TRACT V. A Defence of Confession.

[thesmellypocket 1839]

BLESSED JUDE THE FIRST, DEFENDER OF THE SACRED PRIESTHOOD, PRAY FOR US.

 

"At Owyn's command, the brothers set shepherds over the flock of men, and so created a priesthood for their instruction, in anticipation of the second son of spirit."-Gospel 5:5.

 

TRACT V: A DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTAL NATURE OF CONFESSION.

ADRESSED TO HIS HOLINESS JAMES II, AND TO ALL OF HOLY CHURCH. 

Written by Father Pius of Sutica, FSSCT. 

 

I.The Point at Issue.

 

I.Your Holiness, Your Excellencies and Your Eminences, most Reverend Fathers of the Church, this Tract is for you. I fear that there is a fundamental trend in Church practice and Canon Law that fundamentally alters the nature of this most sacred rite. You are, and remain, our most excellent teachers and guides, but there is something here that is clearly contrary to my duties as a Priest, and therefore I am compelled to speak. As Bishops, you are my Fathers, but as Priests, you are my brothers. And I speak to you with the deference of a son to a father but also the concern of a brother to a brother. I should like to seek clarity in the truth, in order that the true nature of this most critical rite of Holy Church be defended and upheld.

 

II.Jude the First, that Saintly and Venerable Pontiff, lays out our priestly duties very clearly in the Encyclical Sacerdotii in Nostra Ecclesiae, which ought to be read by each and every Priest. He taught very authoritatively that a Priest's fundamental duty is the defence and advancement of the Sacraments. He labelled us, brother Priests, Sacramentum Defensores, that is, the Priest is first and foremost The Defender of the Sacraments. I, reading this, laid out my view of the Priesthood in my Epistle entitled Floodgate of Mercy. This refuted, on the one hand, the secularising tendencies that made any kind of political involvement from a Priest anathema, but, on the other hand, also warned against worldliness and reminded us that we are first and foremost ministers of the word and the Sacraments. In this, I wrote of Confession as a Sacrament essentially renewing one's Baptism, perhaps to be considered a rite of penance linked to baptism, which has the clear Sacramental effect of cleansing the person of guilt. I had no hesitation in committing these words to paper. I was only repeating the constant teaching of Holy Church, including her finest Doctors, Blessed Jude and Venerable Humbert among them, the two holy men who perhaps have exerted the greatest spiritual influence on the charism of our Fraternity. 

 

III.This Epistle was received well, including, if Elven memory serves, by His Holiness, James II. I had known about the changes in Canon Law from what it was in the time of Daniel the Sixth. However, not being cognizant with Canon Law as our present Pontiff is, I assumed I was simply misinterpreting: although non a Sacrament as such, Confession is a rite of the Church with a sacramental element linked to that of baptism; therefore, I continued to do the old and traditional absolution which makes it clear that that person is absolved of sin. (NB: Whether Confession is or is not its own Sacrament, is, I grant you, an open question. Whether it has a sacramental nature is not.) But a letter published by His Holiness to the good historian Mrs. Yuliya Styrne, makes it clear that, in the view of the present Pontiff, Confession is considered a mere private devotional with no objective element. 

 

IV.He writes: "Mass and confession are ceremonies for the purpose of spiritual fraternity, but they are not sacraments in the traditional sense: manifestations of the Exalted's authority in the priesthood, of which there are only four (Ablution, Ordination, Consecration, and Matrimony). At the moment it is forbidden for laymen and monastics to take confession or give mass, but these are disciplinary rules--each of these ceremonies has no sacramental effect, whether performed by priest or layman."

 

V.In this Tract I will counter this claim that Confession "has no sacramental effect," owing to my vow to defend the rites and Sacraments that have been handed on to me by Holy Church.

 

II.Just Because Confession can be Administered by Laymen, does not Mean it has no Objective, Sacramental Effect.

 

I.The ordinary minister of Confession is a Priest. Church teaching makes it clear that he is the distributor of that Rite. However, when circumstances permit, laymen and even women may be dispensed to hear them. This supposedly renders it a private devotion without sacramental effect. However, are they prepared to say the same of Baptism? Baptism can be administered by laymen in the same circumstances, and yet, we read from the Code of Canon Law: "Baptism is the gateway to the seven skies and necessary for all those who deem themselves following the Canon. Through baptism, men are freed from sin and evoke the prophethood gained by the exalted in the holy waters of Gamesh." (Daniel VI, CCC III.II.1) That Baptism has sacramental power is even more evident from the Gospel: "Behold, thou art cleansed, and thou art God's domestic." (Gospel 2:36.) Baptism, the gate of heaven, absolves a soul entirely from the stain of sin, and by it they enter into that Prophetic office which was given unto Horen - viz., they become part of God's household, his assembly: his Church. If Baptism did not have an objective sacramental effect, it would not be necessary for the Sacrament of Matrimony. (Daniel VI, CCC III.VIII.II.) 

 

II.If Baptism is not a manifestation of priestly authority, in what sense can it called sacramental, let alone A Sacrament? The answer is clear: all Canonist men, to some extent, share in the Prophetic office. If Baptism was the anointing of Horen as Prophet, so by Baptism we enter into Horen's Prophetic role. Wherefore Blessed Daniel VI continues: "[The Physical Act of Baptism] acts as a simulacra of the prophethood gained by the exalted in the holy waters of Gamesh." (CCC III.II.1.) In a similar way, so by the rite of Confession, a laymen can absolve by that same Prophetic, although I would not say Priestly, authority that has been given unto him, sacramentally, by Baptism. But this properly and ought to be done by a Priest unless a man is cut off from a Priest and therefore a)cannot fulfil his obligation of yearly Confession, or b)is in mortal danger without a Priest, or c)is stranded in some foreign land in which no ordained person can be found. Why is this? The Priestly authority is simply stronger: a Priest who hears a valid Confession can absolve by his Priestly authority, a laymen by his Prophetic. The authority of the Priesthood is the authority of Owyn, and the authority of Owyn is the authority of God. (Gospel 5:5.) And hence the Priest, hearing a Confession, can absolve with this same authority, and thereby essentially renew a man's Baptism by the words of absolution. (We will speak more of this in the next section.) Moreover, God does not expect the impossible. He is infinitely just and therefore cannot condemn a man for circumstances beyond his control. Therefore a layman's Confession will do when a Priest cannot be found, because it shows a resolution to confess but the presence of an ordained minister being inaccessible, God, in His mercy, receives it like unto a Priest's Confession. But this must again be stressed: this is not the ordinary way of things.

 

III.Hence, on no account is the argument that because it is not necessarily priestly, it is not necessarily sacramental, to be accepted.

 

III.The Historical Teaching of the Church.

 

I.THE MODERN DOCTORS: Now is the time to lay out the Church's clear and obvious teaching that Confession has sacramental value. First of all, the four modern Doctors who express it most plainly are Jude I, Blessed Seraphim of Leora, my dear brother, Daniel VI and Ven. Humbert. Daniel VI included Confession as a penitential Sacrament in the CCC. (III.III.II.) 

 

III.Jude I wrote clearly of Confession as a Sacrament, adding: "At the core of the duties of the parish priest is the celebration of the sacraments. His mandate is to faithfully adhere to the life of the Church that in these sacraments, he may impart the salvatory obligations to his faithful flock...Upon hearing confession, the duty of the priest must be to act in the mercy and benevolence of GOD, calling into mind the Scroll of Virtue. He must be the witness for the faithful’s contrite heart and impart the absolution of sin so as to save and renew the baptismal vows conferred upon the people." (Sacerdotii) 

 

III.Blessed Seraphim wrote: "How unfathomable and great is the Lord’s mercy that he has given the power of forgiving the sins of men to Evaristus and Clement and to all their successors after them, the bishops and the priests of our Holy Church? Why would he do this? To open his hands to mankind and make certain the forgiveness of this sickness in us. But how does this occur? It is simple; through the Sacrament of Penance (Ablution/Confession), which is a pillar of our faith, for it when initial powers from Baptism cannot overcome the passions, comes to set them aside and make room for that grace." (GO TO CONFESSION, PRAY, GIVE ALMS.)

 

IV.Venerable Humbert is so full of references that it is hard to choose and remain concise. He made it clear that the "Church has the power to forgive sins" (Maxims 4.24) and such was his devotion to the Sacrament, Cardinal Coppinger tells us, that he sometimes spent up to 18 hours a day in the Confessional, even falling asleep in that blessed place. (Life of Father Humbert, O.S.J.) He wrote: "Wouldst thou mock at God? He hath instituted this Sacrament as the means of forgiveness, and if thou hast any sense, thou wilt drink this bottomless cup of mercy. For I have observed that we have only a limited time on this earth, but an eternity in the Skies. Prepare accordingly;" and in another place he proscribes tells us that the prayer he and other Priests ought to use by way of absolution: "God, the Father of mercy, hath, through the authority of the Prophets, instituted a sacred priesthood for the administration of the Sacraments and for the remission of sins. In union with the Exalted, Saints and Angels in the Skies, and all the faithful departed, and on the authority of said priesthood, I do absolve thee from thy sins in the name of the Father, and of Horen, and of all the Exalted. Thy sins are all forgiven: go in peace!" (How to Take and Make Confessions.) And this formula of absolution became popular among the Judites.

 

V.Such have written the more modern Doctors of Holy Church. Several themes are common. Firstly, that Confession is of God's institution and not man's. Secondly, that it is a Sacrament, or at least has a sacramental effect, namely the forgiveness of sins. And the renewal of Baptism seems to come up in all of them. God recognises our weaknesses and provides a means of renewing the covenant of our Baptism too often broken by substantial sin, for as the Angelic Doctor writes: "why would our lord give us life, promise salvation, and not give it to us? He wants us to live with him and love him forever." (On the Afterlife.) God wants us to access His abundant mercies and dwell with Him in bliss. He provides us the means, so that if we fail after our Baptism (for, unlike me, most of you are baptised as babies and have no reason wherewith to repudiate sin), these mercies can be renewed. That Confession is His instrument of doing this, by which "All thy sins are forgiven", is evident by the authoritative teaching of these Doctors. 

 

VI.Now in case any man say that this is simply the modern teaching that has been changed, I propose to show that this has always been the case. Now I will quote a number of sources from before the reign of Jude I, that you may know he was no innovator, for "there is no innovation in Faith." (Spirit 2:17) An early edition of the Rite of Confession reads as such: "O, Creator the Father of mercies, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Light among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace,and I absolve you from your sins. Amen."  One of the very earliest monastic documents emphatically asserts that Confession "destroys Iblees' records." A story is related which implies that a man confessing to his Bishop obtains complete remission of sins. The Saintly Reader lists Confession as a rite with an implied equality to Matrimony. (First Pontifical Address to the Orenian Peoples.) It is clear that Confession has always been considered more than a private devotion with no sacramental effect. It has always been held to have a sacramental effect and to even possess in itself the renewal of baptismal vows.

 

IV.Conclusion.

 

I.It is clear that Confession has a sacramental effect. It is clear that it has a very great sacramental effect. It is clear that it is - as I wrote before - a Floodgate of Mercy, by which the waters of Gamesh pour freshly into our souls. On no account can be neglect or denigrate this most vital duty of ours. The current confusion caused by this denigration causes the faithful to recoil and despise what they ough to flock to. Therefore I beseech the Holy Pontiff and all the Synod that the importance of Confession as an objective act with a sacramental effect be restored, renewed and clarified, and that its effects be defined and known in perpetuity. Certainly we would only be following our ancient teachings which have been passed down to us from the Most High were it be declared that Confession is the renewal of Baptism. 

 

II.And now, my lords, I beg that I might have your blessing, that I might persevere in holiness in this long exile which men called life, and return at last to the Source of my existence. All ye Saints, pray for us. Amen.

Edited December 8, 2020 by thesmellypocket

[JoanOfArc 4586]

Father Dima brought some freshwater and potatoes for Father Pius in his small shack in Dobrov. He remarked the priest looked healthy (a white lie) and that his defence was needed (a truth).

[Lojo613 1420]

A letter finds its way to the mailbox of Father Pius.

“Dear Most Learned and Wisened Father, firstly, I am elated to know that you too yet live, and am saddened to hear of your state as noted to us by His Holiness during the Council of Providence. May GOD in His mercy keep you, and restore you in health and spirit to us, for though surely the greatest of rewards await thee nearest to Him, there is yet so much work to be done here that the world would truly be worse without you in it. In response to your letter, I wish to both agree and disagree with the published tract. I agree that the act of Confession as defined currently does have a great religious value, and is entirely holy and righteous in all its forms, and I agree that the act of confession is necessary for the renewal of the Baptism. Yet, the current state of the separation of the Sacrement of Ablution and the rite of Confession is necessary and correct. The act of Confessing is the acknowledgement of ones sins to another, whether in private or public. Under normal circumstances, and under the prevailing Church doctrine for many years, Confession would be immediately followed by ablution, such that to use the term Confession would have it go hand in hand with the term ablution by implication. Furthermore, confession to priests was, and still is, the most convenient, if not necessary, requirement to recieve ablution. The necessity of separating the rite from the sacrement becomes clear precisely due to the fact that layman can hear confession. Yet, not only laymen can hear a confession, but theoretically, anyone with ears may hear a confession, even a pagan. It is an argument similar as to why the rite of prayer is not considered a sacrament, despite having a clear effect on the souls of men and forming a pillar of virtue. Anyone may pray, anyone may venerate GOD, and anyone may Confess their sins to whomever. It is the individual who acts, in these circumstances, just as it is the individual who resists temptation and the individual who adheres to virtue. A priest may hear a confession, but refuse ablution, yet is the man who confessed not bettered by his act? If not, it proves that confession has no effect beyond being a vehicle for ablution, but we know, as stated by the great Church Doctors, that the very act of confession does have an effect, an effect which functions independent of the Church and the ritual of ablution. For ablution to occur, a man must confess, or perish in martyrdom with the grant of an indulgence from His Holiness, this much is true. Yet, often before a man can recieve his ablution, he must make penance for his sins, and before that can occur he must tell the priest, or rather, anyone listening should he so choose, his sins. Confession as currently defined is the act of admitting you are flawed, and asking for forgiveness, and this makes it holy. This is also where the great distinction between rite and sacrement lies, for it is not the priest who must admit you are flawed, nor is it the priest who must draw your confesssion from you, but rather you who takes this act upon yourself. Compared to every other sacrament, Confession would be the only Sacrement where the priest would not necessarily have to play a direct role in the completion or validity of the ritual. To be reborn, one must have his sins cleansed by a holy and pure cleric, and to be joined in marriage the priest must beseech GOD to make the matrimony official and holy. A man cannot simply declare that GOD has made him reborn, or that GOD has seen his marriage as just, for a layman is beyond such ordainment. Yet, the virtue of admitting ones own fault lies entirely within the command of the individual. A Confession, so long as it is truthful and good, is a confession, and only the individual confessing and GOD know the truth. Such is the way the meaning of the word has been sieved from its combined meaning. Again, I hope you are well, Father Pius and would dearly wish to see you once more.

 

Your humble servant,

Goren”

Edited December 24, 2020 by Lojo613

[thesmellypocket 1839]

On 12/24/2020 at 7:52 AM, Lojo613 said:

A letter finds its way to the mailbox of Father Pius.

“Dear Most Learned and Wisened Father, firstly, I am elated to know that you too yet live, and am saddened to hear of your state as noted to us by His Holiness during the Council of Providence. May GOD in His mercy keep you, and restore you in health and spirit to us, for though surely the greatest of rewards await thee nearest to Him, there is yet so much work to be done here that the world would truly be worse without you in it. In response to your letter, I wish to both agree and disagree with the published tract. I agree that the act of Confession as defined currently does have a great religious value, and is entirely holy and righteous in all its forms, and I agree that the act of confession is necessary for the renewal of the Baptism. Yet, the current state of the separation of the Sacrement of Ablution and the rite of Confession is necessary and correct. The act of Confessing is the acknowledgement of ones sins to another, whether in private or public. Under normal circumstances, and under the prevailing Church doctrine for many years, Confession would be immediately followed by ablution, such that to use the term Confession would have it go hand in hand with the term ablution by implication. Furthermore, confession to priests was, and still is, the most convenient, if not necessary, requirement to recieve ablution. The necessity of separating the rite from the sacrement becomes clear precisely due to the fact that layman can hear confession. Yet, not only laymen can hear a confession, but theoretically, anyone with ears may hear a confession, even a pagan. It is an argument similar as to why the rite of prayer is not considered a sacrament, despite having a clear effect on the souls of men and forming a pillar of virtue. Anyone may pray, anyone may venerate GOD, and anyone may Confess their sins to whomever. It is the individual who acts, in these circumstances, just as it is the individual who resists temptation and the individual who adheres to virtue. A priest may hear a confession, but refuse ablution, yet is the man who confessed not bettered by his act? If not, it proves that confession has no effect beyond being a vehicle for ablution, but we know, as stated by the great Church Doctors, that the very act of confession does have an effect, an effect which functions independent of the Church and the ritual of ablution. For ablution to occur, a man must confess, or perish in martyrdom with the grant of an indulgence from His Holiness, this much is true. Yet, often before a man can recieve his ablution, he must make penance for his sins, and before that can occur he must tell the priest, or rather, anyone listening should he so choose, his sins. Confession as currently defined is the act of admitting you are flawed, and asking for forgiveness, and this makes it holy. This is also where the great distinction between rite and sacrement lies, for it is not the priest who must admit you are flawed, nor is it the priest who must draw your confesssion from you, but rather you who takes this act upon yourself. Compared to every other sacrament, Confession would be the only Sacrement where the priest would not necessarily have to play a direct role in the completion or validity of the ritual. To be reborn, one must have his sins cleansed by a holy and pure cleric, and to be joined in marriage the priest must beseech GOD to make the matrimony official and holy. A man cannot simply declare that GOD has made him reborn, or that GOD has seen his marriage as just, for a layman is beyond such ordainment. Yet, the virtue of admitting ones own fault lies entirely within the command of the individual. A Confession, so long as it is truthful and good, is a confession, and only the individual confessing and GOD know the truth. Such is the way the meaning of the word has been sieved from its combined meaning. Again, I hope you are well, Father Pius and would dearly wish to see you once more.

 

Your humble servant,

Goren”

"Your Eminence,

 

I appreciate your concern and am most thankful for your prayers and those of all the clerics. My health is improving. Are you saying that the Act of Absolution pronounced by Priests by the Church for centuries and prescribed by the Judites is the act of Ablution, this being the part which has a sacramental effect? And that the Confession is merely the part where the man confesses his sins? So that when past generations wrote of the "Sacrament of Confession", they meant both of these together, whereas in today's Canon Law, there is a separation? 

 

I think I understand now. And reading his Holiness' latest proposal, I find it acceptable and good. For he writes:

"Unless there is grave need, confession should always be taken by a cleric who then celebrates a sacrament of ablution over the penitent." This makes sense. For in the times of the Holy Doctors a Priest would have heard sins and then pronounced absolution immediately thereafter.  And by making true penitence a necessary part of the Sacrament, we prevent priests from simply absolving men without true contrition, and this creates the prior need for Confession.

 

I suppose the only explanation for my confusion is that I am old, trained in the old ways and confused by the new ones. I am also not a Canon Lawyer: I am merely a priest who has voiced concerns.

 

My only quibbles, if you like then, with the proposed law are this. Firstly, I do not precisely see the necessity of holy water in the act of ablution. Yes, it is very important, and indeed, advances the theology I have defended whereby the absolution is considered a renewal of Baptism, but I do not think it governs the form and validity of the Sacrament. For indeed, in past times, a simple act of absolution by the Priest was considered sufficient. Therefore I do not see how the water governs the Sacrament as such. This is only a minor point.

 

Secondly, I think it ought to be impressed upon the Church that just as Confession ought to be administered by Priests who then absolve, so penitents ought to be absolved by those Priests who have heard their Confessions. For then, penance takes a concrete and objective form. If a penitent spirit consists in confessing one's sins with the resolution of the will never to commit them again, then a man will know he has such a spirit, and therefore there can be no doubt that he is absolved. (Whereas a vague term such as "he ought to have a penitent spirit" will produce no little scrupulosity among us which may ruin the spiritual lives of many.)

 

I do wonder now at the implications of the Judite Rite of mass, which is centered on the Asperges, viz., the ritual sprinkling of holy water. I wonder if  a man had his Confession heard and then went to the Judite mass - would he not be then, absolved and have received both Confession and Abolution? I think he would have already received it at Confession - viz., the pronouncement of the Priest ("I absolve thee from thy sins by my priestly authority") would have already had the sacramental effect of cleansing in itself. Do you see what I mean?

 

I thank you for your considered response, in which you have deigned to enlighten my ignorance. My prayers are continually with you.

 

I remain your humble servant,

 

Pius of Sutica."

Edited December 27, 2020 by thesmellypocket

[Burnsider 4542]

Nicolas Barclay sleeps soundly, knowing that the clergy of the Church has soundly and thoroughly discussed even the minutiae of the Faith, so that Nico can rest, assured of its validity. "Godan be praised."