Protestant Truth Society: Absolution

Protestant Truth Society is a Bible based Society which seeks to promote the Truth of God's Word.

Absolution

The word absolution comes from the Latin word absolvere, which means: to release from, or to declare innocent.

In the history of the Church, the word has been used in two senses:

1. It is used in the sense of remission of sins.
In this sense it is God only that absolves. Roman Catholics argue that the power of absolving or remitting sin after confession was given to the Apostles by the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in John 20:23, Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained (see, for example, the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1441). But this is a misunderstanding. The verse can be interpreted in one of two ways.

First, these words, spoken by the Lord after His resurrection, can be understood as merely conveying to the Apostles who were going forth to evangelize the world their commission. In this sense the words of Jesus authorize the Apostles to admit those whom they judged fit into the kingdom of grace and forgiveness, and to refuse admission into it to those whom they judged unfit. This is the Patristic understanding of the text as may be seen by the comment of Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 412444) on it.

However, there is a second interpretation of John 20:23. As persons in Scripture are said to do that which they were commissioned to announce would he done (see, for example, 1 Kings 19:17; Jer. 1:10; Hos. 6:5), our Lords words in John may he paraphrased: You are commissioned to go forth and preach that My blood has been shed to take away sin, and whosoever believes your message and accepts the Gospel offered will be freely forgiven (see Luke 24:47). It is important to note that the Lord is speaking to the whole body of disciples, and not the Apostles only. This fact is proved from a comparison of the accounts given by Mark, Luke, and John. Thus the words of Jesus in John 20:23 are a commission to the whole Church, not just to the Apostles. Furthermore, as the word whosesoever (plural in the original Greek) proves, it is classes of men and not individuals which are referred to, in other words, those who repent and believe the Gospel.

Whichever interpretation is taken it is clear that the text has nothing whatever to do with an ordinance of Confession and Absolution.

2. The word absolution has also been used in the sense of a release from the censures of the Church which have been imposed upon an offender.
In early times whoever was guilty of any great crime was laid under the censures of the Church and debarred from communion. The offences requiring ecclesiastical censure were, according to Gregory Nyssa (A.D. 373395), apostasy, witchcraft, adultery, fornication, murder, homicide, robbery, robbery of graves, and sacrilege. Whoever had been guilty of any of these offences was excluded from the Lords Table for various lengths of time. During those periods he had to do public penance before the congregation, who were thus assured, so far as was possible, of his repentance, and were moved to pray to God for his forgiveness. When he had finished the appointed time of his penance, having passed through the four orders of penitents as a weeper, a hearer, a kneeler, and a non-communicating attendant, he was restored to the peace of the Church and absolved from the censure which had been laid on him.

There was no marked form by which this absolution was conveyed. The Bishop and clergy present laid their hands upon him in the last stage with prayer. However, this same form had been used at the beginning of the penance, and every day that he had remained in the class of the kneelers. It meant no more than that prayer was being offered for the individual by the ministers of the congregation. After this absolution he was readmitted to Church communion.

Growth of Sacramental Confession and priestly Absolution

It was only by slow degrees that the doctrine of Sacramental Confession as linked with absolution grew up in the Church. For twelve hundred years there was no formula of absolution from sin (as distinct from censure) known in the Church of Christ, but only prayer for the forgiveness of the sinner. For the first six hundred years this prayer was offered publicly by the congregation. Then people began to think Leo I (A.D. 440461) led the way in such thinking that the prayer of the priest could be regarded as a substitute for that of the congregation. Then there grew up the practice adopted by some, not by others of confessing to the priest those sins which up to that time were confessed publicly, and receiving his prayers in place of those of the congregation, which for the particular purpose he represented. Gradually the idea of the priest as representing the congregation was exchanged for that of the priest representing God. Finally, at the end of another six hundred years, the formula of absolution was changed from a prayer for pardon to a granting of forgiveness. Twelve hundred years had to pass before so presumptuous a claim could be put forth. One more step followed. In 1215 absolution after confession was declared obligatory on all men and women by the most arrogant of the Popes, Innocent III, at the Fourth Lateran Council which also formulated the dogma of Transubstantiation.

Differences between Roman Catholic Doctrine, Reformers and Anglo-Catholics

In order to show how widely the English Reformers and Rome differ from one another in regard to confession and absolution, also how the teaching of Anglo-Catholics is more in harmony with the Lateran doctrine (and later that of the Council of Trent) than that of the Church of England, we shall give a brief account of the teaching of each.

1. The Roman Catholic Teaching
The Roman Church teaches that our Lord Jesus Christ established a Tribunal of Penance in which the priest is judge, and that it is necessary for every Christian to address himself to that Tribunal for the forgiveness of his sins. History demonstrably proves that that Tribunal was in fact not established by our Lord, but by Innocent III in 1215, and that it was the fourth Lateran Council, not our Lord, which ordered all Christians to submit themselves to it.

The Church of Rome teaches further that Penance is a Sacrament, and that this Sacrament consists of four parts (a) Contrition or attrition (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1451-1454), (b) Confession (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1455-1458), (c) Satisfaction (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1459-1460) and (d) Absolution (Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1441-1442, 1461-1470, 1497).

(a) Roman teachers are forced to substitute attrition (distress at sin through fear of its punishment in this world or the next, attrition is called imperfect contrition in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1453) for contrition (distress at sin through sorrow at offending God) because they do not dare to deny, in face of the declarations of Holy Scripture, that contrition on the part of man is immediately accompanied by forgiveness on the part of God. But if that is so, why are confession, satisfaction, and absolution needed to bring about what has been already done? They state that contrition is enough without the other three, but attrition is insufficient with them. Thus, in the teaching of the Church of Rome, a person may be forgiven without any love of God in his heart if he has a fear of Gods punishments and submits himself to the priest.

(b) Confession, according the teaching of Rome, must be made (i) in secrecy and (ii) to the priest not as in early times before the congregation. Also the penitent is ordered to enumerate all grave sins, and to answer any questions asked by the priest, who is instructed to make inquiries on any points which may have been concealed through modesty. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church states that confession to a priest is essential and that, All mortal sins of which penitents after diligent self examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret (para. 1456, see also 1424 and 1493).

(c) Satisfaction, involves not only making amends to another who has been wronged, but also involves the satisfying Gods justice by suffering or by performing a painful penance imposed by the priest. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the sinner must make satisfaction for or expiate his sins (para. 1459). When God pardons the sinner on the priests absolution, He is supposed not to be content unless the sinner undergoes some pain, which must be undergone either on earth or in an imaginary place called Purgatory, unless the Pope presents him with an Indulgence which shortens or removes it (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1471-1479).

(d) Absolution, instead of being a release from the censures of the Church, or a prayer for Gods forgiveness of the trespass committed by the sinner, becomes a judicial pardon of sin by a man acting in the place of God.

2. Teaching of the English Reformers
At the Reformation the Reformers swept away the whole of the system which was established by the fourth Lateran Council of 1215. They did not bring back the early penitential discipline of the public acknowledgment of great offences before the congregation, but they left each person to the rule of his God-given conscience. This had always been the case in the early Church, except in the case of such scandalous offences as those enumerated by Gregory of Nyssa. The Reformers made conscience the judge of whether the person was or was not in a state to attend the Table of the Lord. In the Anglican Church they introduced into the Daily Prayers and into the Communion Service a declaration of Gods forgiveness of the penitent, by which each person might judge and reassure himself, and a prayer for His forgiveness after the public confession of sin. For the ordinary Christian life the mediaeval practice of private confession and absolution was abolished.

However, the Reformers recognized that there might be souls so overwhelmed by the horror of a sudden fall or by the stings of an awakened conscience that they could not assure themselves of the possibility of Gods forgiveness before Holy Communion (which ought to be received with the quiet mind of a child of God conscious of acceptance by his Father) or before death. In these exceptional cases they allowed and advised the troubled soul to open its grief to the minister of the Church, or some other discreet and learned minister of Gods Word, in order to receive assurance that his sin did not shut him out from Gods mercy, and that he might enjoy the benefits of absolution, which are restoration to the communion of the Church. in these two cases only did the Reformers allow private absolution not for the removal of sin, but for assurance to the sinner that God certainly forgives or has forgiven him, if he is truly penitent.

3. Anglo-Catholic Teaching
Anglo-Catholics make as little as possible of the public absolutions because they wish to drive people to what they call sacramental absolution. This teaching on sacramental absolution is essentially the same as the Roman Church. In one respect it goes beyond it, for whereas Roman authorities teach that only grave sins and such as they pronounce mortal, must necessarily be confessed in order to obtain absolution, Anglo-Catholics require all sins that the ransacked memory can recall to be confessed for that purpose, on pain of the guilt of sacrilege. They have found it necessary to reject the substitution of attrition for contrition, as they could not bear the thought of forgiveness being given to someone who was without any love towards God. But then they are left in the difficulty, that there is no longer need of auricular confession and no place for priestly absolution to release from sin, when that sin has been pardoned already, as it certainly is on contrition. They argue that God demands confession as a condition of pardon. That is true, but it is confession to Himself that He demands, which is a necessary part of contrition, not an act subsequent to and apart from it. They further tacitly reject the Roman explanation of satisfaction, and substitute for it amendment. That is well, but amendment is a result of repentance, not a part of an ecclesiastical ordinance. The Anglo-Catholic view of the final act of absolution does not differ at all from the Roman Catholic view.

According to the Anglo-Catholics, the Scriptural authority for absolution is commonly declared to be John 20:23. But, as we have seen, this verse has nothing whatever to do with sacramental confession and absolution. Some Anglo-Catholics desperately argue that the institution of the Sacrament of Penance is to be found in our Lords washing the disciples feet (John 13:10)! This only serves to highlight the unbiblical nature of their teachings.