Note 662 — Chapter I · THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE; OR, THE CONFESSOR CONSIDERED IN HIS OFFICE OF JUDGE

Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 631; H. Ap. n. 120; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1969; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. Tr. II. § 152; Scavini, Lib. III. n. 381; Kenrick, Tract. 18, n. 216; Schneider, Manuale Sacerd. Ed. VI. pp. 428-429; Konings, etc. This opinion and practice was first introduced by Illsung (a German Jesuit, who died in 1695), Theol. practica univers. Tract. 6, Disp. 6, Q. 4, art. 7, § 4, n. 128, erroneously appealing to the testimony of Suarez, who (De Pœn. Disp. 32, Sect. 3, n. 9), however, teaches the exact opposite: Respondetur, regulariter standum esse confessioni et dicto pœnitentis: unde quantumcunque confessor sciat peccatum pœnitentis ex aliorum relatione (therefore, in confessione also) tenetur, in hoc judicio magis credere ipsi pœnitenti, propter rationem factam. Lacroix took this opinion from Illsung with the alleged testimony of Suarez, adding, ex inadvertentia, Dicastillo as a further witness, whom Illsung had quoted for another purpose. St. Alphonsus reckons Viva also among these, who, however, does not adhere to this opinion. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 619, who finally remarks: Ista opinio igitur tota debetur hallucinationi, quæ perperam Suaresii, Dicastilli et Vivæ auctoritatem adduxit. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 890-895.