By the Council of Trent, every member of the Church must confess himself to a priest once a year at least. This confession extends to all mortal sins, that is, to all sins which are done deliberately and are of any magnitude. Without this confession, (which of course must be accompanied by hearty sorrow for the things confessed), no one can be partaker of the Holy Communion.
Newman highlighted as particularly objectionable that such auricular confession was required to be understood as "a point of faith":
That there is no such impediment sanctioned in Scripture, is plain, yet to believe in it is a point of faith with the Roman Catholic. The practice is grievous enough; but it is not enough to submit to it: you must believe that it is part of the Gospel doctrine, or you are committing one of those mortal sins which are to be confessed; and you must believe, moreover, that every one who does not believe it, is excluded from the hope of salvation.
Now, we might think that Newman's critique in Tract 71 of the Roman practice of auricular confession would have won the approval of Old High figures. Henry Phillpotts, by then Bishop of Exeter, demonstrated, however, that this was not so.
In his 1839 Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter, Phillpotts drew attention to how the Tractarians "sometimes deal with some of the worst corruptions of Rome, in terms not indicating so deep a sense of their pernicious tendency". As an example of this, he highlighted Tract 71's approach to auricular confession and the emphasis on "practical grievances", contrasting it with the much more thorough traditional Old High rejection of the sacramental status given by Tridentine theology to Penance:
They thus seem studiously to decline including in the same list the pretended Sacrament of Penance generally (of which confession is but a part); though Penance as taught by the Church of Rome, is the greatest, because the most soul-destroying, of all those "grievances" - we might rather say, the foulest perversion of God's saving Truth, which the cunning of Satan ever put it into the heart of man to conceive. For this unhallowed device, by abusing the gracious promise of Christ given to the Church in his Apostles, by making the Absolution of the Priest, not only effectual, but also necessary, for the pardon of all sin committed after Baptism.
Phillpott's critique of Tract 71 was both significant and insightful. By highlighting "practical grievances" regarding the Roman teaching and discipline, Newman was creating space for auricular confession and absolution to become a normative practice within Anglicanism, with a sacramental status and - an abiding Old High concern - thereby exalting the absolution given privately over public absolution after general confession.
What is more, Newman was entirely avoiding how Church of England divines had traditionally regarded the dangers of routine auricular confession. This was reflected in the phrases chosen by Phillpotts: "soul-destroying ... foulest perversion ... unhallowed device". The force of Phillpotts' language demonstrates the very significant gulf between the Old High tradition and Newman on this matter.
Phillpotts identified the weakness in Newman's critique of of the Tridentine teaching and practice regarding auricular confession and, we might suggest, the motivation for this weak critique: to attempt to justify in an Anglican context routine auricular confession. Phillpotts, therefore, was pointing to how Tract 71, despite its apparent criticism of Roman teaching and practice, was a significant rupture with the Old High tradition.
Comments
Post a Comment