Power to Forgive Sins — Proof from Tradition (II): The Penitential Discipline of the Early Church

Article 3: The Penitential Discipline of the Early Church

By penitential discipline we understand the sum-total of those ecclesiastical precepts that govern the reconciliation of sinners with God and the Church.

1. Internal History of the Penitential Discipline. The penitential discipline of the Church shows many variations, but all its different manifestations are based on the conviction that the Church has the power not only to impose penalties for the violation of her laws and the reparation of public scandal, but also, and principally, to forgive the sins of those who are contrite and ready to give satisfaction, and that her judicial decision in each case is ratified by God.

For centuries the two fora were intimately connected and identical in operation, especially as regards public penance and confession. But the forum internum, the court of conscience, always played the more important part. This is evident from many utterances of the Fathers, when they speak of the power of the keys, the faculty to bind and loose, to forgive sins, etc. Ecclesiastical absolution was always regarded as a true forgiveness of sins on the part of God.¹

We can distinguish a fourfold kind of penance: private, canonical, public, and solemn.

(1) Private Penance (poenitentia privata) consists in secret confession, absolution, and satisfaction, without recourse to the external court of the Church. It is the discipline with which we are familiar to-day. In the primitive Church it was applied especially to secret sins. Thus the Council of Neocaesarea (about 314) exempts from public penance all sins of thought; St. Basil,² the crime of secret adultery on the part of women; St. Gregory of Nyssa,³ clandestine thefts. St. Augustine says that sins committed publicly should be atoned for in public, whereas sins committed secretly may be expiated in secret.⁴ In the earliest days (Irenaeus, Tertullian) all mortal sins had to be atoned for publicly.

(2) Canonical Penance (poenitentia canonica) was imposed for grievous crimes, whether public or private, in accordance with the existing ecclesiastical canons. Not infrequently it was assumed in secret and in that case partook of the character of private penance.

(3) Public Penance (poenitentia publica) consisted of public self-accusation and other humiliations. It was performed before the bishop, clergy, and people, and, unlike Canonical Penance, could be assumed voluntarily.⁵

(4) Solemn Penance (poenitentia solemnis) was canonically inflicted only for the three so-called capital sins — apostasy, murder, and fornication — and had to be performed under stated conditions (fasting in sackcloth and ashes, etc.). It usually ended with the solemn “reconciliation” of the penitent on Holy Thursday. Solemn Penance could be assumed but once (poenitentia una).

In the Orient those engaged in the performance of Solemn Penance were divided into four classes or “stations”:

(a) The “lugentes” or flentes (weepers), who stood in the vestibule and tearfully besought the intercession of those who entered church.

(b) The “audientes” (hearers), who took their place behind the catechumens, and, like them, assisted only at the Mass of the Presanctified.

(c) The “prosternentes” or “substrati” (those who lay prostrate), who, after the departure of the audientes, prostrated themselves on the floor and asked the bishop to impose his hands on them.

(d) The “stantes” or “consistentes” (those who stood), who took their place with the faithful and remained for the whole service, but were not allowed to participate in the offertory or to receive the Eucharist.⁶

Although the first ecumenical council based its penitential regulations on this classification, it was not widely adopted in the West, where the public penitents were treated like catechumens and the name “poenitentes” was applied preëminently to those undergoing Solemn Penance.⁷

2. External History of the Penitential Discipline. The very existence of a penitential discipline throughout all the centuries of her existence proves that the Church always claimed and exercised the power to forgive sins.

a) As to the penitential discipline of the early Church there is considerable difference of opinion between Church historians (Morinus, Fechtrup, Funk, Rauschen, etc.) on the one side, and dogmatic theologians (Hurter, Palmieri, Atzberger, Stufler, Esser, etc.) on the other.

α) The Church historians contend that at the beginning of the second century the Church acknowledged no Penance after Baptism, until about the year 150 Hermas, in his famous Shepherd,⁸ advocated a milder practice. His teaching (so far as it can be made out, for it is very obscure) is that after Baptism there is one and only one opportunity to do penance, especially for those guilty of apostasy, murder, or fornication; a second would be useless. The letter of the Roman clergy to St. Cyprian⁹ on the treatment of apostates shows that a decided influence in favor of moderation first made itself felt at Rome.¹⁰ This movement made headway gradually. The first concession was in favor of those guilty of impurity. It was embodied in the famous “peremptory edict” of Pope Callistus (218–222), which, according to Tertullian, read as follows: “I remit the sins of both adultery and fornication to such as have discharged [the requirements of] penance.”¹¹ Soon adulterers and fornicators were absolved throughout the Church on condition of complying with the imposed penance.¹² But as a general rule, apostates and murderers were not yet granted pardon in the Western Church. Pope Cornelius (d. 252) first opened the door to the lapsed. His action gave rise to the schism of Novatian. This heretic and anti-pope claimed that apostasy was an unpardonable crime and that the lapsed must be permanently excommunicated.¹³

At the beginning of the fourth century the Council of Ancyra decided to admit murderers to ecclesiastical reconciliation on their death-bed. St. Basil (d. 379) went still farther and prescribed a penance of twenty years for wilful murder and ten years for homicide.

Far less consideration was shown to those who fell back into the three capital sins mentioned, after having been admitted to penance and reconciled. These unfortunate sinners were rigorously debarred from further penance until the end of the fourth century, when Pope Siricius (d. 398), in his dogmatic epistle to Himerius of Tarragona, permitted them to assist at the whole divine service with the rest of the faithful and to receive Communion at death.¹⁴

Pope Innocent I (402–417) showed mercy also to “those who, having given themselves up all the time since their Baptism to incontinency and pleasure, seek at the end of their lives both penance and reconciliation.” Asked by Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse how to treat such hardened offenders, the Pope begins by distinguishing “two courses, the earlier one more strict, the later more kind and tempered with mercy. The upholders of the earlier course maintained that Penance should be given but Communion denied… . This more difficult remission of sins was demanded by the circumstances of the time. But as soon as the Lord gave peace to His churches, and fear of persecution had passed away, those in authority determined, through the mercy of God, to grant Communion to the dying as a kind of viaticum to help them on their way, lest we [Catholics] should seem to follow the rigor and cruelty of the heretic Novatian, who refused them pardon. Let them, then, be granted penance, and a last Communion as well, so that men of this description may, through the Saviour’s mercy, even at the end of their days, be freed from eternal damnation.”¹⁵

It is thus many modern Church historians conceive the development of the early penitential discipline. However, they by no means agree among themselves, and several of them have changed their views repeatedly.

β) The theologians insist that the Church always had the power to forgive sins, and was in duty bound to exercise that power for the salvation of souls. Distinguishing more sharply between the general practice of the Church and local abuses, between the Church as such (the pope, ecumenical councils) and individual bishops, they maintain that the Church never neglected her duty of absolving penitent sinners. St. Paul granted pardon to an incestuous man upon his doing penance,¹⁶ St. John received his favorite disciple, who had become a murderer and an apostate, back into the Church,¹⁷ etc. The merciful leniency of the Church is evidenced for Rome by Pope Clement I,¹⁸ for Antioch by St. Ignatius,¹⁹ for Corinth by Dionysius,²⁰ for Carthage by Tertullian,²¹ for Alexandria by Origen,²² for Lyons by St. Irenaeus.²³ The severity of the early Church consisted mostly in a denial of the Eucharist, and the phrase “negatio communionis” in ancient documents is often synonymous with “negatio Eucharistiae.” Before the time of Pope Siricius this penalty was inflicted especially on those who had relapsed into one of the three so-called capital sins. To deny such unfortunates absolution when they repented on their death-bed was branded as impious by Celestine I (d. 437) and Pius IV (d. 1799).

Thus we have two opposing views among Catholic scholars regarding the nature and extent of the ancient penitential discipline, and there is no likelihood that these views will be reconciled in the near future.

On our part we would strongly insist that the dogmatic theologian must bow before the facts of history, even though they appear extraordinary, and that he should seek to acquire a better understanding of the spirit of the primitive Church. There is nothing more unfair than to judge the past by the present, instead of taking antiquity in its historical setting and judging it in its own light. Even to-day the Church still believes in the duty of preserving baptismal innocence, for it is her mission to be a communion of saints. In lieu of this ideal the enthusiasm of the early Christians (not the Church) set up a rigorous rule for attaining salvation.²⁴ It was neither from severity nor because she was unaware of her power, but rather for disciplinary and pedagogical reasons that some of the churches refrained from exercising the power of the keys in regard to capital crimes. The principal motive that inspired this excessive rigor was the fear of giving scandal and of being unable to preserve faith and morals pure amid the corruption of paganism. On the other hand, provision was made for the salvation of sinners by granting them a life-long penance, which, when inspired by perfect contrition and an ardent desire for ecclesiastical reconciliation, of itself effected justification and assured eternal salvation. In regard to the lapsed and those who refused to do penance until they were near death, the Christians of that early day believed (wrongly, as we know now) that a relapse into one of the three capital sins or the wilful postponement of conversion gave evidence of an impenitent heart and showed a lack of true contrition which justified the denial of absolution.

As in the case of the other Sacraments, there was a gradual development in the external administration of Penance and an adaptation of the ancient rite to new conditions, resulting in greater moderation. It is not too much to say that if St. Cyprian were to arise from his grave, he would be shocked at the mildness of the present discipline.²⁵

γ) The duration of penance varied according to the gravity of the sin committed. Public crimes had to be confessed publicly, secret crimes had to be confessed at least in secret and atoned for somehow.²⁶ Absolution (reconciliatio, pax, communio) was generally postponed until after the whole of the imposed penance had been discharged. Exceptions were made in cases of sickness and in times of persecution. The penitential period could be shortened by so-called peace-letters (libelli pacis) issued to sinners by martyrs and confessors.²⁷

In the East, according to Sozomen,²⁸ the administration of Penance from about the middle of the third century on lay in the hands of a “Priest Penitentiary” specially appointed by the bishop. There, as we have seen, penitents were first divided into classes: healers, kneelers, assistants, and weepers, who not infrequently had to endure trying humiliations.²⁹ The abolition by Nectarius, in 391, of the office of Priest Penitentiary put an end to public confession and to the grouping of penitents in classes.

The Latin Church never adopted the system of “penitential stations,” but retained Public Penance until far into the Middle Ages. Simplicius (d. 483) seems to have been the first pope who appointed special priests for hearing confessions in Rome.

The so-called “penitential letters” (epistolae canonicae) were devised for the purpose of unifying discipline. They came into use at an early date. Specimens are extant attributed to SS. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa.

The first “penitential books” (libri poenitentiales) appeared at the beginning of the Middle Ages. They were compiled with a view to determine the nature and duration of penance for various sins and were mostly the work of zealous bishops and spiritual directors who wished to aid confessors in the administration of the Sacrament. The oldest extant copies are of Anglo-Saxon or Franconian origin.³⁰

Individual bishops and councils here and there drew up “penitential canons” for the administration of Canonical Penance.³¹

Beginning with the fifth century, the Roman pontiffs (Siricius, Innocent I, Leo the Great, etc.) issued “penitential decrees,” which exercised a profound influence throughout the universal Church.³²

b) During the Middle Ages the penitential discipline developed along different lines in the East and West.

An insight into the practice of the Greek Church is afforded by the penitential books of John the Faster (Ioannes Ieiunator) and John the Hermit (Ioannes Monachus).³³ The “Poenitentiale Ioannis Monachi,” in its present form, probably dates from the twelfth century and differs from its older prototype only in assigning severer punishments to the sins of murder, fornication, and theft. In the Eastern Church penitents, after confessing their sins in secret, as a rule received absolution at once, but were not admitted to Communion until after they had performed the imposed penance. Clerics in higher orders who were guilty of grievous crimes were deposed.³⁴

In the Latin Church the penitential discipline varied according to countries. In England, Public Penance was unable to strike root,³⁵ whereas in France it was quite generally enforced.³⁶ Peter of Poitiers (d. 1205) and other Scholastic writers after him mention a “Solemn Penance” (poenitentia solemnis), which was imposed for exceptionally grave crimes and had to be performed during Lent.³⁷ In regard to this kind of penance alone, and the sins for which it was imposed, the ancient rule “Poenitentia est una” continued in force.

Public Penance, as such, consisted of various acts of mortification — wearing sackcloth and ashes, fasting, scourging one’s body, wandering about on foot, retiring into a monastery, etc. It was imposed for the following sins: murder, homicide, rape, fornication, usury, witchcraft, robbery, and marrying within forbidden degrees of consanguinity.

In the administration of Private Penance the clergy generally made use of penitential books, though these often gave contradictory directions and lacked ecclesiastical approbation. Later councils protested against their lax provisions and regulated penance according to the ancient canons and Holy Scripture.³⁸

An important change in the penitential discipline of the Latin Church is marked by the introduction of the so-called “penitential redemptions.” These originated in England and contained directions for commuting canonical penances into other good works, especially prayers and alms.

In course of time the wealthy began to evade the penances imposed by their confessors and hired substitutes. A graphic example of this abuse may be seen in the chapter “De Magnatum Poenitentia,” which forms part of the ecclesiastical regulations of King Edgar.³⁹

Another serious abuse arose from the Germanic law permitting offenders to escape punishment by giving money for charitable purposes (compositio).⁴⁰ This practice was to some extent officially countenanced by the Council of Tribur (895).

A universal substitute for all penances, since the Council of Clermont (1095), was personal participation in a crusade: “Iter illud pro omni poenitentia reputetur.” Subsequently indulgences were granted to those who were unable or unwilling to “take the cross,” but gave money for the equipment of crusaders.

In the twelfth century it became customary to devote the revenues accruing from penances to pious and charitable purposes, such as the building of churches and hospitals, and later also to purely secular undertakings, e.g., the construction of bridges and roads. The sums destined for such purposes were commonly called “penitential pennies.”

The Church authorities viewed the reorganization of the penitential discipline on a pecuniary basis with disfavor. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) attempted to check some of the abuses that had crept in. In the fourteenth century the entire system of canonical penances was abolished, but the malodorous practice of almsgathering, to which it had given rise, was not effectively checked until after the Tridentine Council.⁴¹

c) The substitution of pecuniary fines for the traditional works of penance led to a complete change in the relation between sacerdotal absolution and satisfaction. Absolution was now given immediately after confession. This practice continued even after the abuses connected with the medieval practice had ceased.

Attempts to revive Public Penance for public crimes were made by a number of councils — Cologne (1536), Mayence (1550), Trent,⁴² Malines (1570), and Bourges (1584). But they proved futile. St. Charles Borromeo was only temporarily successful in his efforts to accomplish the same purpose at Milan. The Church was compelled to confine her penitential discipline more and more to the internal forum of conscience. The spread of Protestantism made a return to the more rigorous practice of antiquity impossible, and the desperate efforts of the Jansenists resulted in evil rather than good. The faithful of to-day should try by a more ardent contrition to make up for the enforced mildness of the Church in the administration of Penance.⁴³

Readings: Morinus, Comment. Hist. de Disciplina in Administratione Sacramenti Poenitentiae XIII Primis Saeculis, Paris 1651 (Venice 1702). — Sirmond, Historia Poenitentiae Publicae, Paris 1651. — Orsi, De Capitalibus Criminibus, Milan 1720. — Martène, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, Rouen 1700–02. — Francolini, De Disciplina Poenitentiae, Rome 1708. — Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche, Halle 1851. — Frank, Die Bussdisziplin von den Apostelzeiten bis zum 7. Jahrhundert, Mayence 1867. — F. Probst, Sakramente und Sakramentalien in den ersten drei christlichen Jahrhunderten, pp. 244 sqq., Tübingen 1872. — H. J. Schmitz, Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisziplin der Kirche, Mayence 1883; idem, Die Bussbücher und das kanonische Bussverfahren, Düsseldorf 1898. — Batiffol, Études d’Histoire et de Théologie Positive, pp. 45 sqq., 3rd ed., Paris 1904. — F. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 155 sqq., 182 sqq., 209 sqq., Paderborn 1897. — Vacandard, La Pénitence Publique, Paris 1903. — Pignataro, De Disciplina Poenitentiali, Rome 1904. — Tixeront, Histoire des Dogmes, Vol. I, 3rd ed., Paris 1906 (English tr., History of Dogmas, Vol. I, St. Louis 1910). — J. Souben, Nouvelle Théologie Dogmatique, Vol. VIII, pp. 31–48, Paris 1905. — G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, Part II, pp. 152 sqq., St. Louis 1913. — M. J. O’Donnell, Penance in the Early Church, With a Short Sketch of Subsequent Development, Dublin 1907. — A. d’Alès, La Discipline Pénitentielle d’après le Pasteur d’Hermas, Paris 1911. — B. V. Miller, “The Penitential Teaching of Tertullian,” in the Irish Eccles. Record, 1914, No. 564, pp. 581–598. — B. J. Otten, S.J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. II (1918), pp. 338 sqq.

Footnotes

1. Cfr. St. Cyprian, Ep., 57: “Nec enim fas erat … Ecclesiam pulsantibus, quando promisit ipse, qui legem dedit, ut ligata in terris etiam in caelis ligata essent, solvi autem possent quae hic in Ecclesia solverentur, claudi et dolentibus ac deprecantibus spei salutaris subsidium denegari, ut de saeculo recedentes sine communicatione et pace ad Dominum dimitterentur.” ↩

2. Ep. Can. ad Amphil., 2, can. 34. ↩

3. Ep. ad Letoium, can. 4. ↩

4. Sermon., 82, c. 7: “Ergo corripienda sunt coram omnibus, quae peccantur coram omnibus; ipsa vero corripienda sunt secretius, quae peccantur secretius.” ↩

5. Cfr. Vacandard, “Les Moines Confesseurs en Orient du 4e au 13e Siècle,” in the Revue du Clergé Français, 1905, pp. 235 sqq. ↩

6. Cfr. G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 202 sq., St. Louis 1913. ↩

7. Cfr. St. Augustine, Serm., 352, c. 3: “Est poenitentia gravior atque luctuosior, in qua proprie vocantur in Ecclesia poenitentes, remoti etiam a sacramentis altaris participandis, ne accipiendo indigne iudicium sibi manducent et bibant.” ↩

8. Mandat., IV, 1. ↩

9. Epist., 8, c. 2. ↩

10. Cfr. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, p. 175, Paderborn 1897. ↩

11. De Pudicitia, c. 2: “Ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto.” Cfr. Hippolytus, Philosoph., IX, 12. ↩

12. Cfr. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, pp. 165 sqq. ↩

13. Cfr. Rauschen, l.c. ↩

14. Cfr. Rauschen, op. cit., p. 207. ↩

15. Cfr. M. J. O’Donnell, Penance in the Early Church, pp. 42 sqq., Dublin 1907. ↩

16. 2 Cor. II, 6. ↩

17. Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., III, 23. ↩

18. Ep. ad Cor., 8. ↩

19. Ad Philad., III, 8. ↩

20. Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., IV, 23. ↩

21. De Poenit., c. 7 sqq. ↩

22. Contra Celsum, III, 51. ↩

23. Adv. Haer., I, 13, 7. Cfr. Stufler, S.J., in the Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, 1907 and 1908; D’Alés, La Théologie de S. Hippolyte, Paris 1906. ↩

24. Cfr. Holl, Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt, Tübingen 1898. ↩

25. Cfr. St. Cyprian, Ep. 55, c. 23: “Idcirco poenitentiam non agentes nec delictorum suorum toto corde et manifesta lamentationis suae professione testantes prohibendos omnino censuimus a spe communicationis et pacis, si in infirmitate atque periculo coeperint deprecari, quia rogare illos non delicti poenitentia, sed mortis urgentis admonitio compellit nec dignus est in morte accipere solatium, qui se non cogitavit esse moriturum.” The Council of Arles, A.D. 314, expressed itself in a similar manner. ↩

26. Cfr. Batiffol, Études d’Histoire et de Théologie Positive, Vol. I, pp. 123 sqq., Paris 1906 (English tr., History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 712 sqq., St. Louis 1910); F. X. Funk, “Das Indulgenzedikt des Papstes Kallistus,” in the Theol. Quartalschrift of Tübingen, 1906, pp. 541 sqq.; against him G. Esser, in the Mayence Katholik, 1907, II, pp. 184 sqq., 297 sqq.; 1908, I, pp. 12 sqq., 93 sqq. ↩

27. Cfr. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, 6, 3; Tertullian, De Poenit., c. 3; Origen, Hom. in Levit., 4; St. Cyprian, De Laps., c. 28. ↩

28. Hist. Eccles., VII, 16. ↩

29. Cfr. O’Donnell, Penance in the Early Church, p. 50. ↩

30. The Penitential commonly ascribed to John the Faster of Constantinople (d. 595) is of Greek provenance, but dates no farther back than the ninth century. Cfr. Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten, Vol. V, 3, pp. 382 sqq. ↩

31. We have such canons issued by the councils of Elvira (about 300), Ancyra (314), Neocaesarea, Nicaea (325), and others. ↩

32. Cfr. Billuart, De Poenitentia, diss. 9, art. 9 (ed. Lequette, Vol. VII, pp. 237 sqq.). ↩

33. Clerics and monks originally were not exempt from public penance. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, however, it became customary for the clergy to perform their penance in monasteries. Cfr. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, p. 213; Kellner, Buss- und Strafverfahren gegen Kleriker in den ersten sechs Jahrhunderten, Trèves 1863. ↩

34. This can be seen from the Penitential of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury (d. 690). ↩

35. Cfr. Rhabanus Maurus, De Cler. Inst., II, 30. ↩

36. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Suppl., qu. 28, art. 3. ↩

37. E.g., the Council of Châlons (813) and that of Paris (829). Cfr. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, p. 213. ↩

38. V. Hardouin, Concil., VI, 1, pp. 659 sqq. ↩

39. Examples of this practice are afforded by the Penitential of St. Cummian (seventh century). See J. Zettinger, “Das Poenitentiale Cummeani,” in the Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht, 1902, pp. 501 sqq. ↩

40. Cfr. Petavius, De la Pénitence Publique et de la Préparation à la Communion, Paris 1643–4. ↩

41. See that Council’s Sess. XXI, De Ref., c. 9. On the penitential discipline of the primitive Church and its development see, besides the works already quoted, especially Morinus, Comment. Hist. de Disciplina in Administratione Sacramenti Poenitentiae XIII Primis Saeculis, Paris 1651, reprinted at Venice in 1702; A. Boudinhon, art. “Penitential Canons,” in Vol. XI of the Catholic Encyclopedia; A. M. Königer, Burchard I. von Worms und die deutsche Kirche seiner Zeit, pp. 132 sqq., Munich 1905; P. Schmoll, O.F.M., Die Busslehre der Frühscholastik, Munich 1909. ↩

42. Sess. XXIV, De Reform., c. 8. ↩

43. Cfr. Petavius, De la Pénitence Publique et de la Préparation à la Communion, Paris 1643–4. ↩