Performing your Penance Required for Sacrament

[jmj1984]

We’ve already covered “forgetting” to say your penance earlier in the thread.

If you “forget” your penance then you are not demonstrating adequate contrition for your sins, so now you are missing two of the necessary “matter” for a valid Sacrament, contrition and penance.

It doesn’t really matter what someone on the internet claims.

The link is to two documents: The written record of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism for the Council of Trent.

I believe they trump the opinion of anyone online who states something contrary.

What a load of rubbish. Sadly I’ve read both several times and they don’t mention the absolute necessity of completing your penance. Stop being proud and accept your wrong.

 

[Bookcat]

It doesn’t really matter what someone on the internet claims.

The link is to two documents: The written record of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism for the Council of Trent.

I believe they trump the opinion of anyone online who states something contrary.

Your actually here “someone on the internet” making claims.

The understanding you have of this Sacrament and of the documents of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent do not coincide with how the Catholic Church understands them.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The link is to two documents: The written record of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism for the Council of Trent.

I believe they trump the opinion of anyone online who states something contrary.

SG,

Is it possible that you are reading those two documents incorrectly?

What do you make of Canon IX from Trent that I mentioned above, for instance?

In addition, The Catechism of Trent says:

Penance is composed of these three parts in such a way that** though contrition and confession, which justify ma**n, are alone required to constitute its essence, yet, unless accompanied by its third part, satisfaction, it necessarily remains short of its absolute perfection.

Do you see the possibility for a misreading? My understanding of the perennial teaching of the Church is (echoing the Catechism of Trent above) that the three parts are integral and normative, but the first two are both necessary and sufficient for the remission of eternal punishment.

VC

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1459):

"Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.” "

Yes the person is to receive a penance as part of the Sacrament…but the taking away of sin does not wait until the penance is done.

And a person may go to Communion prior to doing the penance for this very reason.

 

[Bookcat]

The sentence in the Catechism referred it means exactly what I noted it means. It is not speaking of reserved sins.

Your understanding of how the Sacrament of Penance works here is not that of the Catholic Church. Your misreading things here.

Documents of the Church are not for private interpretation. They are to be understood as the Magisterium of the Church understands them.

It is understood in the Catholic Church that one is absolved of ones sins at the moment of absolution. Yes one is to receive the penance and do it later. But absolution removes the mortal sins etc (unless say for example the person is not repentant …) there and then. And the person is now among the “living”. (indeed having now true life!).

They may receive the Sacraments of the Living such as Holy Communion. Prior to the doing of the penance. For the penance has been imposed and received.

This is not something new. You are simply misunderstanding some things here.

In my studies of the Sacraments at University as part of my degree in Theology --my professor actually took me aside when he saw me in the hallway after the exam with joy and praise that I had not even one answer incorrect…

 

[Edmundus1581]

…
It doesn’t really matter what someone on the internet claims.

The link is to two documents: The written record of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism for the Council of Trent.

I believe they trump the opinion of anyone online who states something contrary.

They don’t trump other documents of the Church.

Please read Post 19 by Vico. It invokes the Catechism, Canon Law for Latin Catholics, and Canon Law for Eastern Catholics.

There is no point in you repeating your own arguments when you are ignoring a reply like this, which refers directly to current documents of the Church, at the highest level.

The documents you have cited are addressing the sacrament as a whole, with the council addressing the heresy that penance is not required. They do not specifically address the issue you are arguing, that the absolution does not take effect until the all actions are completed.

~ Edit ~
Two more replies with good references have come in ahead of my post. They also argue against your intepretation of Trent, from documents older than the ones in Post 19.

 

[SaintGobban]

I am not repeating “my own argument.” I’m repeating the words of the Coucil of Trent and of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Virtually anyone with an elementary school (8th grade) reading comprehension can read what is written there, comprehend what is written there, and agree that there is
no “wiggle room,” here. It’s black and white, it’s plain and simple:

I will make it easy for you to verify what I am saying:

**Can. 4. If B]anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins three acts are required on the part of the penitent, constituting as it were the matter of the sacrament of penance, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance;] or says that there are only two parts of penance, namely, the terrors of a smitten conscience convinced of sin and the faith received from the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ, let him be anathema.
**

The Constituent Parts of Penance

The Matter

**There is nothing that should be better known to the faithful than the matter of this Sacrament; hence they should be taught that Penance differs from the other Sacraments in this that while the matter of the other Sacraments is some thing, whether natural or artificial, the matter, as it were, of the Sacrament of Penance is the acts of the penitent, – namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, – as has been declared by the council of Trent. Now, inasmuch as these acts are by divine institution required on the part of the penitent for the integrity of the Sacrament, and for the full and perfect remission of sin, they are called parts of Penance. It is not because they are not the real matter that they are called by the Council the matter as it were, but because they are not of thatsort of matter which is applied externally, such, for instance, as water in Baptism and chrism in Confirmation. **

Do you see and understand that it says all three are BY DIVINE INSTITUTION REQUIRED FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT, AND FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN???

Do you see that these three comprise the MATTER of the SACRAMENT.

Do you understand that if the MATTER IS INVALID THE SACRAMENT IS INVALID.

Do you understand that if the Sacrament is Invalid, that means it did not happen.
It didn’t happen. You have to have a do over…You never received the Sacrament.

What is there to argue about??? Nothing. You got nothing.

 

[edward_george]

We’ve already covered “forgetting” to say your penance earlier in the thread.

If you “forget” your penance then you are not demonstrating adequate contrition for your sins, so now you are missing two of the necessary “matter” for a valid Sacrament, contrition and penance.

It doesn’t really matter what someone on the internet claims.

The link is to two documents: The written record of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism for the Council of Trent.

I believe they trump the opinion of anyone online who states something contrary.

If I may, I’d like to point out to you that there are a lot more documents than just those, and a lot more to be gained from the Church’s magisterium than your narrow reading of those two. As others have already pointed out via copious examples, the intention to do penance is a part of contrition, but the sacrament is not rendered invalid if you do not perform a penance.

-ACEGC

 

[SaintGobban]

I’m not responding to any more. I’m done. Knock yourselves out.

I wanted to explain the Truth of the situation because it seems like most people, including many priests, are not trained to understand this anymore, although it was widely taught and understood in my childhood.

I’ve said all there really is to say. I presented the links so you can educate yourself further on the matter.

If you want to know the Truth, you will. That is all.

 

[edward_george]

I also direct your attention to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

**As stated above, the absolution given by the priest to a penitent who confesses his sins with the proper dispositions remits both the guilt and the eternal punishment (of mortal sin). **There remains, however, some indebtedness to Divine justice which must be cancelled here or hereafter (see PURGATORY). **In order to have it cancelled here, the penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his “penance”, usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say, or of certain actions which he is to perform, **such as visits to a church, the Stations of the Cross, etc. Alms deeds, fasting, and prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is determined by the confessor according to the nature of the sins revealed, the special circumstances of the penitent, his liability to relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the penitent may receive another sacrament (e.g., Holy Communion) immediately after confession, since absolution restores him to the state of grace. He is nevertheless under obligation to continue the performance of his penance until it is completed.

newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

-ACEGC

 

[Edmundus1581]

Do you see and understand that it says all three are BY DIVINE INSTITUTION REQUIRED FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE SACRAMENT, AND FOR THE FULL AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SIN???

Do you see that these three comprise the MATTER of the SACRAMENT.

Yes & yes.

Thankyou. So far, so good.

Do you understand that if the MATTER IS INVALID THE SACRAMENT IS INVALID.

Do you understand that if the Sacrament is Invalid, that means it did not happen.
It didn’t happen. You have to have a do over…You never received the Sacrament.

What is there to argue about??? Nothing. You got nothing.

If the penance has been assigned but not yet performed then the matter is incomplete, not invalid.

Thanks for your opinion, but I’ll let the Church tell me what happens in that case. Fortunately, I don’t have to look beyond the numerous replies in this thread to get the answer.

Also, I just wanted to re-assure that the priest who called you a “sock puppet” was not being as rude as it may have seemed to you. The words are just a standard internet phrase for someone who uses multiple accounts to support their own point of view. If you wrote to him twice, under different accounts, then he is being fair in calling the second one a “sock puppet”. Don’t take offence.

 

[Bookcat]

I am not repeating “my own argument.” I’m repeating the words of the Coucil of Trent and of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Your repeating honestly a misunderstanding of the Sacrament and Trent.

We are not contesting what goes into the Sacrament of Penance or the need to give, receive and do the penance.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m not responding to any more. I’m done. Knock yourselves out.

I wanted to explain the Truth of the situation because it seems like most people, including many priests, are not trained to understand this anymore, although it was widely taught and understood in my childhood.

I’ve said all there really is to say. I presented the links so you can educate yourself further on the matter.

If you want to know the Truth, you will. That is all.

Really you are misunderstanding things here …though your intention is well and good…

Certainly continue studying this wonderful Sacrament. Please read again some of the things quoted in this thread from the Catechism etc.

You will find even in the older works that what I and others have noted is the case.

As one well used moral manual for confessors (by a Dominican) noted back in 1949 and 1955:

Speaking of the penance imposed by the confessor in confession:

“There is no obligation to fulfill it (the penance)* before receiving Holy Communion*, although normally speaking this is most fitting”. (emp. in the text…not mine).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Although Saint Gobban isn’t responding anymore, I think it important to point out for other who may be following this thread or come across it later where SG seems to be misreading Trent and how.

Virtually anyone with an elementary school (8th grade) reading comprehension can read what is written there, comprehend what is written there, and agree that there is no “wiggle room,” here. It’s black and white, it’s plain and simple:

The problem is that those with 8th grade educations aren’t necessarily equipped to make the proper distinctions in theological language here. This would be the same difficulty that an 8th grader might have parsing political, philosophical, or scientific language – certain phrases and their usage aren’t familiar.

Can. 4. If B]anyone denies that for the full and perfect remission of sins

. . .

required on the part of the penitent for the integrity of the Sacrament, and for the full and perfect remission of sin,

Saint Gobban seems to be under the impression that “integrity of the sacrament” means “that without which there is no sacrament”. I think that is one likely place we might misread what Trent is saying.

“Integrity” – i.e. that which is “integral” to something – means in this context those parts which constitute a perfect whole, the fullness of the thing. This is also what the “full and perfect remission of sin” is referring to.

But, although satisfaction is INTEGRAL to the sacrament and for its perfection, it is not ESSENTIAL for its existence. Though it perfects the sacrament, it isn’t something “without which not”, i.e. it is not the “sine qua non” of the sacrament. Unlike contrition which certainly is a “sine qua non”.

To illustrate: a man missing an arm suffers from a lack of integrity. He isn’t an integral man. He is a imperfect man. But still a man.

“Full and perfect remission of sin” doesn’t refer to the remission of eternal guilt simply. It refers to perfecting the aims of the sacrament,-- not just the primary aim of removing guilt of eternal punishment, but also the secondary aims of expiating temporal punishment and reforming the sinner. Satisfaction accomplishes this secondary effect, and absolution accomplishes the primary effect.

This is why the Catechism of Trent which I quoted earlier says:

Penance is composed of these three parts in such a way that though contrition and confession, which justify man, are alone required to constitute its essence, yet, unless accompanied by its third part, satisfaction, it necessarily remains short of its absolute perfection.

 

[Bookcat]

As noted above…even though the sins are absolved at the time of absolution and a person may go to Holy Communion prior to the performance of the acts of penance…for the penance has been accepted by him and absolution already given–freeing the person of his sins and reconciling him to the Church.

The penance is not to be rejected when given of course…that would be a problem…(though one can always ask at the time for a different penance…such as if he gives one that one cannot do)

And it is not to be later “not done” …the intention being changed by the penitent …such would bring new sin (not revive the old that has been absolved).

It is to be done…for it is part of the Sacrament.

“Nor should the importance of the act of satisfaction be passed over. This final act of the penitent “crowns the sacramental sign of Penance” (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 2 December 1984, n. 31 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 77 (1985) 263). Hence, the confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent, for his part, is bound personally to carry out these penances (cf. can. 981).” (Cong. for the Discipline of the Sacraments June 1999)

 

[YoungTradCath]

I am laughing so hard at all this.

If you read back a page or two, I’ve explained.

1. You must be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist.
2. Absolution grants grace. Penance does not.
3. While it is required to perform the assigned penance, it is not required to perform the assigned penance before reception of the Eucharist. Therefore, if one does not have time to perform the assigned penance before reception, then one may perform the assigned penance after reception of the Eucharist.

Any logical and faithful person will agree that it is a sin to intentionally not perform assigned penance. However, any logical and faithful person who can read will also agree that absolution grants grace, and grace is what is required to receive the Eucharist. Furthermore, any logical and faithful person will agree that if absolution is granted, penance is intentionally not performed, that the absolution is not invalidated, thus “bringing back” all the absolved sins; rather, those sins “remain” forgiven, but the penitent is brought back into a state of sin because of his intentionally not performing the assigned penance, which is a sin.

1. These are all valid sequences of events, and none of them will lead anyone into sin:

Confess…Receive Absolution…Perform Penance…Receive Eucharist
Confess…Receive Absolution…Receive Eucharist…Perform Penance
Confess…Receive Absolution…Actually Forget To Perform Penance…Receive Eucharist
Confess…Receive Absolution…Receive Eucharist…Actually Forget To Perform Penance

The reason the last two are valid is because no intention was expressed in not performing the penance. You can’t decide to forget.

1. This is an invalid sequence of events, and it will lead anyone who follows it into sin, thus rendering that person unfit to receive the Eucharist:

Confess…Receive Absolution…Intentionally Not Perform Penance…Receive Eucharist

1. This is a special case. This sequence of events does render anyone who follows it firstly unfit to receive the Eucharist, but it later leads that person into sin:

Confess…Receive Absolution…Have As An Intention To Perform Penance…Receive Eucharist…Change Mind And Decide To Intentionally Not Perform Penance

However, this sequence of events does not “invalidate” the reception of the Eucharist, because at the time, the person was in a state of grace. It was only after receiving the Eucharist did the person sin.

The problem with this thread is that there are two separate, yet in some cases intertwined, issues at hand. The first is reconciliation as a sacrament. The second is reception of the Eucharist. We have to deal with each issue separately before they can be combined.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

My heart goes out to the OP, SaintGobban, as he is very sincere in this argument. (Also, his name reminds me of a very recent U.S. Supreme Court labor law case St. Gobbain Plastics dealing with labor law issues that was a big part of my life for serveral weeks this year) However I am very greatful for the well reasoned and thoughtful responses providing citation to other sources and clarifying the statements of the Council of Trent.

As a personal matter my conscience views the reasoning of the OP as a hop-scotch approach to the sacrament. There would necessarily be a gap from the end of the confession until the penance is performed during which a person might very well sin. It simply strikes me as odd that a person who has sinned be it venial or mortal sin could then perform a penance that would absolve them of their sins up until the time they left the confessional. How would it be possible for a person in such a state effect such a result? (retorical question).

Peace, g.

 

[sasg]

I’m not responding to any more. I’m done. Knock yourselves out.

I wanted to explain the Truth of the situation because it seems like most people, including many priests, are not trained to understand this anymore, although it was widely taught and understood in my childhood.

I’ve said all there really is to say. I presented the links so you can educate yourself further on the matter.

What I don’t get is, why, in the face of an onslaught of references to multiple authoritative sources, do you simply refuse to consider any of it? You do not seem to care that thousands of eminent theologians, scholars, and bishops have read, considered, and explained this dogmatic definition from the Council of Trent for the past 500 years. You read one sentence from the Council of Trent, interpreted it yourself, without regard to the teaching of the Church, based on what was “widely taught and understood in [your] childhood”, and then proceeded to “educate” the Church, anticipating that we would overturn centuries of tradition and theology to the contrary?

We engaged you in good faith, giving quotes from sources with links to official Church teachings. You ignored us, accused us of being dullards with less than an 8th grade education, and didn’t even make an effort to listen to what we were saying, let alone what the Church has said about this.

In your first post you said you spoke out in charity; well we have seen none of that here.

If you want to know the Truth, you will. That is all.

Indeed.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Well said, sasg. I agree on all points.

I would like to thank the OP for providing her original quotations and the link to the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I read these, and found them very interesting and helpful.

I would like to thank the other posters here for their research and well written posts.

I recommend that the OP read these posts in order to be corrected of her errors. She also owes that as courtesy to those who have, in charity, gone to the trouble of reading her posts and finding the information to respond to a question they already knew the answer to.

This thread has increased my knowledge of this wonderful sacrament, and the history of its theology. (I am not suggesting that the theology has ever been different from what it is now, but there seem to have been different emphases at different times, to counter particular errors)

 

[sasg]

Well said, sasg. I agree on all points.

I would like to thank the OP for providing her original quotations and the link to the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I read these, and found them very interesting and helpful.

I would like to thank the other posters here for their research and well written posts.

I recommend that the OP read these posts in order to be corrected of her errors. She also owes that as courtesy to those who have, in charity, gone to the trouble of reading her posts and finding the information to respond to a question they already knew the answer to.

This thread has increased my knowledge of this wonderful sacrament, and the history of its theology. (I am not suggesting that the theology has ever been different from what it is now, but there seem to have been different emphases at different times, to counter particular errors)

That is a very good point–to the OP’s credit, I think many of us would not have focused our attention so keenly on this important sacrament without this thread. My understanding has certainly increased. The Lord works in very mysterious ways