LAPSI, CONTROVERSY OF THE. — In the 3rd century, those Christians who apostatized from the faith during the persecution of Decius (250) were called *lapsi*. The controversy of the *lapsi* then refers to the dispute that arose in the Church when, as the persecution waned, the *lapsi* sought to be readmitted to the community of the faithful.
I. THE PERSECUTION AND THE *LAPSI*
It is well known that Decius’s edict of persecution obliged not only all Christians but also every person suspected of being a Christian to perform an act of adherence to pagan worship. By doing so, anyone suspected of being a Christian could demonstrate that, however well-founded the suspicion might be, it was nonetheless unfounded; while a Christian who abjured the faith, in accordance with Trajan’s legislation, was thereby absolved of the crime, which ceased with apostasy. As in the past, the aim was not so much to punish this crime as to bring it to an end. The watchword was to make not martyrs but apostates (cf. Cyprian, *Ep.* 56, 2).Indeed, although many were the intrepid confessors of the faith who paid for their loyalty to Christ with their lives, in some Churches, according to the testimony of Cyprian (*De lapsis*, 7–8), there were also countless apostasies. Weakened by a long period of peace, many Christians could not endure the thought of torture. To some of them, it seemed easy to escape the rigors of persecution by consenting to some act or gesture that, while having the value of apostasy in the eyes of the authorities, did not constitute a formal renunciation for the wavering believer. Thus there arose apostates of various kinds: the *sacrificati*, those who actually consented to offer sacrifices before the statues of the gods; the *thurificati*, those who merely burned incense before such statues, especially before those of the emperor; and the *libellatici* or *acta facientes*, those who had themselves enrolled in public records as if they had complied with the law’s prescriptions, or who merely obtained certificates (*libelli*) as if they had obeyed imperial orders.
II. THE CONTROVERSY
Toward the end of 250, the persecution diminished in intensity. Then, repentant, the *lapsi* asked to be readmitted to the community of the faithful. It must be acknowledged that the simultaneous presence of so many *lapsi* in the Church was an unprecedented event. Hence the question of how to respond to their request arose anew: whether to readmit them en masse into the Church or, instead, to examine individual cases, requiring for each of them different proofs of conversion and different kinds of penance. Opposing opinions emerged, and thus began the controversy of the *lapsi*. In Africa, in fact, many confessors, relying on the authority that their heroism had won them in the Church, did not hesitate to give the *lapsi* letters of forgiveness (*libelli pacis*) that dispensed them from penance. There were also some priests who admitted these *lapsi* to Eucharistic Communion without first requiring adequate penance or waiting for the bishop and clergy to lay hands on them (cf. Cyprian, *Ep.* 15, 2). These were especially the priests who had opposed the election of Cyprian as bishop, with Novatus being their principal instigator.At Rome, by contrast, the *lapsi*’s request for reconciliation provoked a rigorist movement, which gained wide support in various Churches and took its origin and name from Novatian (v.). This rigorist tendency already appears in the somewhat severe tone and certain expressions found in the two letters that Novatian, on behalf of the Roman presbyters, wrote to Cyprian (*Ep.* 30, 36) during the vacancy of the Roman see. After the election of Cornelius as successor to Fabian, this rigorism became the banner under which Novatian, disappointed by his failure to be elected, gathered his followers, whom he opposed as the Church of the *cathari*, or pure, to Cornelius’s laxist Church; for they absolutely denied any reconciliation to the *lapsi* so as not to contaminate the Church.
Opposed both to the laxism of Novatus and to the rigorism of Novatian is instead the practice of St. Cyprian, fully shared by the Church of Rome and the Churches of the East. From his hiding place, Cyprian, as soon as he learned of the abuses committed by the confessors and some members of the clergy, while announcing that every question concerning the *lapsi* would be resolved at an upcoming council that would adapt the ancient principles of the Church to the new exigencies of the times in a uniform manner, laid down for the moment certain points of conduct to be followed. First, the power to readmit the apostates to the Church was reaffirmed as belonging to the bishop; the idea of mass reconciliation was rejected as absurd, since each person required prior, fitting penance; the confessors were praised, along with exhortations to prudence in issuing *libelli pacis*; the clergy were given sound advice, followed by severe admonitions to the apostates; then, while affirming his compassion for them and urging them not to despair, he maintained a cautiously reserved attitude regarding their reconciliation, which could only be obtained in danger of death, and then, in the absence of the bishop, could be granted by any priest or even a simple deacon (cf. *Ep.* 15, 16, 17, 18). Cyprian transmitted this line of action to the other bishops of Africa and to the Roman clergy, then without a bishop.
In the spring of 251, Cyprian was able to return to Carthage. He then convened the foreshadowed council, and the awaited decisions on the reconciliation of the *lapsi* were thus taken. Shortly afterward, Cyprian himself expounded and commented on these decisions, both in *De lapsis* and in the letter to Bishop Antonianus, who inclined toward Novatian (*Ep.* 55). They were as follows: those who had merely obtained a certificate of sacrifice (*libellatici*) were admitted to penance and thus obtained reconciliation; those, however, who had actually sacrificed (*sacrificati*) were to do penance but would not be reconciled except in extremis.
Nevertheless, in 252, since the edict of Trebonianus Gallus, who succeeded Decius, seemed to portend a renewal of persecution, the African bishops met again in council, and with the intention of arming all the willing faithful for the struggle, they mitigated the discipline toward the *lapsi*; they therefore decided to grant them immediate forgiveness, provided that after their fall they had given proof of repentance and had done penance.
The Church of Rome concurred with the African Churches in its discipline toward the *lapsi*. During the vacancy of the episcopal see after the death of Pope Fabian, this agreement is especially evident in the two letters sent by the Roman clergy to Cyprian, drafted by the skillful pen of Novatian (*Epp.* 30 and 36). Although, as D’Alès notes (*L’édit de Calliste*, Paris 1914, p. 310), these letters easily reveal the diplomatic formulas and infinite precautions through which “une affectation de sévérité et comme une sorte de regret de pardonner” shines through, in the end the Roman clergy agreed on the two main points of the line of conduct as expounded by Cyprian: a reserved attitude toward the *lapsi* until the question could be resolved uniformly by a council; and the granting of forgiveness and reconciliation in danger of death.
In March 251, Pope Fabian was finally succeeded by Cornelius. Like Cyprian at Carthage, he immediately convened a council in Rome to address the issue of the *lapsi*. As Eusebius writes (Hist. eccl., 6, 43), it was decided «that the *lapsi* should be healed by the salutary means of penance.» Cyprian, in his letter to Antonianus (Ep. 55, 6), declares that «Cornelius, with his notable assembly, agreed with us in the same judgment, with equal gravity and salutary moderation,» clearly showing that Rome’s decisions on the reconciliation of the *lapsi* fully aligned with those already made at Carthage.
The same approach toward the *lapsi* was followed in both Rome and Carthage, as seen in the Churches of the East. For the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia, this is indicated by an incidental and incomplete phrase in the letter
by Bishop Firmilian to Cyprian, which expresses, among other concerns, the anxiety that the bishops of Asia, gathered in council, have because «lapissi quoque fratribus et post lavacrum salutare a diabolo vulneratis, per paenitentiam medella quaeratur» (Ep. 75, 4).
The practice of the Church of Alexandria is illuminated by various fragments of letters from Bishop Dionysius, as reported by Eusebius or recently discovered, particularly one addressed to Fabius of Antioch, who, according to Eusebius himself (Hist. eccl., 6, 44), leaned toward the schism of Novatian. Dionysius indeed affirms against Novatian the principle of reconciling the *lapsi* if, having repented, they had done penance for their fault; he emphasizes the role of martyrs or confessors, certainly more discreet than that of the confessors at Carthage; and to strengthen his argument, he recounts the story of the old Serapion, in which God Himself intervened to reconcile the dying apostate.
Thus, regarding the reconciliation of the *lapsi* and the conditions that make it possible, the Church’s thought—through its representatives in Rome, Carthage, Caesarea, and Alexandria—appears certain and united. While equally detesting the laxity of Novatus and the rigorism of Novatian, the principle is affirmed that reconciliation may be granted to the *lapsi*, provided they demonstrate conversion and fulfill the prescribed penance.
DOCTRINAL ASSESSMENT. — However, regarding this discipline of reconciling the *lapsi*, the question arises—one not posed only today—whether it represents an innovation compared to the penitential discipline of earlier times. Harnack, along with many other liberal Protestants, answers in the affirmative, arguing that the reconciliation of the *lapsi* after the persecution of Decius marks a stage in the process by which the Church usurped the power to absolve sins. The ancient Church, they claim, saw itself as the Church of the saints and attributed the power to remit sins solely to God. It was Callistus who first claimed for the Church the faculty to grant forgiveness for the sins of «adultery and fornication» (Tertullian, *De pudicitia*, 1, 6), though still denying such forgiveness for other grave sins. After the persecution of Decius, this power of remission was claimed by Cyprian and Cornelius, even for the sin of apostasy. Thus, the discipline of reconciling the *lapsi* in the 3rd century represents an innovation—not only disciplinary but also doctrinal.
Many Catholic scholars (Funk, Vacandard, Batiffol, Rauschen, Amann) also support the thesis of innovation, though not in a doctrinal sense, firmly believing that the Church, from its divine Founder, has been granted (and has always been conscious of) the power to remit all sins. Rather, they argue, the innovation is disciplinary. According to these authors, in the early centuries, the Church denied forgiveness forever to a faithful person who had committed one of the gravest sins (adultery, apostasy, murder), merely urging them to do penance and obtain mercy and remission directly from God. It is in this regard that, just as Callistus’ decree represents a disciplinary innovation, so too does the reconciliation of the *lapsi* granted during the persecution of Decius.
Other Catholic scholars, however (Esser, Stufler, D’Alès, Galtier, Fabbri), while acknowledging the existence of rigorist tendencies in some particular Churches, deny that the sin of apostasy—or, in general, the triad of the gravest sins—was ever considered by the primitive Church as an unforgivable sin. They consequently deny that the reconciliation of the *lapsi* in the 3rd century represents a disciplinary innovation.