G
Gregory_I
Guest
While I was researching the Jansenist Heresy and The Errors of the Jesuits, I came across this excerpt of a neutral Article about this part of Jansenism:
"The question of contrition was a natural corollary to, indeed a part of, that of the sacrament of penance. Contrition is real (perfect) repentance; the sinner, with his heart ground to ashes, deplores and regrets his wrongdoings not for personal gain but because they offended God; repentance arises from love of God. Attrition, or imperfect repentance, is a sinner’s regret and sorrow rooted in his fear of damnation (gehennae metus) and shame. The former kind of repentance is thus disinterested, concentrated on God alone, while the latter is selfish.
The moot point was not the superiority of contrition but rather whether attrition had any value at all (or whether it was even a sin itself) and, correspondingly, whether perfect repentance was necessary for forgiveness or, perhaps, attrition sufficed. As to absolution, the controversial issue was whether it had a “declarative” or an “operative” value (the Jansenists tended to reject the latter interpretation).
The strongly worded statement by Luther to the effect that the sinner is made a hypocrite and a worse sinner by a repentance that consists of (or perhaps even simply includes) sorrow over the loss of eternal bliss and the incurrence of eternal damnation was condemned in Leo X’s bull, and the anathema was repeated in the 14th session of the Council of Trent. The more detailed explanation makes a distinction between contrition and attrition: the latter, if it includes the will to abstain from sin and the hope of forgiveness, is God’s gift and helps the penitent pave his way to justice. Attrition cannot per se lead to justification without the sacrament of penance but it prepares the sinner for the illapse of grace.
This amounted to rejecting the concept of attrition as a sin; it was supposed to be helpful but the question of whether attrition can be sufficient to deserve forgiveness (with the sacrament, to be sure) was not clearly resolved.
After decades of quarrelling among theologians and bishops, the cautious Holy Office (in 1667, under Alexander VII) issued a decree ordering both sides—those who asserted the necessity of an act of love of God for the reception of grace in the sacrament of penance and those, more numerous (quae hodie inter scholastics communior videtur), who denied this necessity—not to censor and insult each other until a definitive decision came from the Holy See. Such a decision, however, was not to be taken, except that the previous verdicts were more or less repeated."
So Two questions arise:
For if an Act of perfect contrition is made for ones sin, then the effect of absolution is not so much operative, as it is declaratory, God having already forgiven the sin on account of the act of Perfect Contrition.
SO the absolution simply is more of a declaration of God having forgiven the sins of the penitent, on account of his contrition: However, it is still necessary to confess, for we can never know if we have made a perfect act of contrition. The Priest has the Power to declare the sin remitted.
But If Attrition is Sufficient, as long as it involves the sorrow for sin and seeking God’s forgivenes, even if for selfish reasons, then the effect of absolution in confession would have to be operative: The ABSOLUTION has the POWER as the operating agent to remit the sin.
Iinterestingly enough, this issue has apparently never been resolved.
Can Catholics hold to the Rigorist position?
"The question of contrition was a natural corollary to, indeed a part of, that of the sacrament of penance. Contrition is real (perfect) repentance; the sinner, with his heart ground to ashes, deplores and regrets his wrongdoings not for personal gain but because they offended God; repentance arises from love of God. Attrition, or imperfect repentance, is a sinner’s regret and sorrow rooted in his fear of damnation (gehennae metus) and shame. The former kind of repentance is thus disinterested, concentrated on God alone, while the latter is selfish.
The moot point was not the superiority of contrition but rather whether attrition had any value at all (or whether it was even a sin itself) and, correspondingly, whether perfect repentance was necessary for forgiveness or, perhaps, attrition sufficed. As to absolution, the controversial issue was whether it had a “declarative” or an “operative” value (the Jansenists tended to reject the latter interpretation).
The strongly worded statement by Luther to the effect that the sinner is made a hypocrite and a worse sinner by a repentance that consists of (or perhaps even simply includes) sorrow over the loss of eternal bliss and the incurrence of eternal damnation was condemned in Leo X’s bull, and the anathema was repeated in the 14th session of the Council of Trent. The more detailed explanation makes a distinction between contrition and attrition: the latter, if it includes the will to abstain from sin and the hope of forgiveness, is God’s gift and helps the penitent pave his way to justice. Attrition cannot per se lead to justification without the sacrament of penance but it prepares the sinner for the illapse of grace.
This amounted to rejecting the concept of attrition as a sin; it was supposed to be helpful but the question of whether attrition can be sufficient to deserve forgiveness (with the sacrament, to be sure) was not clearly resolved.
After decades of quarrelling among theologians and bishops, the cautious Holy Office (in 1667, under Alexander VII) issued a decree ordering both sides—those who asserted the necessity of an act of love of God for the reception of grace in the sacrament of penance and those, more numerous (quae hodie inter scholastics communior videtur), who denied this necessity—not to censor and insult each other until a definitive decision came from the Holy See. Such a decision, however, was not to be taken, except that the previous verdicts were more or less repeated."
So Two questions arise:
- Can a a Catholic believe that Absolution in the Sacrament of Penance is Declarative OR Operative?
- Obviously contrition is superior to attrition, but can a Catholic believe that A Perfect act of love is necessary in the sacrament of penance and not simply attrition?
For if an Act of perfect contrition is made for ones sin, then the effect of absolution is not so much operative, as it is declaratory, God having already forgiven the sin on account of the act of Perfect Contrition.
SO the absolution simply is more of a declaration of God having forgiven the sins of the penitent, on account of his contrition: However, it is still necessary to confess, for we can never know if we have made a perfect act of contrition. The Priest has the Power to declare the sin remitted.
But If Attrition is Sufficient, as long as it involves the sorrow for sin and seeking God’s forgivenes, even if for selfish reasons, then the effect of absolution in confession would have to be operative: The ABSOLUTION has the POWER as the operating agent to remit the sin.
Iinterestingly enough, this issue has apparently never been resolved.
Can Catholics hold to the Rigorist position?
