Penance is “a Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness is granted for sins committed after Baptism through the absolution of the priest to those who, with true repentance, confess their sins and promise to make satisfaction for them. It is called a ‘sacrament’ and not a mere function or ceremony because it is an outward sign instituted by Christ to impart grace to the soul. As an outward sign it comprises the actions of the penitent in presenting himself to the priest and accusing himself of his sins, and the actions of the priest in pronouncing absolution and imposing satisfaction”.[1]

It is important to note that “confession is not made in the secret of the penitent’s heart, nor to a layman as a friend and advocate, nor to a representative of human authority, but to a duly ordained priest possessing the requisite jurisdiction and the power of the keys — that is, the power to forgive sins which Christ granted to His Church” [2]. The purpose of the present study is to examine in depth the biblical and historical foundation of the Sacrament, to analyze in the light of this evidence the errors introduced as a result of the Protestant Reformation, as well as the historical distortions propagated in the denominations that arose from it, to the point of becoming an entirely alternative history completely different from the real one.

The biblical foundation

The faculty the Church possesses to grant, in God’s name, the forgiveness of sins derives from Christ Himself, who conferred this faculty on his Apostles when he said to them: “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”[3] He also said to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”[4] and to the Apostles: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.[5]

The meaning of binding and loosing is not limited to the authority to define what is lawful and what is not in matters of doctrine, but also includes the faculty to grant forgiveness of sins, since the power granted here is unlimited: “whatever you bind”, “whatever you loose” — a power which is in turn explicitly confirmed by Christ in allowing sins to be forgiven or retained.

Protestant objections

There are numerous objections from the various Protestant denominations regarding the Sacrament of Penance. Protestantism in general declares that human mediation is not necessary for God to forgive sin, and that sin must be confessed privately to God alone.

One example I have taken from the Practical Manual for the Work of Personal Evangelism, where it is stated:

“we find in the Holy Scriptures not a single line commanding Christians to confess their sins before a man.”[6]

Another example is found in the comments of one of the many amateur Protestant apologists on the Internet, who writes with more enthusiasm than wisdom:

“Jesus Christ implicitly admitted that the only one who forgives sins is God (Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21). And the Apostle John himself affirms that God is faithful and just to forgive sins — If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness — (1 John 1:8-9). Neither in this text nor in any other in Scripture is there any record of an Apostle acting as a confessor or absolving any Christian from sins.”[7]

This type of objection makes the mistake of confusing the one who grants forgiveness (God) with the means God uses to administer it (the priest). The text cited does not contradict confession of sin before the priest or the Church; rather, it leaves it implied (it takes for granted something already known — that the Church was granted the faculty to forgive sins — in order to convey to us that God is faithful and just in forgiving those who acknowledge their faults). This becomes clearer if the entire context is analyzed. The preceding verse says: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,” which complements the following: “[but] if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins.” The text is in itself an exhortation to acknowledge one’s own faults (rather than denying them) and never an excuse or endorsement for confessing our sins directly to God.

It is also wrong to claim that Christ admitted that only God forgives sin. Scripture states that he has the authority to do so, without entering into controversy over his divinity: “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”[8]. He then proves through a physical miracle (the outward sign of healing the paralytic) what is a true spiritual miracle (the inner reality of the forgiveness of sin). Thus, in the conclusion of this teaching, we are told: “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men”[9]. It is obvious that this refers not to the physical healing, which was the tangible proof of a far greater miracle, but to the miracle itself of the spiritual healing of the sick man through the forgiveness of his sins. And even if Christ at that moment had wished to acknowledge that implicitly (which we do not concede), this still would not have prevented Christ from subsequently transmitting that power to his Apostles, as is firmly attested in Scripture.

Nor is it true that no Apostle or anyone else acted as a confessor, or that Scripture contains no mention of confessing sins to any man. There are explicit biblical references that demolish these claims by showing that repentant sinners were not limited to interior confession. The Gospel of Mark narrates how those who came to John the Baptist to be baptized confessed their sins to him:

“And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.”[10]

The same is affirmed of those who, upon converting, came to the Apostles:

“Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.”[11]

There is also evidence that the sinner was required not only to confess his sin to God, but to the Church:

“Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.”[12]

Although we do not see in these texts auricular confession as we know it today, we can see two key facts: Christ granted the Apostles the faculty to forgive sins, and the sinner was not limited to interior confession. How could the Apostles forgive secret sins unless the faithful confessed them?

The objection also fails that when Scripture commands the confession of sins it refers to asking forgiveness of the brethren whom we have offended. While an offense is a sin, not all sins are offenses against one’s neighbor, and to narrow the meaning of the text in this way is to distort its true and full significance.

When Scripture speaks of the confession of sins it does not refer to asking some brother for forgiveness for having offended him. Compare this interpretation with Mark 1:5: “And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” Should we interpret this to mean that all the people of Judea and Jerusalem had offended John the Baptist? If we apply it to Acts 19:18, “Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices,” should we interpret this to mean that all the new converts had offended the Apostles? Note that the text here is particularly clear, because it speaks of confessing and declaring “their practices,” not their offenses. Let us also recall that the first one offended by our sins is God, for every sin is first and foremost a violation of divine justice.

Evidence of Reconciliation in the Old Testament

The sacramental reality of the Church is preceded in history by its prophetic model, the Mosaic Law. In it we see (Leviticus cc. 4 and 5) that God required a ceremonial sacrifice for sins committed. The sacrifice was performed at the Tabernacle (later at the Temple) and before the priests, which in itself constitutes a public acknowledgment of sin. The performance of these ceremonies was public and moreover taught sinners the inevitable consequence of sin: death. The animal that was sacrificed died in the place of the sinner. The manner of performing these sacrifices is an undeniable equivalent of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, in which both the priest and the faithful have a clearly defined role.

“If any one of the common people sins unwittingly in doing any one of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and is guilty, when the sin which he has committed is made known to him he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering. And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar. And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a pleasing odor to the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven. If he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish, and lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and kill it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar. And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, upon the offerings by fire to the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.”[13]

Historical Evidence

There exists a great variety of historical distortions regarding the sacrament of penance among Protestant denominations. Some view auricular confession (an important component of the Sacrament) as an invention of the second millennium. An example of this type of distortion is found in the already cited Practical Manual for Personal Evangelism Work, which on this point states:

“Auricular confession to priests was officially established in the Roman Church in the year 1215. Later, at the Council of Trent in 1557, it pronounced curses upon all those who had read the Bible sufficiently to set aside auricular confession.”[14]

It is important to clarify that the dogmatic definitions of councils cannot be interpreted as somehow introducing a new doctrine. These typically occur when some fundamental truth is challenged or needs to be clearly defined for the benefit of the faithful.

Although auricular confession as we know it today may have developed in its external form over time, we shall see that its essence lies in the recognized fact of the reconciliation of the sinner through the authority of the Church, and that this fact is part of the Church’s heritage, having existed since Christ conferred that power upon the Apostles. We shall demonstrate that penitential discipline, including the confession of sins before a priest and before the Church, has existed since apostolic times.

Let us examine the Didache (60–160 A.D.), considered one of the oldest non-canonical Christian writings and contemporary with the latest writings of the New Testament. Recent studies point to a possible date of composition prior to 160 A.D. It is an excellent witness to the thought of the primitive Church. This document is particularly insistent in requiring the confession of sins before receiving the Eucharist.

“In the congregation you shall confess your transgressions, and you shall not come to your prayer with an evil conscience.”[15]

In the Didache we have an early historical testimony opposed to the Protestant position of confessing sins directly to God.

Origen (185–254 A.D.)

He affirms that after baptism there are means of obtaining forgiveness for sins committed thereafter. Among these he enumerates penance.

“There is also a seventh [way], though it be hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner washes his couch in tears, when his tears are his meat day and night, and when he shrinks not from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord nor from seeking the medicine, in the manner of one who says, ‘Before the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquities, and Thou wilt forgive the disloyalty of my heart.’”[16]

Thus Origen acknowledges a remission of sins through penance and confession before a priest. He affirms that it is the priest who decides whether the sins ought also to be confessed in public.

“Consider carefully to whom you confess your sins; test the physician to know whether he is weak with the weak, and whether he weeps with those who weep. If he shall judge it necessary that your malady be made known and cured in the presence of the assembled congregation, follow the counsel of the experienced physician.”[17]

He also acknowledges that all sins can be forgiven:

“Christians mourn as dead those who have given themselves over to intemperance or have committed any other sin, because they have been lost and have died to God. But if they give sufficient evidence of a sincere change of heart, they are received back into the flock after some time has elapsed (after a longer interval than when they are admitted for the first time), as if they had risen from the dead.”[18]

Tertullian (160–220 A.D.)

Both in his orthodox period and in his heretical period, Tertullian stands as an unparalleled witness informing us about the primitive practice of penance in the Church.

When he writes De paenitentia (approximately in the year 203 A.D., while he was still a Catholic) he speaks of a second penance that God “has placed in the vestibule to open the door to those who knock, but only once, because this is already the second.”[19]

In the writings of Tertullian one finds a clear understanding of how the believer who has fallen into sin after Baptism stands in need of the Sacrament of Penance, and he expresses the fear that this sacrament might be misunderstood by the weak as a means to continue sinning and obtain forgiveness once more:

“O Jesus Christ, my Lord, grant to Thy servants the grace to know and to learn from my lips the discipline of penance, yet only to the extent that it is profitable to them and not as license to sin; in other words, that they may not have to know penance again after Baptism, nor have to seek it. It repels me to mention here the second penance — or rather, in this case, the last. I fear that, in speaking of a remedy of penance held in reserve, I may seem to suggest that there is still time in which one may sin.”[20]

Tertullian speaks of “seeking” penance, thus ruling out the possibility of limiting oneself to a direct confession to God. He explains this in detail when he affirms that in order to obtain forgiveness, the penitent must submit to public confession (ἐξομολόγησις), and additionally fulfill acts of mortification (chapters 9–12).

Tertullian’s testimony also proves that penance concluded — as it does today — with an official absolution, given after the sin had been confessed:

“they shun this duty as a public disclosure of themselves, or defer it from day to day… Is it perhaps better to be condemned in secret than to be pardoned in public? In chapter XII he speaks of the eternal condemnation suffered by those who refused to make use of this second ‘plank of salvation.’”

In his Montanist period, Tertullian denies the Church the power to forgive grave sins (adultery and fornication), asserting that this faculty was granted to Peter alone and denying that Peter transmitted it to the Church. The reasons for this denial are not those advanced by present-day Protestants, but rather stem from the rigorous character of Montanist doctrine, which held that such sins were unforgivable.

It is in this context that he retracts what he himself had earlier written, composing De Pudicitia (On Modesty) when he felt compelled to confront a bishop whom he calls Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum — most likely Pope Callistus — by reason of an edict in which the bishop wrote: “I forgive the sins of adultery and fornication to those who have performed penance,” thereby confirming the Church’s power to forgive sins, even adultery and fornication. This edict is further evidence of the official position of a Church conscious of the power received from Christ to grant the forgiveness of sins.

Tertullian thus leaves his hostile testimony regarding the practice of the pre-Nicene Church:

“And I wish to know your opinion, to learn from what source you claim this authority for the Church. If it is because the Lord said to Peter: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church,’ ‘to you I have given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’ or ‘whatever you loose on earth will be loosed,’ and ‘whatever you bind will be bound’ — do you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has descended to you, that is, to every Church in communion with Peter? That is your audacity, for you pervert and utterly change the manifest intention of the Lord, who conferred this power personally upon Peter!”[21]

Cyprian of Carthage (200 – 258 A.D.)

He is a clear expositor of the Church’s consciousness of having received from Christ the power to forgive sins. For him, public penance comprised three distinct acts: confession, satisfaction proportionate to the gravity of the sin, and reconciliation once the satisfaction had been completed. He combats the heresy of Novatian, who denied that there was forgiveness for those who during a time of persecution had renounced the faith (the lapsi), and the rigorism of Tertullian after his embrace of Montanism. Thus, in De opere et eleemosynis, he states that those who have sinned after receiving Baptism can once again obtain forgiveness, whatever the sin may be. He likewise leaves clear testimony of the duty to confess sin while there is still time and while such confession can still be received by the Church:

“I exhort you, dearest brethren, that each one should confess his sin while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession can still be accepted, while the satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests are still pleasing to God.”[22]

Hippolytus the Martyr (? – 235 A.D.)

Hippolytus is an excellent witness to how the Church was conscious of her own authority to forgive sins, for even in his intransigence he does not go so far as to deny the Church’s faculty of absolution. Evidence of this is found in The Apostolic Tradition (Αποστολική παράδοσις), where he leaves an indisputable testimony by reproducing the prayer for the consecration of a bishop:

“Father, who knowest the hearts, grant to this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate… that by the Spirit of the high-priesthood he may have the power to ‘forgive sins’ (facultatem remittendi peccata) according to Thy commandment; that he may ‘assign portions’ according to Thy precept, and that he may ‘loose every bond’ (solvendi omne vinculum iniquitatis), according to the authority Thou gavest to the Apostles.”[23]

This testimony is particularly important, since The Apostolic Tradition is the source for a great number of Eastern ecclesiastical constitutions, which confirms that this consciousness was widespread throughout the Church.

The Apostolic Constitutions of the Fourth Century

Just as in the Apostolic Tradition of Saint Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions written in Syria in the fourth century include a similar prayer at the ordination of a bishop:

“Grant to him, O Lord Almighty, through Christ, the participation in Thy Holy Spirit, that he may have the power to forgive sins according to Thy precept and Thy commandment, and to loose every bond whatsoever, according to the power which Thou hast granted to the Apostles.”[24]

Basil of Caesarea (329 – 379 A.D.)

Quasten notes that although K. Holl holds that it was Saint Basil who introduced auricular confession in the Catholic sense — as the regular and obligatory confession of all sins, even the most secret[25] — he also adds:

“His error, however, lies in identifying Sacramental Confession with ‘monastic confession,’ which was simply a means of discipline and spiritual direction and did not imply sacramental reconciliation or absolution. In his Rule[26] Saint Basil prescribes that the monk must open his heart and confess all his offenses, even his most intimate thoughts, to his superior or to other men of proven character who enjoy the confidence of the brethren. In such a case, the role of the superior may be filled by someone chosen as his representative. There is not the slightest indication that the superior or his substitute need be priests. One may say, then, that Basil inaugurated what is known as ‘monastic confession,’ but not auricular confession, which constitutes an essential part of the Sacrament of Penance.”[27]

Quasten also notes:

“From his canonical letters (cf. supra, p. 234) it appears that the discipline which had existed in the churches of Cappadocia since the time of Gregory the Wonderworker was still in force.

Expiation consisted in the separation of the penitent from the Christian assembly (Chapter VII). In the canonical Epistle he mentions four degrees: the state of ‘those who weep,’ whose place was outside the church, πρόσκλαυσις; the state of ‘those who hear,’ who were present for the reading of Sacred Scripture and the sermon, ἀκρόασις; the state of ‘those who prostrate themselves,’ who attended the prayer on their knees, ὑπόπτωσις; and finally, the state of those who ‘stood’ throughout the entire office but did not participate in Communion (σύστασις).”

Ambrose of Milan (340–396 A.D.)

Between 384 A.D. and 394 A.D. he composed De paenitentia, a non-homiletic treatise in two books in which Ambrose refutes the Novatianist claims regarding the Church’s power to forgive sins and provides information of particular interest for understanding the penitential practice of the Church of Milan in the fourth century.

“They profess to show reverence to the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. A greater error cannot be than what they commit in seeking to rescind His orders by destroying the office which He conferred. The Church obeys Him in both respects, in binding sin and in loosing it, for the Lord willed that both powers should be equal.”[28]

He teaches that this power is a function of the priesthood, which can forgive all sins:

“It would seem impossible that sins should be forgiven through penance; Christ granted this (power) to the Apostles, and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of the priests.”[29]

“The power of forgiveness extends to all sins: God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all, and to His priests He granted the authority to forgive without any exception.”[30]

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 A.D.)

He writes against those who deny that the Church received the power to forgive sins:

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has the power to forgive all sins.”[31]

To conclude, let us briefly cite other clear testimonies. Saint Pacian, bishop of Barcelona (d. 390 A.D.), writes regarding the forgiveness of sins: “That which you say only God can do — quite true; but what He does through His priests is His own doing by His own power.”[32] Saint Athanasius (295–373 A.D.) writes: “Just as the man baptized by the priest is illumined by the grace of the Holy Spirit, so too the one who in penitence confesses his sins receives through the priest forgiveness by virtue of the grace of Christ.”[33]

These are but a few of the many testimonies that demonstrate that the Church has always been fully conscious of having received from Christ the faculty to forgive sins, and regards this gift as part of the deposit of faith. Remarkably, both the Eastern and Western Fathers interpret the words of Christ in the same way that we Catholics do almost twenty centuries later. It is evident, therefore, that the Council of Trent merely echoed what the Church had already taught against the heretics of the early centuries — who, for the most part, did not even defend the Protestant position of today, since the great majority of them did not deny that the Church had received such a faculty.

Notes

  1. Catholic Encyclopedia ↩
  2. Ibid. ↩
  3. John 20, 21-23 ↩
  4. Matthew 16, 19 ↩
  5. Matthew 18, 18 ↩
  6. Iglesia de Dios (Israelita), Manual Práctico para la Obra del Evangelismo Personal ↩
  7. Daniel Sapia, La confesión auricular, www.conocereislaverdad.org ↩
  8. Matthew 9, 6 ↩
  9. Matthew 9, 8 ↩
  10. Mark 1, 5 ↩
  11. Acts 19, 18 ↩
  12. James 5, 16 ↩
  13. Leviticus 4, 27-35 ↩
  14. Iglesia de Dios (Israelita), Manual Práctico para la Obra del Evangelismo Personal ↩
  15. Didache, IV, 14. Daniel Ruiz Bueno, Padres Apostólicos (Apostolic Fathers), Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 65, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1985, p. 82. ↩
  16. William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. I, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota 1970, p. 207. ↩
  17. Homilies on the Psalms 37, 2, 5. Johannes Quasten, Patrología I, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 206, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1995, p. 395. ↩
  18. Contra Celsum 3, 50: EH 253. Ibid., p. 396. ↩
  19. De Paenitentia 7. Ibid., p. 597. ↩
  20. Ibid., pp. 597-598 ↩
  21. De Pudicitia 21. Ibid., p. 631. ↩
  22. De Lapsi 28; Epistle 16, 2. Ibid., p. 674. ↩
  23. The Apostolic Tradition 3. Ibid., p. 509-510 ↩
  24. Constitutione Apostolica VIII, 5 p. i., 1. 1073. The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Sacrament of Penance”. ↩
  25. Enthusiasmus p. 257; 2nd ed. 267 ↩
  26. Regulae fusius tractae 25, 26 and 46 ↩
  27. Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. II, BAC 217, Fourth Edition (Madrid, 1985), pp. 258-259. ↩
  28. De paenitentia I, ii, 6
    Catholic Encyclopedia, The Sacrament of Penance ↩
  29. De paenitentia II, ii, 12
    Ibid. ↩
  30. De paenitentia I, iii, 10
    Ibid. ↩
  31. De agone Christiano, III.
    Ibid. ↩
  32. Epistola I ad Sympronianum, 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057.
    Ibid. ↩
  33. Fragmentum contra Novatum p. XXVI, 1315.
    Ibid. ↩