Thomas (Summa Theologiæ III. 84. 2) ” the actions of the penitent are the closest matter of this sacrament “. This is also the teaching of Eugene IV. in ” Decretum pro Armenis ” (Council of Florence, 1439). He enumerates the “quasi-matter” of the sacrament of penance – contrition, confession, and satisfaction (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, 699). Thomists in general, but also other prominent theologians, e.g. Bellarmine, Toletus, Suárez, and De Lugo, hold the same opinion. According to Scotus (In IV Sent., D. 16, q. 1, n. 7) “the sacrament of penance consists in the absolution which is granted by the prescribed words,” while the actions of the penitent are necessary for the worthy reception of the sacrament. Absolution, as an external ceremony, is the substance of the sacrament, and as an act that carries significant power, it is also a form. Among the defenders of this theory are St. Bonaventure, Capreolus, Andreas Vega, and Maldonatus. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3) says: “The acts of the penitent, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are the quasi-matter of this sacrament”.
The Roman Catechism, used in 1913 (II, v, 13) says: “These acts are called quasi-matter by the council, not because they do not have the nature of real matter, but because they are not a substance that is used externally like water in baptism and chrism in Confirmation.” For a theological discussion on this matter, see Palmieri, op. cit., p. 144; Pesch, ” Praelectiones dogmaticae”, Freiburg, 1897; De San, ” De poenitentia”, Bruges, 1899; Pohle, ” Lehrb. D. Dogmatic “. As for the form of the sacrament, both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent teach that it consists in the words of absolution. “The form of the sacrament of penance, in which its power lies, is in the words of the confessor: “I absolve you, etc.” To these words, by the customs of the Holy Church, certain prayers are commendably added, but they do not concern the essence of the sacramental form, nor are they necessary for the valid administration of the sacrament. (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3) Regarding these supplementary prayers, the practice of the Eastern and Western Churches, and the question whether the form of the sacrament of penance is deprecative or indicative and personal, compare also the authors mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Effect
“The effect of this sacrament is deliverance from sin.” (Council of Florence) The Council of Trent gives the same definition in slightly different words (Sess. XIV, c. 3): “As for its power and effectiveness, the effect (res et effects) of this sacrament is reconciliation with God, after which peace and quietness of conscience sometimes come in pious and humble recipients, along with intense consolation of the soul.” This reconciliation primarily means the forgiveness of guilt for sin and also the eternal punishment for mortal sin. The Council of Trent says that repentance requires the making of satisfaction “not for eternal punishment, which is forgiven together with guilt, or the sacrament, or the desire to receive this sacrament, but for temporal punishment, which, as the Scriptures teach, is not always completely forgiven, as in baptize.” (Sess. VI, c. 14)
In other words, baptism frees the soul not only from all sin but also from all debt to God’s justice. After receiving absolution in the sacrament of penance, there may and usually remains some temporary debt to be paid by works of satisfaction (see below). “All sins by which we are not deprived of God’s grace and into which we very often fall, it is right and useful to confess in confession; however, they can be kept silent about without any guilt, and they can be erased by many other remedies.” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3) Repentance is enough to obtain the forgiveness of venial sins, and this forgiveness is also obtained by the worthy reception of other sacraments, for example, the Holy receiving.
Reconciliation of the sinner with God also has another consequence – the revival of those merits that he earned before he committed a grave sin. Good works done in the state of grace deserve a reward from God, but this is forfeited with mortal sin, so if the sinner were to die without absolution, his good works would avail him nothing. As long as he remains in sin, he is unable to merit a reward: even works that are good in themselves are worthless in that case: they cannot come to life, because they were never alive. But as soon as his sin is absolved by the sacrament of penance, he regains not only the state of grace but also the whole store of merit which was credited to his account before his sin.
On this point, theologians are practically unanimous. The only obstacle to obtaining a reward is sin, and when that is removed, the former claim is, so to speak, restored. On the other hand, if there was no such renewal of the merits, their loss would be tantamount to eternal punishment, which is incompatible with the forgiveness achieved through repentance. There are different opinions on the question of the manner and extent of the restoration of merit; but what is generally accepted was formulated by Francisco Suárez ( De reviviscentia meritorum ) that the restoration of merit is complete, i.e. an absolved penitent has as much merit to his credit as if he had never sinned. See De Augustinis, ” De re sacramentaria “, II, Rome, 1887; Pesch, Op. cit., VII; Göttler, ” Der hl. Thomas v. Aquin u. Die vortridentinischen Thomisten über die Wirkungen d. Bussakramentes “, Freiburg, 1904.
Minister (confessor)
It follows from the judicial nature of this sacrament that not every member of the Church is qualified to forgive sins; the performance of the sacrament of penance is reserved for those who have been entrusted with authority. That this power does not belong to the laity is evident from the bull of Martin V ” Inter cunctas ” (1418), which, among other questions to which the followers of Wyclef and Hus were to be answered, asks: “do you believe that a Christian… is he obliged, as a necessary means of salvation, to confess only to a priest and not to a layman or laymen, however good and pious?” (Denzinger-Bannwart, ” Enchiridion “, 670) Luther’s assertion that “every Christian, even a woman or a child” could, in the absence of a priest, absolve another, just as well as a pope or a bishop, condemned (1520) Leo X. in the bull ” Exurge Domine ” (Enchir., 753) The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 6) condemns as “false and contrary to the truth of the Gospel are all doctrines which extend the ministry of the keys to other than bishops and priests, thinking that the words of the Lord (Mt 18:18; Jn 20:23) were contrary to the institution of this sacrament, intended for all believers in Christ such in such a way that everyone has the power to forgive sins.” Therefore, Catholic doctrine is that only bishops and priests can exercise this power.
Moreover, these decrees practically put an end to the custom, which appeared and lasted for a while in the Middle Ages, of confessing to a layperson in case of emergency. This custom arose from the belief that the one who has sinned is obliged to confess his sin to someone – to a priest, if possible, otherwise to a layman. In the book “True and False Repentance” ( De vera et falsa poenitentia ), erroneously attributed to St. Augustine, she writes: “So great is the power of confession of sin that if there is no priest at hand, let him (the person who wants to confess) confess to his neighbor.” However, in the same place, the explanation is given: “Even though the, to whom he confesses, has no power to absolve him, he who confesses to his companion (socio) becomes worthy of forgiveness based on his desire to confess to a priest.” (PL, XL, 1113) Leo, who quotes the statement of Pseudo-Augustine on confession to one’s neighbor, overlooks this explanation and misrepresents a series of cases from practice and gives only an imperfect idea of the theological discussion they provoked. Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., Dist. 17, Article 58) considered absolution granted by laymen to be sacramental, while St. Thomas (IV Sent., D. 17, q. 3, a. 3, sol. 2 ) speaks of it as ” quodammodo sacramentals – as if sacramental”, other great theologians had a completely different opinion.
Alexander of Hales (Summa, Q. xix, De confessione memb. , I, a. 1) says that it is a “plea for absolution”; St. Bonaventure (” Opera “, VII, p. 345, Lyons, 1668) says that such a confession is not necessary even in case of emergency and is only a sign of repentance; Scotus says, (IV para., D. 14, q. 4) that there is nothing which binds a layman to confession, and that this practice may be very harmful; Durandus (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 12) says that if there is no priest who alone can pass the sentence of absolution in the penitent tribunal, then there is no obligation to confess; Prierias (Summa Silv., Confessor, I, 1), says that if confession is made before a layman, it is necessary to repeat it as soon as possible; this was the general opinion. Therefore, it is not surprising that Dominicus Soto, wrote in 1564 that he found it difficult to believe that such a custom ever existed: “Since (confession to a layman) was no sacrament…, it is incredible that people would reveal secrets to others just like that and without the benefit of his conscience.” (IV Sent., d. 18, q. 4, a. 1)
Thus, the weight of general theological opinion gradually turned against this practice, and since this practice never received official confirmation, it cannot be taken as proof that even the laity sometimes had the power to forgive sins. What this practice shows is that both the people and the theologians were very well aware of the obligation to confess their sins not only to God but also to some human listeners, although he had no legal power to absolve them. The same exaggerated idea appears in the practice of confessing to a deacon – in case of emergency. They were naturally preferred to the laity when no priest was available because, by their office, they administered Holy Communion.
Furthermore, some of the earlier councils (Elvira, AD 300; Toledo, 400) seem to have granted the deacon the power to confess (in the absence of a priest). The local council of Tripura (895) declared about bandits that if they were captured or wounded and confessed to a priest or deacon, they should not be refused communion; and this expression “presbyters vel diacono” was incorporated in Gratian’s decree and many later documents from the 10th to the 13th centuries. The local council of York (1195) decreed that, except in extreme necessity, a deacon should not baptize, give communion, or “give penance to one who has confessed.” Essentially the same regulations are found in the decrees of the London (1200) and Rouen (1231) councils, the constitutions of St. Edmund of Canterbury (1236), and Walter Kirkham, Bishop of Durham (1255).
All these regulations, though strict enough in ordinary circumstances, grant an exception for urgent necessity. According to the decree of the Synod of Poitiers (1280), no such exception is allowed: “Desiring to root out the wrong vices that have grown up in our diocese through dangerous ignorance, we forbid deacons to receive confessions or grant absolutions at the judgment of penitence: it is certain and indubitable that they cannot absolve, because they have not the keys which are conferred only on the priesthood.” This “evil custom” probably disappeared in the 14th or 15th century; The Council of Trent does not mention it anywhere, but the reservation of the power to absolve only bishops and priests clearly shows that the council excluded deacons from this.
The permission that certain medieval synods granted to deacons in case of emergency did not give them the power to forgive sins. In some decrees, it is explicitly stated that the deacon does not have keys – claves non habent. In other enactments it is forbidden, except when it is necessary to “give” or “impose a penance,” penitential dare, imponere. Its function was then limited to the forum externum; in the absence of the priest he could “reconcile” the sinner, i.e. return him to the communion of the Church; but he did not and could not give sacramental absolution, which only a priest could give (Palmieri, Pesch). Another explanation emphasizes the fact that the deacon could legitimately administer the Holy Eucharist.
The faithful had a strict obligation to receive Holy Communion at the approach of death, and on the other hand, the reception of this sacrament is sufficient for the forgiveness of even mortal sin, provided that the recipient has the necessary internal disposition. The deacon could hear the confession of sins only to make sure that they were properly repented of and forsaken, but not to absolve them. If he went further and “imposed penance” in the stricter sacramental sense, he exceeded his authority, and any permission for this purpose granted by the bishop only proved the bishop wrong (Laurain, ” De l’intervention des laïques, des diaries et des abbesses dans le administration de la pénitence”, Paris, 1897).
m
The proper jurisdiction is that which the person has by his office as pastor; the pope has it over the whole Church, the bishop in his diocese, the priest in his parish. Delegated jurisdiction is the authority granted by an ecclesiastical superior to one who does not have it in his office. The need for jurisdiction to administer penance is usually expressed by the priest having to have “faculties” to confess. Therefore, a priest who has visited a diocese other than his own cannot confess without the special permission of the local bishop. However, any priest can absolve anyone who is in danger of death, because in these circumstances the Church gives authority to all priests. As the bishop confers judicial power, he can also limit it by “reserving” certain cases and can even withdraw it altogether.
Recipient (penitent)
The sacrament of penance was instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism. Therefore, an unbaptized person cannot be validly absolved, however deep and sincere his sorrow and remorse may be. Baptism is therefore the first necessary prerequisite on the part of the penitent. This does not mean that there is something particularly grievous and unforgivable about the sins committed by an unbaptized person, which puts them outside the power of the keys; it means that a person must first be a member of the Church to submit himself and his sins to the judicial process of sacramental penance.
Regret and resentment
Without repentance for sin, there is no forgiveness. That is why the Council of Trent says (Sess. XIV, c. 4): “Repentance, which has the first place among the acts of the penitent, is the sorrow of the heart and the aversion to the sin committed, together with the determination to sin no more.” The Council (ibid.) further distinguishes perfect (contrition) and imperfect contrition (attrition), which results from aversion to all the abomination of sin, or the fear of hell and punishment. See treatises by Pesch, Palmieri, Pohle. Here it is sufficient to state that in the sacrament of penance, imperfect contrition is sufficient to obtain the forgiveness of sin. The Council of Trent further teaches (ibid.): “Even if it sometimes happens that repentance is perfect and that it reconciles a person to God, even before a person has received this sacrament, reconciliation should not be attributed to repentance alone without a desire for the sacrament, because regret always contains this desire.’
By this teaching, Pius V condemned (1567) Baio’s thesis that even perfect penance – except in extreme need or martyrdom – does not forgive sin unless there is a real reception of the sacrament (Denzinger-Bannwart, ” Enchiridion ” 1071). It should be noted, however, that the repentance spoken of by the council is perfect in the sense that it also includes the desire (votum) to receive the sacrament of penance. Anyone who truly repents of his sin out of love for God must be willing to follow the Divine decree regarding repentance, that is, he must confess if there is a confessor at hand, and if he is not, then he must be aware of the obligation to confess at the first opportunity.
Nor does it follow that the penitent is free to choose between two ways of obtaining forgiveness – repentance on the one hand and confession with absolution on the other. This view was postulated by Peter Martinez (de Osma) in the thesis: “Mortal sins, in terms of guilt and punishment in the other world, are erased only by repentance alone without any reference to the keys”; and this thesis was condemned by Sixtus IV. in 1479 (Denzinger-Bannwart, ” Enchiridion “, 724). It is therefore obvious that even sincere sorrow based on the best motives cannot do without the power of the keys in the present order of salvation, i.e. the sacrament of penance.
Confession (necessity)
“For those who have fallen into sin after baptism, the sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation, just as baptism is necessary for those who have not yet been regenerated.” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, 2) Penance is therefore not an institution whose use is left to the discretion of the individual sinner, so that he may, if he so desires, without connection with the Church, secure forgiveness by other means, such as by confessing his sin in the privacy of his soul. As already stated, the power that Christ gave to the apostles is twofold: to forgive and to retain, so that what they forgive, God forgives, and what they withhold, God withholds. This power would be destroyed if the Church withholds someone’s sins and he appeals to God’s judgment and there obtains mercy. This power would not make sense even if the sinner bypassed the Church and went straight to God, because it would contradict the very conditions under which this power was granted – God will retain sin until the Church forgives it. It would indeed be strange and inconsistent if Christ, in bestowing this double power on the apostles, intended to preserve some other means of forgiveness, such as confessing “directly to God.”
Not only the apostles but also anyone who has a basic knowledge of human nature would immediately notice that people will choose the easier way and that the granting of power, which Christ formally and solemnly performed, has no meaning (Palmieri, op. cit., thesis X). On the other hand, once it is admitted that this grant was valid, and therefore that the sacrament is necessary to obtain forgiveness, it follows that the penitent must in some way confess his sin to those who exercise this power. This is admitted even by those who reject the sacrament of penance as a divine institution. “Such forgiveness is impossible without confessing the sins to be forgiven.” (Lev, ” History “, I, p. 182) The Council of Trent after declaring that Christ left us his priests as his representatives, to whom the faithful must how confess their sins to their administrators and judges, adds: “It is obvious that the priests could not hold this judgment without knowing the offense, nor could they serve in the satisfaction of justice, if they (believers) confessed their sins only in general and not specifically and in detail. ” (Sess. XIV, c. 5)
Because the priest performs the role of a strict judge in the forgiveness of sins, Christ must have wanted such an enormous power to be used wisely and prudently. In addition, the priest can forgive all sins without distinction, quoecumque solvers, based on Christ’s mandate. How can a reasonable and prudent judgment be passed if the priest knows nothing about the case in which he is passing judgment? And how can he obtain the necessary knowledge, if not from the voluntary and spontaneous confession of the sinner? This necessity of the confession of sins is even clearer if the satisfaction for sin, which has been a part of the confessional discipline from the very beginning, is to be imposed not only wisely, but also justly.
The fact that there is a necessary connection between the prudent judgment of the confessor and the detailed confession of sins results from the nature of judicial proceedings and especially from a complete analysis of Christ’s empowerment, carried out in the light of Tradition. No judge shall acquit or sentence without full knowledge of the case. And again the Tradition of the oldest period sees in Christ’s words not only the office of the judge who sits at the court but also the kindness of the father who weeps with the penitent child (Aphraates, ” Ep. De Poenitentia “, dem. 7) and the skill of the physician who, according to the manner of Christ heals the wounds of the soul (Origen in PG, XII, 418; PL, XII, 1086). It is evident, therefore, that the words of Christ contain the doctrine of the outward revelation of conscience which the sinner must make to the priest to receive grace.
Confession (various types)
Hello. And Bye.