PENANCE. – A sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ, by which personal penance (paenitentia virtus) is linked to an ecclesiastical judgment to which Christ has given the power to remit sins.
I. DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
OUTLINE:
I. Terminology
II The virtue of penance. – III The sacrament of penance. –1. The power of the keys conferred by Christ upon the Church
2. The sacrament of penance in the early Church
a) Dogmatic historical development in the first three centuries. – b) Public or canonical penance. –3. The progress of penitential doctrine in scholastic theology
4. The innovators and the Council of Trent.I. TERMINOLOGY
The New Testament uses μετανοεῖν, which in classical literature expresses a change of judgment (votis) regarding a past event, while the other term μεταμέλεια rather designates a change of soul, of heart. According to the Stoic conception, the philosopher is above μεταμέλεια: “Non mutat sapiens consilium... ideo numquam illum paenitentia subit” (Seneca, De beneficiis, IV 34, 4; cf. Ep. 115, 18: “Hoc tibi philosophia praestabit, quo equidem nihil maius existimo: numquam te paenitebit tui”).Besides μετανοεῖν, the word ἐξομολόγησις, originally meaning confession, was soon used to denote the entire process of public penance (cf. 2 Clem. 8, 3: ἐξομολογήσασθαι ἡ μετανοήσει). The Latin Church also adopted the Greek term: thus Tertullian speaks of ecclesiastical penance as “Is actus, qui magis graeco vocabulo exprimitur... ἐξομολόγησις est” (De paen. 9, 2). The Latin Fathers also employed the words pax, reconciliatio, receptio, communionis restitutio, baptismus laboriosus, secunda post naufragium miseris tabula (cf. S. Jerome, Ep. 130, 9: PL 22, 1115 and S. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 84, a. 6), which express the effect of the sacrament, namely the restoration of the sinner to the peace of the Church and thus to the state of grace received once in Baptism (in the “first penance”). After the decline of public penance, not only the accusation before the priest but the entire sacrament of penance came to be called confessio (from the 8th century onward).
II. THE VIRTUE OF PENANCE
The Old Testament does not have a special technical term for “penance” or “to do penance,” but the reality is very well known. It appears in two forms: in cultic-ritual penance and in the prophetic demand for “conversion” or “return to Yahweh.”In the legal texts, cultic-legal expiations prevail (ablutions, fasts, confession of sins, garments of mourning, in sackcloth and ashes; one recalls the great Day of Atonement “by the blood of bulls and goats” Heb. 9, 12). In such rites, the soul, the penance of the heart, might be lacking; hence the criticism of the Prophets who (like the Psalms) exalt the importance of interior penance, of a conscience that recognizes sin as an offense against God. The Prophets do not have a particular term either, but they prefer the verb שׁוּב, widely used in profane language (“to turn back to...,” “to return,” “to convert”). The object of this return (explicitly or implicitly) is always Yahweh (only in Neh. 9, 29 is it the Law). The Prophets held a strongly personalistic conception of penance, understood as a return to Yahweh that must be determined solely by Yahweh and His will. This fundamental structure is revealed in the following characteristic elements: a) it requires the conversion of the whole existence to Yahweh, of which obedience to His will will be the proof (cf. Hos. 6, 1-6); b) this conversion demands unlimited trust in Yahweh. The people must abandon all false trust in human aid (the strength of arms, political alliances) and in “foreign gods” (idols; cf. Hos. 14, 3 sqq.; Jer. 3, 22 sqq.); c) conversion to Yahweh includes aversion to every evil and to every action contrary to God. This negative aspect, implicitly stated by the earlier Prophets, is strongly emphasized by Jeremiah (26, 3; 35, 15; 36, 3) and Ezekiel.
In the New Testament, μετανοεῖν is a fundamental concept in Christ’s preaching: “pazientiam agite, appropinquavit regnum caelorum” (Matt. 4, 17; cf. Mark 1, 15).
This μετανοεῖν is not merely a preparation for the Kingdom but brings one into the Kingdom itself (Lagrange, in his commentary on Mark 1, 15). The idea of the Kingdom and of μετανοεῖν form a unity and illuminate each other. Thus the demands of the Sermon on the Mount are developed from the requirement of total conversion.
In the mechanism of the Greek text, satisfaction for the sins of the past life is also included (contrary to Luther), but it is primarily the complete transformation of the “mind,” of the entire way of thinking, acting, and living, and the total conversion of man.
This conversion preached by Jesus demands that man acknowledge God as God and Lord, which is equivalent to a true overturning of human life. Hence the note of utmost rigor in the conversion demanded by Jesus. The sometimes harsh words (cf. Luke 9, 59 sqq.) inculcate that in conversion to God the principle holds: all or nothing (cf. ibid. 9, 62), because Christ not only preaches μετανοεῖν but represents it in Himself (in the “form of a servant” accepted for us) and in His entire life of unconditional obedience to the Father, in which He bore and expiated the sins of the world. The Lord’s final command (“... praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam in remissionem peccatorum” Luke 24, 47) was faithfully carried out in apostolic preaching (cf. Acts 2, 38; 3, 19; 8, 22; 17, 30). While in the Pauline epistles faith is proposed as the way of life, the πίστις of St. Paul includes μετανοεῖν, of which St. Paul himself is a shining example.
The teaching of the Fathers particularly illustrates the necessity of penance (both for the pagan who wishes to convert to Christ and for the Christian who has sinned after Baptism), its nature (insisting on the change of will as well as on penitential works), and its motives (above all the fear of God). Characteristic of patristic doctrine is the frequent recourse to the Old Testament. While the Fathers energetically inculcate penitential works, one cannot speak of a “fatal” relapse into Jewish legalism (Behm, in G. Kittel [see bibliography], p. 1003), because even in evangelical preaching the “fructus paenitentiae” are required, and on the other hand the Fathers always preach the necessity of interior penance (cf. St. Augustine, Serm. 351, 5, 12; PL 39, 1549).
Scholastic theology dealt with penance primarily as a sacrament, but it also assigned its place as a virtue within the theological system, applying to it the Aristotelian concept of virtue (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 84, a. 8). Penance is defined as “a supernatural and moral virtue, inclining man to detest the sin committed by him, inasmuch as it is an offense against God, and to a firm purpose of amendment and satisfaction.” The material object of penance is therefore every personal sin, its formal object the divine right violated by sin, which can be repaired by detestation and satisfaction; consequently, penance is considered by St. Thomas a special virtue (not a general one) and classified as part of justice (i.e., a potential part of justice), since penance does not fulfill the perfect notion of justice inasmuch as it cannot aim at reparation secundum aequalitatem, which is impossible for a created person with regard to God.
The traditional concept of penance was rejected by Luther. He eliminated satisfaction as unfounded in Scripture, as injurious to the mediation of Christ and to justification by faith alone, and above all because of his doctrine on original sin, which would have created in man a radical impotence such that, even with the help of grace, it would be impossible to resist sin. According to Luther, only two elements of penance remain: passive contrition, that is, an immense fear in recognizing sin, and fiducial faith in the merits of Christ (Confessio Augustana, art. 12, de poenitentia; cf. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, Göttingen 1930, p. 65).
This doctrine, rejected by Leo X (Denz-U, 746 ff.), was condemned by the Council of Trent (sess. XIV, canons 5 and 6: Denz-U, 914 ff.), which instead reaffirmed the traditional concept of penance: “Contrition, which holds first place among the acts of the penitent, is the sorrow of soul and detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning again” (ibid., cap. 4: Denz-U, 897; cf. also the texts in sess. VI, chaps. 6 and 14: Denz-U, 908, 907). Similarly, the Council defines the necessity of penance for all men of every age who, after committing a sin, wish to obtain grace and justification (sess. VI, chaps. 6 and 7 and canon 9: Denz-U, 798 ff., 810; sess. XIV, chaps. 1 and 4 and canon 4: Denz-U, 894, 897, 914). Penance is certainly necessary by necessity of precept and of means; the former is a necessity of precept, the latter an absolute necessity of means, so that even culpable omission renders the remission of sin impossible (v. Attrition; Contrition).
III. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE —
4. The power of the keys conferred on the Church by Christ
a) Context. — On the very evening of the day of the Resurrection, the customary formula of the Jewish greeting “Peace be with you” (Pax vobis), repeated twice by Christ (Jn. 20:20-23), takes on a particular resonance at the moment when he gives the Apostles the power by which sinners are reconciled with God, and institutes the sacrament, which was later often called Pax, Pax Ecclesiae.The words of Christ: a) extend their own mission to the Apostles: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” The mission of Christ was the liberation from sin and the communication of life (cf. Mt. 9:6; Jn. 3:17; 10:10); the mission of the Apostles therefore includes the task of liberating from sin; b) assure the Apostles of a particular spiritual power: “When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit.” The breathing upon his disciples (ἐμφυσᾷ) in the New Testament is found only here and certainly alludes to the spiritual life (Gen. 2:7; cf. Ezek. 37:9). It does not seem that this should be interpreted here as a particular gift of the Holy Spirit, that is, not so much a disposition of the mind or heart, but rather a spiritual power, as is further clarified immediately; c) grants this power so that the Apostles may forgive sins as Christ himself does: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them (thus according to the Greek text: ἀφέωνται), and whose sins you retain are retained.” Since the Apostles must continue the same mission as Christ, the “forgiving of sins” must be interpreted in the sense in which he forgives sin (Jn. 1:29; Mt. 1:21; 9:3; Lk. 7:47-49). This power, called by Westcott the “Magna Carta” of the Church of Christ, is not conferred indiscriminately upon all the faithful, but only upon the Apostles; this is demanded by the entire tenor of the Johannine narrative, where the places in which the Lord compares the mission of the disciples to his own refer solely to the Apostles. This, moreover, was already the interpretation of the ancient Church: “Christ breathed upon the chosen ones alone, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit... Therefore the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles, and to the Churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded them in their office by vicarious ordination” (Firmilian, Ep. 75, 16 in the Cyprianic collection: ed. G. Hartel, CSEL, 3, 2, p. 821, 1-6). This interpretation is confirmed by the passages in Matthew where the conferral of the power to “bind and loose” is foretold: Mt. 16:19; 18:18. The two metaphors of the “keys” and the “rock” are distinct but closely related and complementary: whoever has the keys administers in the place of the master the house (οἰκονόμος), which here is the Kingdom of Heaven, with the very authority of the owner. This power (relatively supreme) includes, beyond the doctrinal sphere, also the power to forgive sins, which is more explicitly expressed in the other metaphor. To bind and to loose render the Aramaic terms “asar” and “sara,” which in rabbinic usage do not express merely doctrinal declarations on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of an action, but also true decisions made by virtue of a properly judicial and coercive power, manifested particularly in imposing or lifting excommunication (cf. H. L. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N. T. aus Talmud u. Midrasch, I, Munich 1922, p. 738 ff.). That this is the sense in Mt. 16:19 is evident from the parallel passage (Mt. 18:18), where excommunication against the impenitent sinner (“if he refuses to listen even to the Church”: 18:17) is confirmed by the power to “bind” (18:18); as well as from the practice of the early Church (1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20) and from the interpretation of the ancient Syrian Fathers, who were particularly familiar with Jewish culture, and who understood “to loose” and “to bind” in the sense of a judicial power over specific persons and sins. From the entire context
“to loose and to bind” receives the meaning of “to forgive and to retain sins”; it is true that this sense in Matthew is not as manifest as in Jn. 20:23, but it is contained there implicitly in the principal idea of the Kingdom of Heaven. The two formulas are therefore related, not strictly identical. “To loose and to bind” in Matthew has a broader meaning, comprehending not only the power to forgive or retain sins, but the entire complex of things or persons that in any way belong to the Kingdom. On the other hand, the ultraterrestrial effect of this “to loose and to bind” of the Church is expressed more explicitly in Matthew than in Jn. 20: that the remission of the Church is ratified before God (on earth — and in heaven). The decision of the Church has value also for the heavenly forum; reconciliation with the Church has as its consequence reconciliation with God (cf. B. Poschmann, [V. BIBLICA.], p. 11 ff. and B. Xiberta [V. BIBLICA.]).
The decisive word on the value of this exegesis was spoken by the Council of Trent: appealing to the “consensus of all the Fathers” (sess. XIV, cap. 1; Denz-U, 894).
b) Judicial character of the power of the keys. — The Council (loc. cit., cann. 2 and 3: Denz-U, 912 sq.) also rejected certain subterfuges of Protestant exegesis, which had sought to interpret the mandate of Jesus Christ either as the power to baptize or as the preaching of the Gospel of remission (cf. Lk. 24:47 and 2 Cor. 5:18-20); attempts which lack substance also because they fail to take into account the “twofold” nature proper to the power granted by Jesus: namely, that it is given as a true judicial power, to be exercised in a twofold act, either of condemnation or of absolution (in which the institution of Confession is implicitly contained [v.]).
The Council of Trent solemnly proclaimed this judicial character of the power of the keys, which therefore cannot be conceived as a “nudum ministerium pronuntiandi et declarandi remissa esse peccata confitenti” (sess. XIV, cap. 5 and cann. 9: Denz-U, 899, 919). This does not deny the profound differences between civil judgment and sacramental judgment of penance. In the former, the aim is to establish whether the accused is guilty or innocent; the presumption and the favor legis favor innocence (nemo malus nisi probetur); the sentence therefore condemns the accused in the case of proven guilt, while declaring him innocent if he is found to be so or if, at least, guilt cannot be proven. In the sacramental judgment of penance, guilt is presupposed; the inquiry concerns its gravity and, what is entirely new, whether there is presently a truly contrite (repentant) disposition; the sentence then either absolves or retains, never declaring anyone innocent. Human judgment primarily serves the vindictive reparation of the violated order, whereas the sacramental judgment of penance aims above all at the salvation of the one liable to judgment, namely, that his guilt (and punishment) may be forgiven.
The particular meaning of penitential judgment is further clarified by its relation to the other judgments of God: it can indeed be regarded as an effective application of the judgment upon sin that was carried out on the Cross, thus as a judgment of grace in contrast to the first judgment pronounced by God at the very moment of sin (“Huiusmodi quippe est peccatum: protinus ut perpetratum est, sententiam fert iudex”, St. John Chrysostom, In II Cor. hom. 22, 3: PG 61, 522). It is finally revealed as a (merciful) anticipation of the Final Judgment: “Claves regni caelorum habentes quodammodo ante diem Iudicii iudicant” (St. Jerome, Ep. 14, 8). Thus, in penitential judgment there appears the characteristic mark of the sacramental sign, which is a commemorative sign of Christ’s Passion, a demonstrative sign of present grace, and a prefigurative sign of future glory.
c) Extension of the power of the keys. — The power conferred by Christ extends to all sins (committed after Baptism), so that none are irremissible due to any deficiency in this power. This is evident from the very words by which the power of the keys is conferred: there is no limitation regarding those who will benefit from forgiveness (ἐν τινι νῦν ἀφήτε, Jn. 20:23), nor any exception regarding sins, τὰς ἀμαρτίας (cf. Mt. 18:18). Christ then sends the Apostles “as the Father has sent me,” that is, so that they may remit every sin, as is evident from Christ’s teaching (cf. the parables of the lost sheep, the lost drachma, and the prodigal son) and from His practice (toward the paralytic, the sinful woman in the house of Simon, the woman taken in adultery, and the thief on the cross). The Apostles indeed forgave even those guilty of the gravest sins. The Church’s conviction of being heir to an unlimited power is manifested in the earliest known synods, held in the 2nd century in Asia Minor against the Montanists, as well as in the Roman Synod of Pope Cornelius in 251 against the Novatians, and in various synods against the Donatists. The universality of ecclesiastical forgiveness was solemnly asserted by Pope Gelasius I (A.D. 495; Denz-U, 167; cf. Lateran Council IV: Denz-U, 430; Council of Trent, sess. XIV, can. 1: Denz-U, 911).
Certain scriptural difficulties must, however, be noted:
a) The sin “against the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 12:28-32; Mk. 3:28-30; Lk. 12:10) is proclaimed by Christ to be irremissible, not due to any deficiency in the power of the keys, but because, as a conscious resistance to the work of the Spirit intended to facilitate faith and conversion, it (morally) excludes such remission;
b) The sin “unto death” (1 Jn. 5:16-17), according to the context of the entire epistle, is the deliberate and total defection from faith in Christ, committed by those who not only in fact transgress the commandments but reject them from the outset, claiming to attain union with God without the mediation of the historical Christ and without observing the commandment of charity. For such a sin, the words of 1 Jn. 3:9 (“Everyone who is begotten of God does not commit sin... and cannot sin,” cf. ibid. 5:18) apply; it presupposes a disposition with which impenitence is naturally united, hence a sin not “simply” mortal (in our sense), but one that leads (πρὸς indicates the final term) to eternal damnation (διάνοια = the second death). The sin coincides practically with the sin against the Holy Spirit; thus, the moral impossibility of receiving life is also affirmed here. Moreover, St. John, in this passage, is not speaking of the power of the Church, but of the certainty of the efficacy of prayer;
c) Apostasy from the faith (Heb. 6:4-8); the impossibility of “renewing them again to repentance” for those “who have once been enlightened... and have fallen away” must not be explained, with the Greek Fathers, as the incurability of their Baptism, but either in the sense of the impossibility of bringing about their conversion through the same elementary doctrines already preached to them, or in the sense that, having rejected the only valid sacrifice, Christ, “iam non relinquitur pro peccatis hostia” (ibid. 10:26).
d) Sacramentality in the power of the keys. — The exercise of the power to remit sins constitutes a true and proper Sacrament of the New Testament, distinct from Baptism. The words of institution (Jn. 20:20-23) can be interpreted sacramentally, since the exercise of the power of the keys involves a “sensible sign” (the judicial character of the power requires from the sinner a sensible confession, and from the Church the external proclamation of the sentence); a sign undoubtedly instituted by Christ for all time, effective of grace (ecclesiastical remission coincides with divine remission, given through sanctifying grace). That this is indeed the genuine meaning of the biblical passage has been solemnly defined by the Council of Trent against the denial of the Protestants (sess. XIV, cap. 1 and can. 3; Denz-U, 894, 913; definition repeated against the Modernists: Denz-U, 2047).
The Council appeals to the constant interpretation of tradition, whose principal lines are outlined below. In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize the great importance that the Fathers attributed to the Church in the penitential process, to which it pertains not only its pedagogical and pastoral direction but which is itself an indispensable means of salvation. It cannot be denied that this intervention of the Church appears more readily in its sacramental value if, according to the interpretation proposed by B. Xiberta, M. De La Taille, B. Poschmann, and K. Rahner, the Church is considered as res et sacramentum.
(from V. JALABERT, LOUIS, *Les pontificaux manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France*. Paris 1937, pl. b) Penance — The reconciliation of penitents. Pontifical of Sens (second half or end of the 14th century) — Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, ms. lat. 962, f. 200v.)
tando qs
domne:
fappiam pectis
cr confitamum
nbi purr pnsur
quos confame
tatus adaltat.
dulgrena ne mifratons abfolut.
ter pim dim nùm. Ctes. Ute. Dò.
dòto dòt fupplicanombr nùsà
me quu cam mùa na pumus.
mògco demurr cauò f’non demon
ment fò nonogìr ne d’athuìr oprusù
us mùmùnùdà fòduam am mumes
cramuenò. tùr mò mùmùrno qò t
pumus ef opurr. D. Dà aòb.
ka qs domne hsfamuls aus
(da V. LÉRINS, Les pontificales mas. des bibl. publ. de France,
Paris, 1937, tar. 15)