Part I Chapter I §2: The Power to Forgive Sins — Proof from Tradition

§2: Proof from Tradition

SECTION 2 PROOF FROM TRADITION

Article 1: Protestant Errors vs. the Teaching of the Church

PROTESTANT ERRORS VS. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH Up to the time of the so-called Reformation no one ever questioned the power of the Church to forgive sins. The ancient Montanists merely attempted to limit it unduly,1 while the Cathari and the Waldensians erred with regard to those who exercise it.2 It was reserved for the self-styled Protestant Reformers to deny that power in principle. This explains the thoroughness with which the Tridentine Council defined and explained the teaching of the Church on the subject of Penance.3 I. Protestant Errors. — The Protestant symbolic writings recognize but two sacraments, viz.: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In Luther’s “Little Catechism” and in the Apologia of the Augsburg Confession, absolutio, quae est sacramentum poenitentiae is mentioned as the third sacrament after “Baptismus” and “Coena Domini.” 4 But the Lutheran Church regards absol V. infra, Ch. II, Sect. x. 3 Sess. XIV; v. infra, pp. 23 «iq. 2Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 4 Apol., c. * De Num. Sacram.* : ments, Vol. I, pp. 166 sqq. * Vere igitur sunt sacramenta baptis21

lution as a nuda declaration a mere declaration of pardon without real effect. Calvin declared that Penance is a ” repetition of Baptism and that there is no essential distinction between the two Sacraments.6 His view soon obtained the upper hand among Protestants. To appreciate it at its true value, we must regard it in connection with the original Protestant theory of justification. Baptism, in the orthodox Lutheran sense, does not blot out original sin and the actual sins that spring from it, but merely covers them up with the cloak of the merits of Jesus Christ. All future sins are similarly covered up if the sinner piously recalls the grace of Baptism.6 Thus Penance is essentially nothing more or less than a repeated covering up of sin effected by fiduciary faith in the virtue of Baptism. In Luther’s own words, it is purely a * regressus ad baptismum This fundamental error led the Protestant Reformers to propagate a series of erroneous doctrines with regard to Penance, which may be briefly summarized as follows : ( 1 ) As sins are never actually forgiven, but merely covered up by fiduciary faith, Penance as a Sacrament is superfluous. (2) What men call Penance is merely a recourse to Baptism. (3) “Absolution” is not a true forgiveness of sins, but merely a sermon-like declaration or announcement that God will forgive or has forgiven our sins through faith. mus, coena Domini, absolutio, quae doctrine opposed to it cfr. Pohleest sacramentum poenitentiae.” Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, R Instit., IV, 19, § 14 sqq- PP- 3io sqq., St. Louis 1915. 6 On this teaching and the true

(4) The imposition of penitential works is due to an arrogant belief in self-justification and derogates from the satisfaction given by Jesus Christ. In particular are penalties to be rejected because Christ has sufficiently atoned for our sins and paid all the penalties due to them. (5) The Church has no jurisdiction in the court of conscience, but merely the right to exercise external discipline; hence no one is obliged to confess his sins, and the so-called canonical or penitential penalties are null and void. Thus under the Protestant system only two things remain of the Sacrament of Penance, vis.: contrition in the sense of the terror with which conscience is smitten upon being convinced of sin (terror es conscientiae) , and fiduciary faith in the sense of a recourse to Baptism (regressus ad baptismum). Modern Protestants are very much at variance in regard to confession. The high-church Anglicans believe in and practice auricular confession. The Lutherans think it is sufficient if a sort of general acknowledgment of sinfulness is made by the whole congregation. The Rationalists reject confession altogether as a human invention. 2. The Teaching of the Church. — The Council of Trent devotes the whole of its XlVth Session to an explanation, demonstration, and defense of the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of Penance. Its fifteen canons on the subject may be summarized as follows : I. Penance is a true Sacrament, instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins. II. Penance is a Sacrament distinct from Baptism.

III. The words of Christ recorded in John XX, 23, are to be understood of the power of forgiving and retaining sins in the Sacrament of Penance, not of preaching the Gospel. IV. For the remission of sins there are required three acts by the penitent, which are as it were the matter of the Sacrament of Penance, viz.: contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The terrors with which the conscience is smitten upon being convinced of sin, and the fiduciary faith generated by the Gospel, are not sufficient to obtain forgiveness. V. Imperfect contrition, which is acquired by means of the examination, recollection, and detestation of sins, is a true and profitable sorrow, and does not make a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner. VI. Sacramental confession is of divine institution and necessary to salvation, and auricular confession is not a human invention. VII. Auricular confession comprises by divine right all mortal sins, even those which are secret, and may lawfully extend also to venial sins. VIII. The confession of all sins, as demanded by the Church, is not impossible, but a duty incumbent on all the faithful of both sexes. IX. The sacramental absolution given by the priest is a judicial act, not a bare declaration, and must be preceded by confession on the part of the penitent. X. Priests alone have the power of binding and loosing, and can exercise it even if they are in a state of mortal sin. XI. Bishops have the right of reserving cases to themselves, and from such reserved cases no priest may ab-. solve.

XII. God does not always remit the whole punishment together with the guilt of sin, and the satisfaction of penitents does not consist in the faith wherewith they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them. XIII. Satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is made to God through the merits of Christ, by the punishments enjoined by the priest, and also by those voluntarily undertaken by the penitent himself, and consequently, Penance is more than merely a new life. XIV. The works of satisfaction performed by the penitent do not obscure the doctrine of grace, the true worship of God, and the benefit of Christ’s death. XV. The power of the keys which Christ gave to the Church is not merely the power to loose, but also to bind, and therefore enables priests to impose punishments on those who confess. These canons bear the traces of a stormy period in the Church’s history and reflect many of the false accusations made by her enemies. We are at present interested only in that portion of the Tridentine teaching which asserts the existence in the Church of the power of forgiving sins. The others will be treated in their proper places further on. Readings : — Bellarmine, De Poenitentia, I, 1 sqq. — R. A. Lipsius, ” Luther s Lehre von der Busse” in the Jahrbuch fiir prot. Theologie, 1892, pp. 161 sqq. — Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, Vol. II, 5th ed., pp. 24 sqq., Munster 1894. — *M6hler, Symbolik, §32 sq., Mayence 1900 (English translation by Robertson, pp. 218 sqq., 5th ed., London 1906).

Article 2: The Teaching of the Fathers

THE TEACHING OF THE FATHERS The Patristic teaching on the subject of Penance is related to the penitential discipline of the primitive Church as theory to practice. Both teaching and discipline can be adduced in support of the dogma that the Church has the power to forgive sins. The teaching of the Fathers will be examined later in connection with thq institution of the Sacrament of Penance. Here it will suffice to cite a few passages from St. Augustine and two or three other Patristic writers. Our main argument is based on the ancient penitential discipline. Every century affords its sheaf of proofs for the existence in the Church of the power to forgive sins. If Patristic texts in support of our dogma are relatively few, this is due partly to the general scarcity of contemporary documents, partly to the discipline of the secret, and partly to the infrequency with which the faithful were wont to approach the tribunal of Penance.1 It is scarcely necessary to remark that the present practice of “devotional confessions” was entirely unknown in the infant Church. i. The Fathers of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. — The Fiathers and ecclesiastical authors of the fourth and fifth centuries reflect in their writings the controversies which the Church waged at that time against Novatianism. l Cfr. Oswald, Die dogmatische Lehre von den hi. Sakramenten, Vol. II, 5th ed„ p. 48, Munster 1894.

a) St Augustine (+430) warns the faithful against heretical teachers who lack the power of the keys. ” Let us not listen to those,” he says, “who deny that the Church has the power to forgive all sins. These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge in Peter the rock, and to believe that the Church has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, have lost these same keys from their own hands.” 2 But how are we to account for the fact that St. Augustine, in other passages of his Writings, seems to limit the power of forgiving sins to Baptism? What does he mean, for instance, when, speaking of Baptism, he says in his treatise On Marriage and Concupiscence: ” By its one only ministration it comes to pass that pardon is secured to the faithful of all their sins both before and after their regeneration * ? 8 The answer is to be found in the sentence immediately following: * For of what use would repentance, even before Baptism, be if Baptism did not follow ? — or after Baptism, if it did not precede?“4 That Augustine regarded Penance as distinct from Baptism is evident from the following passage in another of his treatises : ” If [homicide] has been committed by a catechumen, it is washed off in Baptism; if by a baptized person, it is healed through Penance and reconciliation.” § 2De Agon. Christ., c. 3: ” Nec eos audiamus, qui negant Ecclesiam Dei omnia peccata posse dimittere. Itaque tniseri, dum in Petto petram non intellegunt et nolunt credere datas Ecclesiae claves regni caelorum, ipsi eas de manibus amiserunt.” tDe Nupt. et Concup., I, 33: “Quia ipso [baptismo] quod semel datur, Ht, ut non solum antea, sed eiiam postea quorumlibet peccatorum venia fidelibus impetretur.” 4L. c: “Quid enim prodesset vel ante baptismum poenitentia, nisi bapHsmus seqneretur, vel postea, nisi praecederett * De Adult. Coniug., II, 16: Si [homicidium] a catechumeno factum est, bapHsmate abluitur; et si a baptizato, poenitndine et reconciliations sanatur,” 28 THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS St. Jerome (+ 420) compares Baptism and Penance to “two doors” (dme portae), through which people enter and leave the Church,6 and declares that both are equally efficacious. ” Penance/’ he says, ” imitates the grace of Baptism by the unspeakable mercy of the Saviour.” 7 St. Ambrose (+ 397) vigorously defends the power of the Church to bind and loose against the attacks of the Novatians.8 He says that this power is reserved to the priesthood,0 and that its exercise through either Sacrament is a mystery.10 The sacerdotal power to bind or loose, he declares in another place, comprises all sins and all sinners without exception.11 St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (+ 390), who refuted the Novations in three letters addressed to Sympronianus, devoted the third of these to Penance. The Novatians claim, he says, “that it is not permitted to do penance after Baptism, that the Church cannot forgive mortal sins, nay that she herself would perish were she to readmit sin6 In Soph., I, xo. 7 Adv. Pelag., I, 33: * Poenitentia imitatur baptistni gratiam per ineffabilem clementiam Salvatoris. 8 De Poenit., I, 2, 6: ” Sed oiunt, se Domino deferre reverentiam, cut soli remitUndorum criminum potestatem reservent. Into nulli maiorem iniuriam faciunt, quam qui eius volunt mandata rescindere, commissum munus refundere. Nam quum ipse in Evangelio suo dixerit Dominus Jesus: Accipite Spirit urn sanctum, quorum remiseritis, etc., quis est ergo, qui magis honorat, utrum qui mandatis obtemperat, an qui resistitf Ecclesia in utroque servat obedientiam, ut peccatum et alliget et relaxet; haeresis in altero immitis, in altero inobediens… . Dominus enim par ius et solvendi esse voluis et ligandi.” 9Dt Poenit, II, a, 12; “Zm possibile videbatur per poenitentiam peccata dimitti: concessit hoc Christus Apostolis suis, quod ab Apostolis ad sacerdotum oKcia transmissum est. Factum est igitur possibile, quod impossible videbatur.* 10 De Poenit., I, 8, 36: * Cur b apt is at is, si per hominem dimitti non licet t In baptismo utique remissio peccatorum omnium est: quid interest, utrum per poenitentiam an per lavacrum hoc ius sibi datum sacer dotes vindicentt Unum in utroque mysterium est.* 11 De Poenit., I, 3, 10: * Deus distinctionem non facit, qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus et relaxandi licentiam sacerdotibus suis sine ulla exceptione concessit.” — Ibid.t I, 1: “Dominus nullum crimen excipit, qui peccata donavxt omnia,* VESTED IN THE CHURCH 29 ners.12 He asks: Who taught them this doctrine, Moses, St. Paul, or Christ? — and answers: No; Novatian, ” after the rule of Decius, that is, almost three hundred years after the passion of our Lord. What then? Has he the gift of tongues? Has he prophesied? Can he raise the dead? Surely he ought to have the one or the other of these gifts in order to introduce the gospel of a new law.” 18 The objection that God alone can forgive sins is answered by St. Pacian as follows: “This is true, but that which He does through His priests, is also [done by] His power. What is it that He spoke to the Apostles: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, etc.? Why should He speak thus if it was not permitted to men to bind and loose?“14 St. Pacian also distinctly declares that the power of the keys conferred upon the Church by her Divine Founder comprises all sins without exception. “Whatsoever you shall loose, He [Christ] says, excepting absolutely none; whatsoever, he says, whether large or small.” 1§ b) Cyril of Alexandria (+447) says: “The men who have received the breath of the Holy Ghost [i. e. the priests] forgive sins in a twofold manner: either by admitting the worthy to Baptism, or by forgiving the penitent children of the Church. 18 12 Ep. ad Sympronian., 3, 1: … quod post baptismum poenitere non liceat, quod mortale peccatum Ecclesia donate non possis, into quod ipsa pereat recipiendo peccantes” 18 L. c: ”… post Decii principatum, i. e. post trecentos prope annos dominicae passionis. Quid ergo tunct … Unguis locutus estt Prophetavitt Suscitare mortuos potuitt Horum enim aliquid habere debuerat, ut evongelium novi iuris indncerit 14 Ep. ad Sympr., 1, 6: * Verum est, sed et quod per sacerdotes suos facit, ipsius potestas est. Nam quid est Mud, quod Apostolus dicit: Quae ligaveritis in terris, etc.? Cur hoc, si ligare et solvere hominibus non licebatt* l*Ep. ad Sympr., 3, 12: * Quaecunque solveritxs, inquit, omnino nihil excipit. Quaecunque, inquit, vel magna vel modica.” 10 In Ioa., 1, 12 (Migne, P. G., LXXIV, 722). THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS The following passage from St. Chrysostom (+ 407) has become a veritable classic : ” The dispensation of the things that are in heaven God hath not given to angels or to archangels ; for not to these was it said : ’ Whatsoever you shall bind/ etc. (Matth. XVIII, 18). They that rule on earth have indeed also power to bind, but the bodies only ; 17 whereas this bond reaches to the soul itself, and transcends the heavens.18 And what the priests do below, the same does God ratify above, and the Lord confirms the sentence of His servants.10 What then has He given them but all heavenly power? For, He saith, ’ Whose sins ye shall remit/ etc. (John XX, 23). What power could be greater than this? … It would be manifest folly to contemn such a great power, without which we could obtain neither salvation nor the good things promised… . For not only when they regenerate us [in Baptism], but they [the priests] have also the power to forgive the sins committed after regeneration.” 20 The extent of this power is described as follows by Timothy, the second successor of St. Athanasius in the see of Alexandria (+ 384) 21 : ” Which sins have no forgiveness ? None ; everything confessed before God 22 will be forgiven.” St. Athanasius (+ 373) puts the effects of Penance on a level with those of Baptism. “As one who is bap4 tized by a priest/’ he says, ” is illuminated by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so he who confesses [his sins] in Pen17 T)jp tov deafiov l%ov

ance, receives forgiveness through the priest because of the grace of Christ.” 28 2. The Fathers of the Second and Third Centuries. — Besides Novatianism, the Fathers of the second and third centuries had to combat the Montanistic heresy, which arose about the year 150. St. Cyprian (+258), who steered a middle course between the lax doctrines of Felicissimus and the rigorism of Novatian, reviewing his congregation after the Decian persecution, deplores the apostasy of so many,24 and admonishes them to make amends for their crime by extraordinary works of penance, in order that they may receive reconciliation.25 He exhorts them to confess their sins 26 and says that no contrite sinner is deprived of the benefits of Penance.27 His contemporary Origen (+254), who is our classic witness for auricular confession,28 after enumerating the different ways in which sins can be forgiven,20 adds: “There is a seventh [way], though hard and laborious, in which pardon can be obtained for sins, namely, through Penance, if the sinner washes his bed with tears, and bathes in tears day and night, if he is not ashamed to con23 Fragm. Contra Novat. (Migne, P. G., XXVI, 1315). 24 De Lapsis, c. 4-13. 25 Reconciliatio, pax. 2« De Laps., c. 29: ” Confiteantur singuli, quae so vos fratres dilectissimi, delictum suum, dum ad hue qui deliquit in saeculo est, dum adtnitti confessio eius potest, dum satisf actio et remissio facta per sacerdotes apud Deum grata est* 27 Ep. ad Antonian., $$; * Neminem putamus a fructu satisfaction^ et spe pads arcendum, quum sciamus iuxta scripturarum divinarum Udern auctore et hortatore ipso Deo et ad agendam poeniten’tiam peccatores redigi et veniam atque indulgentiam poenitentibus non denegari.” 28 V. infra, Part III, Ch. a, pp. 212 sq. 29 Baptism, martyrdom, prayer, etc. THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS * fess his sins to the priest of the Lord, and to seek medicine, as he who spake (Ps. XXXI, 5) : ‘I said I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord, and thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin/ thereby fulfilling what the Apostle says ( Jas. V, 14) : ’ Is any one sick among you ? Let him bring in the priests/ etc.” 80 On the threshold of the third century we meet Tertullian (160-240?), who, when Pope Callistus protested against the rigorism that had begun to invade the Church, was among the first to raise the standard of revolt. Both as a Montanist and as a Catholic this trenchant writer is a valuable witness to the teaching and practice of the early Church. In his treatise De Poenitentia, composed between 200 and 206, when he was still in the Church, Tertullian says there is a twofold penance — one in preparation for Baptism,81 the other, the so-called “canonical penance,” undertaken in order to obtain forgiveness of the ” three capital crimes,” i. e. apostasy, murder, and forniV cation.82 He calls Baptism and Penance “so to speak the two light-houses of salvation,” 88 but insists that God offers ” second penance ” only once.84 In his treatise De Pudicitia, which he wrote after his secession (between 217 and 222), Tertullian contradicts his previous teaching. He draws a distinction between pardonable and unpardonable sins85 and denies that the Church has power to forgive adultery and fornication. In his controversial writings he describes the Catholic position as follows : “If, they say, there is a penance without forgiveness, you must not undertake it BO Horn, in Levit., 2, 4. 84 Ibid., c. 7: ” secunda, into ulZlDe Poenit., c. 4-6. 32 Ibid., c. 7-12. 83 Ibid., c. 12: ” pharos salutis.” duas quasi as Ibid., c. 2: ” peccata remissibili a et irretnissibilio.” tima spes.” — Ibid., c. 9: “poenitentia secunda et una.”

at all, for nothing should be done in vain. But a penance without forgiveness is vain. Now, all penance must be done; therefore all penance obtains pardon, otherwise it would be done in vain.” 86 This evidently means that, according to Catholic teaching, penance presupposes absolution and would be vain and unprofitable without it.37 St. Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) 88 tells of the seduction of Christian women by an emissary of the Gnostics. * In our neighborhood, too,* he says, “in the land of the Rhone, they have seduced many women, of whom some, when they saw their guilt, did penance [confessed?] publicly, while others, whom shame would not allow, were secretly driven to despair, and either fell away from the faith entirely or remained in a state of indecision.” 80 The Shepherd of Hennas, composed about the year 150, when Montanism was in its beginnings, gives us the first clear explanation of the mutual relationship between the penitential discipline and absolution. ” Repentance ” and ” healing ” are separated by a period of atonement. Penance is performed under the supervision of the Church. Bardenhewer summarizes the teaching of the Shepherd as follows: “The dogmatic interest of the work lies chiefly in its teaching concerning the possibility of the forgiveness of mortal sins, notably adultery and apostasy. It is only during the period of grace announced by him that the Shepherd admits a forgiveness of sins by penance ; this period having elapsed, he believes there can 88 De Pudicit.. c. 3: “Si enim, Tertullian’s teaching see G. Esser, inquiunt, aliqud poenitentia caret Die Busschriften Tertullians De Poevenid, iam nec in totum agenda tibi nitentia und De Pudicitia, Bonn est: nihil enim agendum est frustra. 1905; B. V. Miller, ”.The PeniPorro frustra agitur poenitentia, si tential Teaching of Tertullian,” in caret venid. Omnis autem poeni- . the Irish Eccles. Record, 19 14, No. tentia agenda est; ergo omnis veniam 564* PP« 580-598. consequetur, ne frustra agatur.” 88 Adv. Haer.t I, 13, 7. 87 For a detailed explanation of 89 p-fire ££w p^jre &r«.

be no forgiveness except in (the grace of) Baptism. The still open way of penance is said to be long and difficult. The Shepherd is the earliest witness to the ’ Stations 9 or degrees of penitential satisfaction.” 40 St. Polycarp (+ about 155), who was a personal disciple of St. John the Evangelist, admonishes priests to be merciful to sinners. ” The presbyters,” he says, ” should be compassionate, merciful to all, bringing back those that have gone astray, … refraining from unjust judgment, • . . knowing that we all owe the debt of sin. If then we pray the Lord to forgive us, we also ought to forgive, for we stand before the eyes of the Lord and of God, and we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, and each must give an account of himself 41

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 40 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrol’ I, 273). — One the whole subject of °£y> P- 39» Freiburg and St Louis this subdivision see P. Schanz, Die 1908. Lehre von den hi. Sakratnenten der 41 Bp. ad Philipp., 6 (apud Funk, kath. Kirche, 8 38, Freiburg 1893. 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,8 clandestine thefts. St. Augustine says that sins committed publicly should be 1 See Art a, supra. — Cf r. St. quando promisit ipse, qui legem deCyprian, Ep., 57: “Nee enim fas dit, ut ligata in terris etiam in caelis era* Ecclesiam pulsantibus ligata essent, solvi autetn possent claudi et dohntibus ac deprecanti- illic [♦. e. in caelis], quae hie prius bus spei salutaris subsidium dene- in Ecclesia solverentur.” gari, ut de saeculo recedentes [t. e. 2Ep. Can. ad Amphil., 2, can. moribundi] sine communication et 34. pace ad Dominum dimitterentur, 8 Ep. ad Letoi., can. 4.

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 publico) 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.1 (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, fterdvouL /ua). In the Orient those engaged in the performance of Solemn Penance were divided into four classes or ” stations,” viz.: (a) The “lugentes” or flentes (irpoaKXatovre;) , who stood in the vestibule and tearfully besought the intercession of those who entered church. (b) The ” audientes” (oKpowficvoi) , who took their place behind the catechumens, and, like them, assisted only at the Mass of the Presanctified. (c) The ” prosternentes” or ” substrati” (WwtiVtov4 Sermon., 8a, c. 7: Ergo cor- corripienda sunt secretins, quae pecripienda sunt coram omnibus, quae cantur secretins. peccantur coram omnibus; ipsa vero 6 Cf r. Vacandard, ” Les Moines

Tcs), 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” (rooTavrcs), 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 preeminently 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, etc.) on the other. a) The Church historians contend that at the beginning of the second century the Church acknowledged Confesseurs en Orient du 4* au 13* 7 Cfr. St Augustine, Serm., 352, Steele,* in the Revue du Clergk c. 3: Est poenitentia gravior Francais, 1905, pp. 235 sqq. atque luctuosior, in qua proprie vo6 Cfr. G. Rauschen, Eucharist and cantuf in Ecclesia poenitentes, rePenance in the First Six Centuries moti etiam a sacramentis altaris parof the Church, pp. 202 sq.t St. Louis ticipandis, ne accipiendo indigne iu1913 dicium sibi manducent et bibant.”

3» THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS no Penance after Baptism, until about the year 150 Hermas, in his famous Shepherd,9 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 (+ 252) first opened the door to the lapsi. 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.18 At the beginning of the fourth century the Council of Ancyra decided to admit murderers to ecclesiastical reconciliation on their death-bed. St. Basil (’+ 379) 8 Mandate IV, I. 9Epist.t 8, c 2. 10 Cfr. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. Vol. I, p. 175, Paderborn 1897. 11 De PudicUio, c 2: “Ego et moechfae et fomicationis delicto poenitentid functis dimitto.” — Cfr. Hippolytus, PhilosopK, IX, 12. 12 Cfr. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, pp. 165 sqq. 18 Cfr. Rauschen, /. c. 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 (+ 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 €t 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 14 Cfr. Rauschen, op, cit., p. 207.

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. fi) 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.28 The severity of the early Church consisted mostly in a denial of the Eucharist, and the phrase ” negaHio 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 15 Cfr. M. J. O’Donnell, Penance 20 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., in the Early Church, pp. 42 sqq., IV, 23. Dublin 1907. 21 De Poenit., c. 7 sqq. 16 2 Cor. II, 6. 22 Contra Celsum, III, 51. 17 Cfr. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles,, 23 Adv. Haer., I, 13, 7. — Cfr. Ill, 23. Stufier, S. J., in the Innsbruck 18 Ep. ad Cor., 8. Zeitschrift fur kath. Theologie, 19 Ad Philad., Ill, 8. 1907 and 1908; D’Ales, La Thiologie de S. Hippolyte, Parig 1906,

deny such unfortunates absolution when they repented on their death-bed was branded as impious by Celestine I (+ 437) and Pius IV (+ 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 the Church anciently 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, the Church provided for the salvation of sinners by granting them 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 24 Cfr. Holl, Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt, Tubingen 1898.

THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS 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 a lack of true contrition which justified the denial of absolution.25 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, which resulted 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.28 y) 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.27 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 25 Cfr. St Cyprian, Ep., 5 St »• 23: ” ldcirco poenitentiam non agentes nec delictorum suorum toto corde et manifests lamentationis suae professione test antes prohibendos omnino censuimus a spe communicationis et pads, si in infirmitote atque periculo coeperint deprecart, quia rogare illos non delicti poenitentid, sed mortis urgentis admonitio compellit nec dignus est in morte accipere solatium, qui se non cogitavit esse moriturum.” The Council of Aries, A. D. 314, expressed itself in a / similar manner. 26 Cfr. Batiffol, Etudes d’Histoire et de Thtologie Positive, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Paris 1904; Tixeront, Histoire des Dogmes, Vol. I, 3d ed., pp. 123 sqq., Paris 1906 (English tr., History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 1X2 sqq., St. Louis 1910); F. X. Funk, “Das Indulgensedikt des Papstes Kollistus,” in the Theol. Quartalschrift of Tubingen, 1906, pp. 54 1 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 Ireweus, Adv. Haer., I, 6, 3; Tertullian, De PoeniU, c. 3; Origen, Horn, in Levit., 4; St Cyprian, De Laps., c. 38. be shortened by so-called peace-letters (libelli pacts) issued to sinners by martyrs and confessors.28 In the East, according to Sozomen,29 the administration of Penance from about the middle of the third century on lay in the hands of a ” Priest Penitentiary 99 specially appointed by the bishop. It was in the East, too, as we have seen, that penitents were first divided into classes : hearers, kneelers, assistants, and weepers, who not infrequently had to endure trying humiliations.80 The abolition by Nectarius, in 391, of the office of Priest Penitentiary, of which we shall treat further down,81 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 (+483) seems to ^ have been the first pope who appointed special priests for hearing confessions in Rome. The so-called “penitential letters” (epistolae canomcae) were devised for the purpose of unifying discipline. They came into use at an early date. Examples 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 1 28 Cfr. Rauschen, Eucharist and 80 Cfr. O’Donnell, Penancg in the origin.3 82 Penance, pp. 203 sqq. 29 Hist Eccles., VII, 16. Early Church, p. 50. 81 Infra, Art. 2. 82 The Penitential commonly as 

THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS Individual bishops and councils here apd there drew up ” penitential canons ” for the administration of Canonical Penance.88 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 84 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). 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. cribed to John the Faster of Constantinople (+ 595) is of Greek provenance, but dates no farther back than the ninth century. Cfr. Binterim, DenkwUrdigkeiten, Vol. V, 3. 38a sqq. 88 We have such canons issued by the councils of Elvira (about 300), Ancyra (314). Neocaesarea, Nicaea (325), and others. 84 Cfr. Billuart, De Poenitentia, diss. 9, art 9 (ed. Lequette, Vol. VII, pp. 237 sqq.) — 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 seeks Jahrhunderten, Treves 1863. In the Latin Church the penitential discipline varied according to countries. In England, Public Penance was unable to strike root,85 whereas in France it was quite generally enforced.86 Peter of Poitiers (+ 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.87 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.88 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. 35 This can be seen from the 87 Cfr. St Thomas, Sutntna TheoU, Penitential of Archbishop Theodore Suppl., qu. 28, art. 3. of Canterbury (+ 690). 88 E. g. the Council of Chalons 8« Cfr. Rhabanus Maums, De Clef. (813) and that of Paris (829).— Inst., II, 30. Cfr. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, p. 213.

In course of time the wealthy began to evade the penances imposed by their confessors and hired others to discharge them. A graphic example of this abuse may be seen in the chapter * De Magnatum Poenitentia,* V which forms part of the ecclesiastical regulations of King / Edgar.89 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 Mud pro otnni 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 j 89 V. Hardouin, Condi., VI, if Cummian (seventh century). See J. 659 sqq. Zettinger, “Das Poenitentiale Cum40 Examples of this practice are meant/’ in the Archiv f&r kath. afforded by the Poenitentiale of St. Kirchenrecht, 1902, pp. 501 sqq.

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.48 41 See that Council’s Sess. XXI, Catholic Encyclopedia; A. M. KoniDe Ref., c. 9. — On the penitential ger, Burchard I. von Worms und discipline of the primitive Church die deutsche Kirche seiner Zeit, pp. and its development see, besides the 132 sqq., Munich 1905; P. Schmoll, works already quoted, especially O. F. M., Die Busslehre der FruhMorinus, Comment. Hist, de Disci- scholastik, Munich 1909. plina in Administratione Sacramenti 42 Sess. XXIV, De Reform,, c. 8. Poenitentiae XIII Primis Saeculis, 48 Cfr. Petavius, De la PSnitence Paris 1651, reprinted at Venice in Publique et de la Preparation a la 17021 A. Boudinhon, aft. ” Peni- Communion, Paris 1643-4. tential Canons,” in Vol. XI of the 48 THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS 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.— Martene, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, Rouen 1700-02.-— Francolini, De Disciplina Poenitentiae, Rome 1708. — Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen der abendlandischen Kirche, Halle 1851.— *Frank, Die Bussdisziplin von den Apostelzeiten bis sum 7. Jahrhundert, Mayence 1867. — F. Probst, Sakramente und Sakramentalien in den ersten drei christlichen Jahrhunderten, pp. 244 sqq., Tubingen 1872.— *H. J. Schmitz, Die Bussbucher und die Bussdisziplin der Kirche, Mayence 1883. — Idem, Die Bussbucher und das kanonische Bussverfahren, Dtisseldorf 1898.— Batiff ol, Etudes d’Histoire et de Thiologie 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 Pinitence 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 Thiologie 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’Ales, La Discipline Pinitentielle d’apres le Pasteur d’Hermas, Paris 191 1. — B. V. Miller, “The Penitential Teaching of Tertullian,” in the Irish Eccles. Record, 1914, No. S64, PP. 581-598.