dogmatic theology - x - the sacraments (03) - pohle - ocr

7/30/2019 Dogmatic Theology - X - The Sacraments (03) - Pohle - OCR

1/275

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

X


2/275

T H E S A C R A M E N T S

A DOGMATIC TREATISE

B Y

TH E RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH POH LE, Ph .D., D.D.F O R M E R L Y P R O F E SSO R O F A P O L O G E T I C S A T T H E C A T H O L I C U N I V E R SI T Y O F A M E R I C A , N O W P R O F ESSO R O F D O G M A

I N T H E U N I V E R SI T Y O F B R E SL A U

A U T H O R I Z ED E N G L I S H V E R SI O N , B A SE D O N T H E F I F T H

G E R M A N E D I T I O N , W I T H SO M E A B R I D G M E N T

A N D A D D I T I O N A L R E F E R E N C ES

B Y

ARTH UR PREU&3

V o l u m e

I I I Penance

B. HERDER17 S o u t h B r o a d w a y , S t . L o u i s , M o .

A N D A T

6 8 G r e a t R u s s e l l S t . , L o n d o n , W . C.

1917

F.


3/275

NIHIL 0B8TAT

Sti. Ludovici, die 9. Jan., 1917.

F, G. H O LW ECK,Censor Librorum.

I M P R I M A T U R

St i. Ludovic i , die 11. Jan., 1917.

JO A N N ES J. GLENNO N,*. .* \ ; ArchiepiscopusY Sti. Ludovici.

Copyright, 1917

by

Joseph Gummersbach.

All Rights Reserved.

Printed in U. S. A.


4/275

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I N T R O D U C T I O N ........................................................................ i

P a r t I . T h e Po w e r o f t h e Ch u r c h t o F o r g iv e Si n s . . 5

Ch . I . Th e Cat hol ic Chu rch H as the Power t o For giveSi n s .................................................................................... 5

1. Pr oo f f r om Sacred Scr i p t u r e .................................... 6

A r t . 1. Th e P r o m i se ...................................................... 6

A r t . 2. Th e G r a n t ............................................................ 11 2. Pr oo f f r om T r a d i t i o n ................................................ 21

A r t . 1. Prot est ant Err o r s vs. the Teach i n g^ of the,C h u r ch ................................................ . , 21-s 11 > > -

A r t . 2. Th e Teach i n g of the Fath ers' ">>. 7 . . 26

A r t . 3. Th e Pen i t ent ial D i scip l i ne of-: t h e; :Ea?"ly . 'C h u r c h ...................................................... * I V s J . . >4

Ch . I I . Th e Ch ur chs Pow er to For giv e Sin & is UnSirm tej;,.., N ecessar y, an d Ju d ici al . . . 5, , * * : %49

1. Th e Ch ur chs Pow er to Fo r gi ve Si n s is Unl im it ed..50

A r t . 1. M on t ani sm and Novati ani sm vs. the Teach i n g o f t he C h u r c h ...................................................... 50

A r t . 2. Pro of f ro m H ol y Scr i p tu re and Tradi t i on 53

2. The Churchs Power to Forgive Sins is Necessary 58

3. Th e Ch ur chs Pow er t o For gi ve Si n s is Ju d i cial 64

P a r t I I . Pe n a n c e a s a Sa c r a m e n t .......................................... 72

C h . I . M at t er and F o r m .................................... ..... 75

1. Th e M a t t e r .................................................................. 75

2. Th e F o r m ........................................................................ 85

C h . I I . Sacram ent al E f f e c t s ...................................................... 101

Ch . I I I . Th e M i n i st er .................................................................. u p

Ch . I V . Th e R e c i p i e n t ............................................................ 130


5/275

PAGE

P a r t I I I . T h e T h r ee A c t s o f t h e P e n i t e n t : Co n t r i t i o n ,Co n f e ss i o n , a n d Sa t i s f a c t i o n ..............................132

Ch . I . C o n t r i t i o n ....................................................................... 132

1. Per fect C o n t r i t i o n ......................................................134

A r t . i . Per fect Con tr it i on D ef i n ed ..............................134

A r t . 2. Per fect Cont ri t ion as a M ean s of Just if icat ion 139

A r t . 3. Perf ect Cont r it ion not a Requi sit e of Sacramental A b s o l u t i o n ................................................145

2. I m perf ect Cont ri t ion, o r A t t r i t i o n ........................151A r t . i . At t r i t i on D ef i n ed ................................................151

A r t . 2. Im perfect Contr i t ion Suff icient fo r the V al id i t y o f Pen an ce......................................................157

A r t . 3. At t r i t i on i sm vs. Con t r i t ion ism . . . . 170

Ch . I I . C o n f e s s i o n ................................................................. 181

1. Th e Di vin e I nst it ut ion and Necessi t y of Con fessionProved f rom Sacred Scr i p t u r e ..............................185

2. The Divine Institution and Necessity of Confession Proved f rom T r ad i t i o n ....................................192

A r t . i . Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of theCh u r ch ............................................................................. 192

A r t . s.^Th e*Argum ent from Prescr i pt i on . . . 19 5

' '. ' A r ^ * 3v T h e : Patr i st ic A r g u m e n t ..............................206

\ G h . I l l ,, j Sat j sf ac t i o n ................................................................. 217

- . * * & ;SaCrk mental Sat i sfact i on , or Penance for Sins. 4. , Con fes s e d ....................................................................... 217

2. Th e :Rein ission of Tempo ral Puni shm ent s Out side' - * * ' ef ' t h e: Sacram ent of Penance, or t he Cath ol ic

Doct r i ne of I n d u l g e n ce s..........................................232

A r t . i . An Indulgence D ef i n ed ....................................233

A r t . 2. The Power of the Church to Grant Indulgences ............................................................................. 240

A r t . 3. I ndulgences for the D e a d ..............................259

I n d e x .....................................................................................................265

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S


6/275

INTRODUCTION

i . P e n a n c e a s a V i r t u e , o r R e p e n t a n c e .B e f o re t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S a c ra m e n t o f P e n -ance the on ly means by wh ich an adu l t s innercou ld become reconc i led to God, was the v i r tueof penance (virtus poenitentiae), i . e. per fec tcon t r i t i on coup led w i th a f i rm pu rpose o f amend -

m en t .1 Even t o d ay t h is rem ain s th e on ly m eanso f j us t i f i ca t i on fo r t hose who l i ve i n good fa i t hou ts ide the t rue Church .

a) T h at pen an ce, in th e sen se o f pen i t ence or repen t -ance, is a d is t inct v i r tue is not admit ted by a l l theologians.A lex an d er o f H ales def ines penan ce as th e sum tot al o f a l l

t hose vi r t u es vio lated by sin . D u r and u s classes i t as apar t o f d i st r ibu t i ve ju st i ce. Card in al Cajet an subor d i -na tes i t to the three v i r tues o f char i t y , re l ig ion , and re -t r ib u t i ve just ice. W e ho ld that pen i t ence is a d ist i nc tv i r tu e for the reason t h at i t has i t s ow n for m al ob ject .This formal object l ies in the ugl iness of s in as an of fense

aga ins t God, wh ich is exp iab le by cont r i t ion and sat is fac -t ion .T h e fact th at pen i tence can be cal led for t h b y o th er v i r -

tues does not argue that i t is not an independent v i r tue,any more than obedience, which a l l admit to be a v i r tue,

l Cf r . E z. X V I I I , 30 ; 2 Co r . V I I , 9.


7/275

2 I N T R O D U C T I O N

can be proved not to be one merely because it can be dic-ta ted by h igher mot ives.

As a moral v i r tue, peni tence is rooted in the wi l l .Contr i t ion and the resolve to avoid s in are acts of thew i l l .

Penitence need not be accompanied by a sensible feel-ing of regret , because the human emot ions are not abso-

lu te ly subject to the wi l l .b) T h e m at er ial ob ject o f penance is as w id e as therange o f i ts for m al object . Sin ce th e la t t er pr odu cescont r i t ion and a purpose of amendment , the mater ia l ob-

ject o f pen an ce com pr ises ever y t h in g t h at f al l s w i t h in t herange of these two acts of the wi l l .

The v i r tue of penance is d i rected par t ly to the s ins of

th e past , and par t l y to th ose of th e fu tu re. In regard tothe form er the pen i t ent sin n er say s : I w ish I had notcomm i t ted th em . T h is is cont r i t ion . In regard to thelat t er he say s : I w i l l no t com m i t th em . T h is is thepu rp ose o f am end m ent . I t i s easy to see t hat t h ere is areal conn ect i on betw een th e tw o. T h ey are related to

each ot h er as cau se an d effect . T h e pu rp ose o f am en d-m ent pr esup poses cont r i t ion fo r o n es for m er sin s, w h ereascont r i t ion would not only undo the s ins of the past , i f i tcould, but l ikewise prevent the commission of new ones inthe fu t ur e. A change o f l i fe dem ands both a terminus aquo and a terminus ad quern. T h e terminus a quo in theCase o f p en i tence i s si n ; t he terminus ad quem is amend-

ment .2I t fo l lows that one can do penance only for ones own

sin s. T h e an gels coul d n ot do pen an ce fo r t he sin s o fm en. Cont r i t ion can cover on ly person al sin s. W e m ay

2 Poen i ten t ia i s de r i ved f rom / xer apoel v, i . e. to change onespoen i te re [poena , pun i re ) ; i t s m ind , to repen t .

Greek equ iva lent f i e r a v o t a , f r o m


8/275

I N T R O D U C T I O N 3

v iew w i th d is favor the misdeeds o f o thers , but we cannot

feel cont r i t ion or do penance fo r them . Fo r a sim i la rreason i t is impossible to do penance for or ig inal s in,which is in no wise personal .3

2. R e l a t i o n o f P e n a n c e a s a V i r t u e t ot h e S a c r a m e n t o f P e n a n c e . T h e v i r t u e o f

p en a n c e, f a r f r o m b ec o m i n g su p e r f l u o u s b y t h e

i n st i t u t i o n o f t h e Sac r a m e n t o f P en an c e, r ea l l yi s t h e v e r y h ear t o f t h a t Sac r am en t . C h r i st , b yad d i n g t h e sac r am en t a l opus oper at urn, m e r e l yi n c r e ase d t h e ef f i cac y o f r e p en t a n c e.

The Sacrament o f Penance is inconce ivab le w i thout the

v i r tue o f repentance.Penan ce is u su al l y def ined as a Sacr am ent in w hi chthe pr iest , in the p lace of God, forg ives s ins, when thes inner is hear t i ly sor ry for them, s incere ly confessesthem, and is w i l l ing to per form the sat is fac t ion imposedon h i m . T h is def in i t ion is based on the dogm at ic teach-i ng o f t he C ounc i l o f T r en t . 4

The fact that the three acts required of the peni tent ,viz. : cont r i t ion, confess ion, and sat is fact ion, form es-sent ia l e lements of th is def in i t ion, shows that the v i r tueof penance const i tutes the essence of the Sacrament.

The de f i n i t i on we have g i ven fu rn i shes an ex -ce l len t bas is fo r a d iv i s ion o f ou r t rea t i se in tot h r ee p a r t s:

3 Cf r . Poh le -P reuss , G o d t h e Au - th es. 1- 7, Rom e 1879 ; D e Lu go ,t h o r o f N a t u r e a n d t h e Su p e rn a t - D e Po en i t en t i a e V i r t u t e (a ve ry ex

u r a l , 2n d ed., pp. 232 sqq., St . Lo u i s h aust i ve t r eat i se).1915 . On the v i r tu e o f penance 4 Cone. Tr id . , Sess. X I V , cap. 1- 9 ;

see St . Tho m as, S u m m a T h e o l . , 3a, can . 1- 15 .

qu . 85 ; Pa lm ie r i , D e Po e n i t e n t i a ,


9/275

4 I N T R O D U C T I O N

I . T h e P o w e r o f t h e C h u rc h t o F o rg i v e S i n s ;I I . Pen an ce as a Sacram en t ;I I I . T h e T h r e e A c t s o f t h e P e n i t e n t : C o n t r i -

t ion, Confess ion, and Sat is fac t ion.

G e n e r a l R e a d i n g s : St . Th omas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 8490; Supplementum, qu. 1-20, and the commentators. Bellarmine,

De Poenitentia. Bi l l uar t , De Poenitentia. On the teaching of theschismatic Greek Church see C. Rhallis, Ilepi tuv fivarTjpitav rijs

f i e r av oi as n ai r o v e v x &a i o v , Athens 1905.

Gr. Rosignoli, De Sacramento Pocnitcntiae et Extremae Unc-tionis, Mi lan 1706. Col let , Tract, de Poenitentia (Migne, Theol.Curs. Complete Vol. X X I I ) . J. J. Endres, Das Sakramcnt derBusse, 1847. Dens, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, 2 vols., M ayence 1862.*Palm ieri , S.J., De Poenitentia, Rome 1879. I- B.Becamel, Tract. De Virtute et Sacramento Poenitentiae, Paris1887.*De San, S.J., Tract, de Poenitentia, Bruges 1901. M. J.ODonnell, Penance in the Early Church, With a Short Sketchof Subsequent Development, Dubl in 1907. S. J. Hunter, S.J.,Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol . I l l , pp. 297-358. Wi lh elm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 464484, 2nd ed., London 1901. E. J. Hanna, art . Penance, in theCatholic Encyclopedia, Vol . X I , pp. 618-635.


10/275

PART I

T H E P O WE R O F T H E CH U RCH TO

FORGIVE SINS

Befo re t rea t ing o f Penance as a Sac ramentw e m u st sh o w , ( i ) t h at t h e C at h o l i c Ch u r ch h asthe pow er to f o r g i v e sins, ( 2 ) I n w h at t h i s pow ercon sist s, an d ( 3 ) W h at a re i t s at t r i bu t es.

C H A P T E R I

T H E CA T H O L I C CH U R CH H A S T H E PO W ER TO

FO RGI VE SI N S

Tha t t he Ca tho l i c Chu rch has the power to

fo r g i v e sin s can be d em on st rat ed f r om SacredSc r i p t u r e an d T r a d i t i o n . T h e T r i d en t i n e C ou n -c i l bases i t s a rgument p r inc ipa l l y on the Gos -pel o f St . Jo h n , Ch. X X , v . 20 sqq., th us in t im at -i ng tha t t he re a re o the r Sc r i p tu ra l t ex t s f romw h ich t h e t h esis can be pr oved . Su ch ad d i t i on alt ex t s ar e M at t h . X V I , 19 an d X V I I I , 18 . T h eyco n t ai n o u r L o r d s p r o m i se t o i m p ar t t o H i sA po st l es the pow er o f f o r g i v i n g sins. T h eac tua l bes towa l o f th is power is recorded in JohnX X , 20 sqq.

5


11/275

SECTION i

PROOF FRO M SACRED SCRI PT U R E

A R T I C L E i

T H E P R O M I SE

i . T h e T e x t s . I n t h e Gospel o f St . M at t h ewChr i st p r om ises to g ran t H i s Chu r ch the pow er o ffo r g i v i n g sins. H e m akes t h is p rom ise f i r st toSt . Pet er alone (M at t h . X V I , 19 ) and late r t oal l t he A p o st l es ( M at t h . X V I I I , 18 ) .

In the la t ter passage the Apost les are promised

the pow er o f b in d in g and l oosin g (potestas ligandiet solvendi), wh ich v i r t ua l l y compr i ses tha t o ff o rg i v i ng s ins .

St . Pet er , in t he fo r m er p assage, is t o ld t h at heis to rece ive the keys of the k ingdom of heaven(potestas clavium), which i s ev iden t l y a more

comprehens ive power even than tha t o f fo rg iv ingsins.

A f te r assur ing S t . Pe te r tha t he i s the rockupon wh ich the Church i s to be bu i l t , ou r D iv ineSav i o u r con t i n u es ( M at t h . X V I , 19 ) : A n d Iw i l l g ive to thee the keys o f the k ingdom o f

6


12/275

V E S T E D I N T H E C H U R C H 7

heaven ( claves r egn i ccclorum, K /fooiAeias

7w ovpavwv) . A n d w h at so ev er t h o u sh al t b i n d( quodcun que l igaver is{, &v 8 ^ s ) u pon ear t h , i tsha l l be bound a lso in heaven: and whatsoeverthou shal t loose {quodcunque solveris, &vupon earth, i t shal l be loosed also in heaven.

U pon a la te r occasion Ch r ist said t o al l H isA p o st l es t o get h er ( M at t h . X V I I I , 18 ) : A m en ,I say to you, whatsoever you sha l l b ind ( quaecunque al l igaver i t i s, om lavS^ r e ) upon ear t h , sh al lbe boun d a lso in h eaven ; and w h at soever you sh al lloose ( quaecunque solver i t is, o


13/275

8 T H E PO W ER T O FO R GI V E SI N S

m ean t t hat H e w ou ld m ake h im the head o f H i sChurch , w i th fu l l power to govern a l l who be -lon g to i t .

In the twentysecond chapter of Isaias the prophetlam ent s the devastat ion of Ju d a. Foret el l in g th e depr iva-t ion of Sobna and the subst i tu t ion of E l iac im, a f igure

o f Chr ist , he says : I w i l l d r ive thee [Sobn a] out f romth y stat i on, and depose th ee f rom th y m in ist r y . A n d i tshal l come to pass in that day, that I wi l l cal l my servantE l iac im, the son o f He lc ias , and I w i l l c lo the h im w i ththy robe, and wi l l s t rengthen h im wi th thy g i rd le, andwi l l g ive thy power in to h is hand: and he shal l be as a

fat h er to the in h abit an ts o f Jeru salem , and to the hou seo f Ju d a. A n d I w i l l lay the k ey o f th e house o f D av idupon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shallsh u t : and he sh all shu t, an d n one sh all open . 1

From th is and s imi la r tex ts i t fo l lows that the powerof the keys in Bibl ical par lance means supreme powerof leg is lat ion as wel l as jur isd ic t ion.

There fo re , in g iv ing to S t . Pe te r the keys o fthe k i ngdom o f heaven , Ch r i st gave h im suprem epower to govern the Church , to admi t i n to andexclu de f r om i t , to m ak e an d execut e law s, toimpose and remi t penal t ies , in a word, the p len i -

t u d e o f j u r i sd i c t i o n o v er H i s f el l o w A p o st l esand al l th e fa i t h fu l .2 W h at ever he does in h iscapaci t y o f supr em e b ear er o f t he k eys ( claviger)God w i l l r a t i fy . So com prehensive a pow er

i l s . X X I I , 19 sq q. C f r . Jo b 2 C f r . Pal m i er i , D e R o ma n o Po n

X I I , 14. t iUce, 2n d ed., Rom e 189 1.


14/275

V EST E D I N T H E CH U RCH 9

mus t necessa r i l y i nc lude the facu l t y o f f o rg i v i ng

sin s. St . Pet er h as a l l t h e k eys, not on ly one ort w o . N ow , t h ere i s n o t h in g t h at so ef fec -t i ve l y exclu des m en f r om the k ingdom o f h eavenas sin . I f Pet er l acked th e pow er o f f o r g i v i n gsin s, he w ou l d n ot po ssess al l th e k eys to t he k in g -dom of heaven, because he could not b ind orloose, open or shut uncondi t iona l ly , and Godwould no t ra t i fy a l l h is o f f i c ia l ac ts , and conse-q u e n t l y t h e w o rd s o f C h r i s t w o u l d b e u n t r u e .S ince the power o f fo rg iv ing s ins mus t be co -te rm inous w i th t he p r imacy , bes towed upon S t .

Peter in the same passage, i t fo l lows tha t h issuccessors, i. e. t he Rom an p on t i f fs, possess t hep o w er o f f o r g i v i n g si n s i n t h e Ch u r ch .

3. T h e Po w er o f B i n d i n g a n d L o o s i n g Co n -

f e r r e d o n t h e A po st l es Si g n i f i e s t h e F o r -

g i v e n e ss o f S i n s . T o b i n d a n d t o l o o s e a r e f i g -u r a t i v e t e r m s, j u s t as o p e n i n g an d sh u t t i n g i n t h e t e x t w e h av e q u o t ed f r o m I sa i a s. N o ww h a t d i d o u r L o r d m ean w h en H e g av e t o t h eA p o s t l e s t h e p o w e r o f b i n d i n g a n d l o o s i n g ?

T h a t t h e p h r a se can n o t r e f e r t o p h y si c al b o n d s, i s

p l ai n f r o m t h e co n t ex t . H en c e t h e p o w er b e-st o w ed m u st b e sp i r i t u a l o r m o r a l .

a) I n th e m or al sph ere th ere is a th reefo l d bond th atperm i t s o f b ind ing o r loos ing :

( 1 ) The bond o f t he l aw ( vinculum legis) ;(2 ) The bond o f s in (vinculum peccati) ;


15/275

T H E PO W ER T O FO RG I V E SI N S

(3) The bond o f pun ishment (vinculum poenae).From the physical analogy impl ied we may and must

in fer that to b ind in moral mat ters s igni f ies to commandor f o r b id ( l igare = prohibere) ; whereas to loose meansto a l low o r perm i t (solvere= permit tere) .

In regard to s in, therefore, to b ind must mean to wi th-hold absolut ion or forg iveness; to loose, to grant for -

giveness.The same holds good, analogously, in regard to the

bond o f pun ish m ent . T o bin d, in th is sen se, evid en t lysigni f ies to condemn; to loose, to remit the penalty.

N o w t h e g r a n t o f p o w e r m a d e b y o u r L o r dto H is A post l es i s un l im i ted : quodcunque( &v), quaecunque (


16/275

V E S T E D I N T H E C H U R C H

th at H e reta ins wh en, fo r gr ave reason s, th ey w i t hh o ldab so l u t i o n ? W er e H e t o b i n d , i . e. to re fuse forg ive -n ess in an y case in w h ich H i s Chur ch on ear t h had loo sed, i. e. given abso lu t ion , ou r L o r d s p rom ise in t heGospel o f St . M at th ew w ou ld be false , an im possib leassumpt ion.

Impressed by the force of th is argument , some Protes-tant cont rovers ia l is ts deny that the tex ts under cons ider -

at i on h ave any reference to sin at al l . Bu t th is is doin gv iolence t o t he con t ex t . A glan ce at M at t h . X V I I Ishows that the argument o f our Sav iour s d iscourse runsas fo l l o w s: I f t hy b ro th er w ho has o f fen ded thee re -fuses to l i s ten to f ra terna l cor rec t ion , br ing the mat terbefor e the ch urch aut h or i t ies. T h ey h ave th e pow er o fb ind ing and loos ing, o f expe l l ing s inners and readmi t t ingthem to the com m un ion o f t he fai t h fu l , and w h atever d eci -sion th ey m ak e, sh al l be rat i f ied in heaven . I t fo l lo w sthat not on ly has the Church the power to fo rg ive andreta in s ins, but the s ins wi th which th is power is con-cern ed are th ose com m i t t ed a f t e r Bapt ism . T h ere for ethe power to fo rg ive s in is not s imply the power to bap-

t ize. U n bapt ized person s cann ot be exp el led f r om theChurch for the s imple reason that they are not ye t mem-bers of i t .

A R T I C L E 2

T H E G R A N T

T h e p rom ise reco rd ed in St . M a t t h ew s Gospelw as fu l f i l l ed b y o u r D i v i n e L o r d w h en , af t e r H i sResu r r ec t i on , H e m i r acu lo u sly app eared in them idst o f H is A po st les, b reat h ed upon t hem , andsa i d : Receive ye t he H o ly Ghost . W h ose sin s


17/275

12 T H E PO W ER T O FO RG I V E SI N S

you sha l l fo rg ive , they a re fo rg iven them; andwhose s ins you shal l reta in, they are reta ined.

Th is impor tan t tex t , wh ich has been r igh t l ycal led the M agn a Car t a o f t he Ch u rch s p r e-ro gat i ve o f f o r g i v i n g sins, i s f ound i n Joh n X X ,22 an d 23. I t r ead s as fo l l ow s in t he or ig i n al

G r e e k ! Aa/ ?6

T6

7r vevjm a a y i o v * 'A v t i v


18/275


peccato). T h is i s ev iden t f rom the t ex t i t sel f . A sin

o f fe r in g cou ld not be fo r g iv en , m uch less cou ld i tbe reta in ed. M or eover , Ch r i st d ef in i t i vely abo l ishedthe s ino f fe r ings o f the O ld Testament , and there wouldbe no sen se in H is m en t i on in g th em in connect i on wi thH i s fu t u r e Ch u r ch .

b ) T h e t er m s i n s in Jo h n X X , 23, can n o t si g n i f y

concupiscence ( fom es peccati , concupiscent ia) . I t i st ru e, St . Pau l in h is Epi st l e to the Rom ans 1 cal l s con -cupiscence s in, inasmuch, namely, as i t is of s in andin c l in es to sin . 2 Bu t h ere th e term is used in the p l ur al ,and, moreover, concupiscence never leaves man in this l i febu t rem ains w i th h im even in t he state o f ' san c t i f y i n ggrace, an d consequ en t l y is not rem it ted.

c ) Bu t m ay not th e term m ean pun ishm ent s due to sin ?Gui l t and pun ishment are cor re la t ive terms, and pun ish-ment can be forg iven or reta ined in much the same wayas gui l t . T h is in terpr etat i on is not to be re jected of fhand .Bu t we ma in ta in tha t i t mus t no t be app l ied to our t ex tin a onesided w ay and exc lu sive ly . W e pr ove th is by

t he f o l l ow in g t r i l em m a. O ur L o r d s w o r d s app l y t othe mere gu i l t o f s in (reatus culpae), or t o t he pun -ishment due thereto (reatus poenae), or to both gu i l t andpun ishm ent . I f th ey app ly to m ere gu i l t , th ere is ques-t ion of gen ui n e sin s. I f t h ey ap pl y to both, th e sam e ist r ue. I f , h ow ever , th ey app ly to the reatus poenac, i tmus t mean e i t he r e te rna l pun ishment o r t empora l pun -

ishm en t . I f i t m eans etern al pun ishm ent , th e n at ur e ofth ings demands that there be a t rue remiss ion of mor ta ls in, for eternal punishment and mor ta l s in are rec iprocalno t ions. H en ce to adm i t t hat ou r L or d gave H is A pos

1 Rom. V I I , 7 sqq. t h o r o f N a t u re a n d t h e Su p e rn a t u ra l .2 Cf r . Cone. Tr id . , Sess. Y , can . p. 245.

5. See Poh le-Pr euss, God the Au-


19/275


t ies the power to remit e ternal punishment is tantamountto admi t t ing that He gave them the power to fo rg ivem ort al sin s. T h e case is di f feren t i f sin be un dersto odas meaning the tempora l pun ishment o f wrongdo ing.In that case the power to forg ive s ins could not beproved f rom Joh n X X , 23. Bu t t h is in t erp retat ion i sin adm issib le. T h e A po st l es received a t w ofo ld pow er

w i t h regard to sin s, to fo r g ive th em or t o retainthem, and i f they found i t p rudent to re ta in them, to re -tain them as long as they deemed it necessary, possiblyfo r ever ; f o r Chr is t s words a re genera l and un l im i ted : W h ose sin s you sh al l retain , t h ey are retain ed (retentasunt) . Now tempora l pun ishments by the i r ve ry na -ture cannot be retained for ever, else they would become

eternal , and hence i t is ev ident th at the w or d sins inthe Johannine text must be taken in i ts ord inary and p la inacceptation.

d ) The i n te rp re ta t i on we have g i ven de r i vesg rea t p laus ib i l i t y f rom the so lemn manne r i n

wh ich ou r Sav iou r con fe r red th i s p re roga t i veupon H is A post l es. H e sa id : A s the Fat h erhath sent m e, I also send you . T h en H e b reath ed on t h em / and con t in u ed : Receive yethe H o l y Ghost . W h ose sin s you sh al l fo r g i ve ,th ey ar e fo r g i ven t h em ; an d w h ose sin s you sh al l

re ta in , t h ey are r et ain ed . 3 T h i s so lem n pr oce-du re w ou ld h ar d ly be in t el l i g ib le un less H ew ished to g ran t t hem the power to f o rg i ve mor -tal sins.

3 Cf r . Joh n X X , 21 sqq .


20/275


M or eover , th ere is the an alogy betw een H is ow n m is-

s ion and that of the Apost les, expressed in the phrase: A s the Fat h er hath sen t m e, I al so send yo u / Fo rw h at pur pose had the Fat h er sen t H im ? T o fo rg i ve sinsan d enab le m en to reach H eaven . T h u s H e spoke to thepalsied m an : Be o f good hear t , son, th y sin s are fo r -g iven th ee. 4 A n d w hen some o f th e scr ibes th oughtin t h ei r hear t s, W h y doth t h is m an speak t hu s ? H eblasph em eth ; w h o can fo r gi ve sin s, bu t God on ly ? 5Chr ist , k n ow in g th ei r t h ough ts, declared , T h a t youmay know t ha t t he S on o f man ha t h pow er on ea r t h t oforgive s ins, (he sai th to the sick of the palsy,) . . .A r ise, take up th y bed, and go in t o th y ho use. 6 I t w ast h i s pow er w h i ch H e con f er r ed upon H is A p ost l es.7

2. T h e P o w e r t o F o r g i v e S i n s I m p l i e sT r u e F o r g i v e n e s s b y G o d . T o f o r g i v e si n sis more than mere ly to dec la re o r announce tha tthey a re fo rg i ven .

a ) I t i s ev i d en t f r o m t h e c on t ex t t h a t o u r

L o r d sen t H i s A p o st l es t o f o r g i v e si n s i n t h esam e sense in w h ich H e H im se l f h ad been sen tb y H i s H eav en l y F at h er . H e f o r g a v e g r i ev o u ss ins i n fo ro in fe rno ; hence H is A p ost les m usthave the same power.

The va l id i t y o f t h i s conc lus ion i s no t impa i red by thefac t tha t the power to fo rg ive s ins d i f fe rs in God, inChr ist , and in H is hu m an m in ist ers. In God it i s a

4 M a t t h . I X , 2: Co nf i de U li , 6 M a r k I I , 10 , u .

r e m i t t u n t u r t i b i p e cca t a t u a ( aUp- 7 Th a t H e d i d n o t m ean o r i g i n a l

r a l (rot a I a / xapTia t ) sin , i s show n i n f r a , No. 3.5 M a r k I I , 7 sq q.


21/275

i6 T H E PO W ER T O FO RG I V E SI N S

potestas auctoritatis, in the Godman, a potestas m in isteri i.The meaning of these terms is expla ined in our t reat iseon th e Sacram ent s in Gen eral .8 T h ou gh th e p ow er be-s towed upon the Apost les was in t r ins ica l ly in fer io r totha t o f Chr is t (be ing der i ved f rom H im, cond i t iona land dependent), i t is nevertheless real and adequate.

b ) A cco r d in g to t he Gr eek .t ex t t he fo r g i ven essof s ins by God is so in t imate ly cond i t ioned uponthe exerc ise o f the Apos to l i c power tha tt h e f o rm e r i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s t h e l a t t e r : av t l vo )v acf>ijry aUvT


22/275


3. T h e P o w e r t o F o r g i v e S i n s N o t I d e n t i -c a l w i t h t h e P o w e r t o B a p t i z e . T h o u gh t hepower to fo rg ive s ins and the power to bap t i zewere con fe r red upon the Apos t l es i n s im i l a r c i r -cu m st an ces, th e t w o are en t i r ely sep ar at e an d d is-t i nc t .

a ) L eav i n g th e det ai led an alysis o f t he respec-t i ve sc r ip tu ra l tex ts to the exege tes , we w i l l con -f ine ourse lves to po in t ing ou t the grea t d i f fe renceex i st i n g betw een the t w o pow ers. T h e pow ert o bapt ize is essen t ia l l y sim p le: B a p t i z a t e whe reas the power to f o rg i ve s ins i s two fo ld , i n -asm u ch as i t m ay f o r g i v e o r r e t a i n : Rem i t t i t e et retinete.

True, the refusal of Bapt ism in a cer ta in sense s igni f iesa retentio peccati, because every one who is not bapt izedrem ain s steeped in sin. Bu t to r efu se to bapt ize an ap pl i -cant is p la in ly not a jud ic ia l ac t .

I t i s equa l ly t rue that Bapt ism, l i ke Penance, remi tsm or t al sin . Bu t betw een the m an n er o f rem ission inei t h er Sacr am ent t h ere is as gr eat a di f feren ce as bet w eenthe simple cancel lat ion of a debt and a judic ial releasef rom the du ty o f pay ing the same.

b ) A n o t h er i m p o r t an t d i st i n ct i o n b et w eenB a p t i s m a n d t h e p o w e r o f f o rg i v i n g s i n s i s t h a tth e fo r m er can be adm in ist ered on ly once,whereas the la t ter can be exerc ised as of ten as i tis app ealed to . Bapt ism is in cap abl e o f repet i t ion


23/275

i8 T H E PO W ER T O F O RG I V E SI N S

fo r the reason tha t i t i s essent ia l l y a sp i r i tua l re -b i r t h . T h e pow er to fo r g iv e sin i s sub ject to nosuch l im i ta t ion .

Protestants assert that the power to forgive s ins, as re-corded by St . John, is noth ing more than the power topr each the Gospel. T h is is a p erf ect ly lo gical dedu ct ionf rom the Lu th eran th eory o f just i f i cat ion . I f i t were t r ueth at m an i s ju st i f i ed by fa i t h alone, the for g iven ess o f sin swould u l t imate ly depend on preach ing, fo r i t i s th roughpreaching the Gospel , in the Protestant v iew, that f idu-c iar y fai t h is born in th e soul. Bu t such t each in g is abso-lutely unscr iptural , as may be seen by a reference to

Jo h n X X , 23. I f rem it t ere peccata were synonymousw i t h praedicare fi dem , as the Protestants al lege, whatw o u l d " ret inere peccata m ean ? M ere n on fo rgi veness PBu t th at w ou ld invo lve a cont rad ic t ion . O r the om issionor n eglect o f pr eachi n g th e for g iven ess o f sin s? Bu tt h at w ould be opposed to th e spi r i t o f th e Gospel . T h eGospel m u st be pr eached to al l m en .10 N o w on d er

the a t tempt to square the Johann ine tex t w i th theProtestant doct r ine of just i f icat ion has led to s t rangedi stor t i ons. I t is r i d i cu lou s to asser t t h at Chr ist m eantto say to th e palsied m an : Be o f good h eart , son, thefai t h is being preached to th ee. I t is equ al ly r id icu lou st o d i st o r t ou r L o r d s d i c t u m : I f you w i l l f o r g i ve men

their o f fences, your heavenly Father wi l l forg ive you a lsoyo u r of fences, 11 by m ak in g i t r ead : I f you preachto men the Gospel , your heavenly Father wi l l preach theGospel also to yo u . 12

l O M at t h . X X V I I I , 19 ; M ar k 12 Cf r . M a t t h . V I , 12 ; L u k e V I I ,

X V I , 16. 4 7 sq q . ; X I , 4 ; X X I V , 47.

11 M att h. V I , 14.


24/275


4 . T h e P o w e r t o F o r g i v e S i n s a P e r m a n e n t

I n s t i t u t i o n i n t h e C h u r c h . T h e v er y n a-tu re and pu rpose o f t he Ca tho l i c Chu rch makei t p l a in t ha t t he power to f o rg i ve s ins was no t ape rsona l p re roga t i ve o f t he Apos t l es , bu t wasgranted to them in the i r o f f i c ia l capac i ty , and

hence in tended as a permanent ins t i tu t ion .T h e C h u rc h w i t h h e r d i v i n e m i s s i o n , h e r A p o s -to l ic success ion , the pr imacy , the power to bap-t i ze, etc ., i t dest i ned to en d u re fo r al l t im e. T h epower to fo rg ive s ins , too , must be ava i lab le andexerc ised as long as there are s inners , and that

m ean s to the end o f t he w o r ld . I f t he Chu rchlacked th is power o r fa i led to exerc ise i t , shecou ld no t poss ib ly be the t rue Church o f Chr i s t .

T h e au t h en t i c i n t er p r et at i on o f Joh n X X , 23, hasb een fi x ed b y t h e T r i d en t i n e C o u n c i l : I f an y on e

sai th t h at t h ose w ord s o f t h e L or d the Sav i o u r : * Re -ceive ye th e H o ly Gho st , w ho se sin s you sh al l fo rg iv e,they are forg iven them, and whose s ins you shal l re ta in,they are re ta ined/ are not to be unders tood o f the powero f f o rg iv ing and re ta in ing s ins in t he Sacrament o fPenance, as the Cathol ic Church has a lways f rom thebeginn ing un der st ood t hem , bu t w r est s t hem . . . t o t he

p ow er of p reach in g th e Gospel , let h im be an ath em a. 13The same Counci l def ines that the power to bapt ize is

13 Sess. X I V , can. 3 : S i q u i s p o en i t en t i a e, si cu t Ecc lesia ca t h ol i ca

d i xer i t , verb a i l i a D o m in i Sa l va - a b i n i t i o sem p er i n t e l l e x i t , d et o r ser i t

t o r i st Accip i t e Sp i r i t u m sa n ct u m , a u t em . . . ad auc to r i t a tem p racd i -

quor um remi scr i t is , et c ., non esse cand i evange l i um , anathem a s i t . in t cU igenda de po tes ta te remi t tend i (D e n z i n g er -B a n n w a r t , n . 9 13) .

et re tmend i peccata in Sacramento


25/275


d ist inc t f rom the power to f o rg ive o r retain sin s: I fanyone, confounding the Sacraments, sai th that Bapt ismis i tsel f the Sacrament of Penance, as i f these two Sacra-m ents w ere not d ist in ct , . . . let h im be anathem a. 14

Readi n gs: Bill uart , De Poenitentia, diss. i, art. i (ed. Le-quette, Vol . V I I , pp. 9 sqq) . Palm ieri , De Poenitentia, thes. 8,Rome 1879. Manzon i , De Natura Peccati eiusque Remissione,S. Angeli Laudensis 1890. Oswald , Dogmatische Lehre von denhl. Sakramenten der kath. Kirche, Vo l . I I , 5th ed., pp. 29 sqq.,Mnster 1894. Tepe, Institutiones Theologicae, Vol . I V, pp. 357sqq., Par is 1894. Scheeben-At zberger, Dogmatik, Vo l . I V, 3, 672sqq., Freiburg 1903.

For the historical development of the dogma see Chardon, His toire du Sacrement de Penitence (Migne, Theol. Curs. Complet.,Vol . X X ) . Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol . I I , 2nd ed., 102103, Freiburg 1895. G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in theFirst Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 153 sqq., St . Louis 1913. M. J. ODonnell, Penance in the Early Church, With a ShortSketch of Subsequent Development, Dubl in 1907. Tixeront , His tory of Dogmas, 3 vols., St. Louis 1910 sqq.'Coupe, Charles,S.J., The Power of the Keys in the Pri m i t ive Church, in theAmerican Catholic Quarterly Review, Vol. X X I X (1904), No.116, pp. 625-644.

1 4 " Si qu is sacram en t a con f un dens duo sacram en t a d ist i ncta non sin t ,

ipsum bapt ismum poen i ten t iae sa - . . . anathema s i t . (D e n z i n g e r -cramentum esse d ixer i t , quas i haec Bannwar t , n . 912) .


26/275

SECTION 2

P R O O F F R O M T R A D I T I O N

A R T I C L E i

P R O T E ST A N T ER R O R S V S. T H E T E A C H I N G O F T H E

C H U R C H

Up to the t ime o f t he so ca l led Re fo rmat ion no oneever quest ioned the power o f the Church to fo rg ive s ins .

The anc ien t Montan is t s mere ly a t tempted to l im i t i t un -d u ly ,1 w h i le the Cat h ar i and the W ald en sians er r ed w i thregard to th ose w h o exerc i se i t .2 I t w as reser ved fo r th esel f st y led Pro t estan t Refo r m ers to deny that p ow er inpr i nc ip le . T h is exp la in s the th orou ghn ess w i t h w h i ch th eTr ident ine Counc i l de f ined and exp la ined the teach ing o fthe Church on the subject of Penance.3

i . P r o t e s t a n t E r r o r s . T h e Pr o t est an t sym -bo l i c wr i t i ngs recogn ize bu t two sac raments , viz. : B ap t i sm an d t h e L o r d s Su p p er . I n L u t h er s L i t t l e C at ech i sm an d i n t h e Apologia o f t h eA u g s b u rg C o n f e s s i o n , absolu t io, quae est sacramentum poenitentiae i s ment ioned as the th i rdsac rament a f te r Bapt ismus an d Coena D o-m i n i 4 Bu t t he Lu t h er an Chu rch r egard s abso

1 V . i n f r a , Ch. I I , Sect . i . 3 Sess. X I V ; v . i n f r a , pp. 23 sqq.

2 Cf r . Poh le-Preu ss, The Sacra- 4 A p o l . , c. " D e N u m . Sa c r a m . :

ments , Vo l . I , pp. 166 sqq. " Vere ig i t u r sun t sac ramen ta bap t i s -

21


27/275

22 T H E PO W ER TO F O RG I V E SI N S

lu t ion as a mida dcclarat io a mere dec larat iono f pa rdon w i thou t rea l e f fec t .

Calvin declared that Penance is a repet i t ion of Bap-t ism and that there is no essent ial dist inct ion betweenthe two Sacraments.5

H is v iew soon obt ained the up per hand am ong Pro t es-

t ant s. T o app reciate i t at i ts t ru e valu e, we m ust r egardi t in connect ion w i th the or ig ina l Pro tes tant theory o fju st i f i cat i on . Bap t i sm , in t he or t h od ox L u t h er an sen se,does not blot out or ig in al sin an d t he actu al sin s th at spr in gf rom i t , but merely covers them up wi th the c loak of them er i t s o f Jesu s Chr i st . A l l fu t u re sins are sim i la r lycovered up i f the s inner piously recal ls the grace of Bap-

t ism .6 T h u s Pen ance is essen t ial l y n ot hi n g m ore or lessthan a repeated cover ing up of s in ef fected by f iduciaryfai t h in t he v i r t u e o f Bap t i sm . I n L u t h er s own words,i t is pure ly a r egressus ad bapt ismum.

This fundamenta l e r ror led the Pro tes tant Reformersto propagate a ser ies of erroneous doctr ines with regardto Penance, which may be br ie f ly summar ized as fo l lows:

( 1) A s sins are never actu al l y forg i ven , but m erely cov-ered up by f iduciary faith, Penance as a Sacrament issuperf luous.

( 2) W h at m en cal l Penance is m erely a recourse toBapt ism.

( 3) Ab solu t ion is not a t r ue forg iven ess o f sins,

but merely a sermon l ike declarat ion or announcementthat God wi l l forg ive or has forg iven our s ins throughfa i th .

t in ts, coena Domini , absolut io , quae doctr in e opposed to i t cf r . Pohle-

est sacramentum poev i ten t iae . Preuss, Grace , Ac tua l and Hab i tua l ,

5 I n s t i t . , I V , 19, 14 sqq. pp. 310 sqq., St . Lo u i s 19 15.0 On th is teachi ng and the t r ue


28/275

V EST ED I N T H E CH U RCH 23

(4) The impos i t ion o f pen i tent ia l works is due to an

ar rogant be l ie f in se l f jus t i f i ca t ion and derogates f romth e sat isfac t io n g iven b y Jesu s Chr ist . In par t i cu larare penalt ies to be rejected because Christ has suff icient lyatoned for our s ins and paid a l l the penal t ies due to them.

(5 ) The Church has no ju r i sd ic t ion in t he cour t o fconscience, but m erely th e r igh t to exerc i se ext ern al d i sc i -pl ine; hence no one is obl iged to confess his sins, andthe socal led canonical or penitent ia l penalt ies are nul land void.

Thus under the Pro tes tant sys tem on ly two th ings re -main o f the Sacrament o f Penance, viz. : con t r i t i on inthe sense of the ter ror w i th which conscience is smi t tenupon being convinced of s in (terrores conscientiae), an d

f iduc iary fa i th in the sense of a recourse to Bapt ism( regressus ad bapt ismu m ).

Modern Pro tes tants are very much a t var iance in re -gard to confession . T h e h i ghchur ch A n g l ican s bel ieve inand pr ac t ice aur icu lar con fession . T h e L u t h eran s th in ki t is suf f ic ient i f a sor t o f general acknowledgment of s in -fu ln ess is m ade by th e w h ole congregat i on . T h e Rat i o n -al ists reject confession al together as a human invent ion.

2. T h e T e a c h i n g o f t h e C h u r c h . T h eCo u n ci l o f T re n t d evo t es t h e w h o l e o f i t s X l V t hSess ion to an exp lanat ion, demonstra t ion, and de-fense o f the Ca tho l i c doc t r ine o f the Sac rament

o f Pen an ce. I t s f i f t een can on s on t h e sub jectmay be summar i zed as fo l l ows :

I . Penance is a t rue Sacrament , inst i tu ted by Chr is t forthe forgiveness of postbapt ismal s ins.

I I . Penance is a Sacrament d is t inct f rom Bapt ism.


29/275


I I I . Th e wor ds o f Ch r ist recorded in Joh n X X , 23, areto be unders tood o f the power o f fo rg iv ing and re ta in ings ins in the Sacrament of Penance, not of preaching theGospel.

IV. For the remiss ion of s ins there are required threeacts by the penitent , which are as i t were the matter ofthe Sacrament of Penance, viz.: cont r i t ion, confess ion,

and sat isfact io n . T h e t er ro rs w i t h w hi ch the conscienceis smit ten upon being convinced of s in, and the f iduciaryfaith generated by the Gospel, are not suff icient to obtainforgiveness.

V . Im per fec t cont r i t i on , w h i ch is acqu i red by m eans o fthe examinat ion, recollect ion, and detestat ion of sins, is at rue and prof i table sorrow, and does not make a man ahypocr i te and a greater s inner.

V I . Sacram en tal con fession i s o f d iv in e in st i tu t i on an dnecessary to salvat ion, and aur icular confession is not ahuman invent ion .

V I I . A u r i cu l ar con fession com pr ises by d iv ine r igh tal l mortal sins, even those which are secret, and may law-

ful ly extend also to venial s ins.V I I I . T h e confession o f al l sin s, as dem anded by theChurch, is not impossible, but a duty incumbent on al l thefa i th fu l o f bo th sexes.

IX. The sacramental absolut ion g iven by the pr iest isa judic ial act , not a bare declarat ion, and must be pre-ceded by confession on the part of the penitent.

X . Pr i est s alon e have the pow er o f b in di ng and lo osin g,and can exercise i t even i f they are in a state of mortalsin.

XI . B ishops have the r ight of reserv ing cases to them-selves, and from such reserved cases no priest may ab-solve.


30/275

X I I . God does no t alw ays rem i t t he w ho le pun ishm ent

toget her w i t h th e gu i l t o f sin , and t he sat isfac t io n o f pen i -ten ts does not cons is t in the fa i th wherewi th they appre -hend that Chr is t has sat is f ied for them.

X I I I . Sat i sfac t io n fo r sins, as to t h ei r t em poral pun -ishment , is made to God through the mer i t s o f Chr is t , bythe punishments enjo ined by the pr iest , and a lso by thosevo lun ta r i l y under taken by the pen i ten t h imse l f , and con -

sequent ly , Penance is more than merely a new l i fe .X I V . T h e w o r k s o f sat i sf ac t i o n p er f o r m ed b y t h e

peni tent do not obscure the doct r ine of grace, the t rueworship of God, and the benef i t o f Chr is t s death.

XV . The power o f t he keys wh ich Chr is t gave to t heChurch is not merely the power to loose, but a lso to b ind,

and therefore enables pr iests to impose punishments onthose who confess.These canons bear the t races of a stormy per iod in the

Churchs h is tory and ref lect many of the fa lse accusat ionsmade by her enemies.

W e are at p resent in t erested on l y in th at por t ion o fthe Tr ident ine teaching which asser ts the ex is tence in

the Chur ch o f t he pow er o f f o r g iv i n g sins. T h e o thersw i l l be t r eated in th ei r p roper p l aces fur t h er on.

R e a d i n g s : Bel larm ine, De Poenitentia, I , 1 sqq. R . A.Lipsins, Lut hers Lehr e von der Busse, in the Jahrbuch frprot. Theologie, 1892, pp. 161 sqq. Oswald, Die dogmatischeLehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Vo l . I I , 5th ed., pp. 24 sqq.,

Mn ster 1894.*Mh ler, Symbolik, 32 sq., Mayence 1900 ( En glish translation by Robertson, pp. 218 sqq., 5th ed., London 1906).



31/275


A R T I L E 2

T H E T E A C H I N G O F T H E F A T H E R S

The Pat r is t ic teaching on the subject of Penance is re-la ted to the peni tent ia l d isc ip l ine of the pr imi t ive Churchas t h eor y to pr act ice. Bot h t eachi n g an d di scipl i n e can

be adduced in suppor t of the dogma that the Church hasthe power to forg ive s ins.The teach ing o f the Fathers w i l l be examined la ter in

connect ion w i th the ins t i tu t ion o f the Sacrament o f Pen-an ce. H er e i t w i l l suff ice to cite a few passages fr omSt . Augus t ine and two o r t h ree o ther Pa t r i s t i c w r i t e rs .Our main argument is based on the ancient peni tent ia l

discipl ine.Every century a f fo rds i t s sheaf o f p roofs fo r the ex is t -

ence in th e Chu rch o f the po w er to fo r g iv e sins. I fPat r is t ic tex ts in suppor t o f our dogma are re la t ive lyfew, th is is due par t ly to the general scarc i ty of contem-porary documents, par t ly to the d isc ip l ine of the secret ,

and pa r t l y t o t he i n f r equency w i t h w h i ch t he f a i t h f u lw ere w on t to app roach th e t r ib u n al o f Penance.1 I t isscarcely necessary to remark that the present pract ice of devot iona l con fession s w as en t i r ely un kn own in thein f an t C hu r ch .

i . T h e F a t h e r s o f t h e F o u r t h a n d F i f t h

C e n t u r i e s . T h e Fat h er s an d eccl esi ast i cal au -tho rs o f the fou r th and f i f th cen tu r ies re f lec t i nt he i r w r i t i n gs th e con t roversies w h ich the Chu rchwaged a t t ha t t ime aga ins t Nova t i an i sm.

l C f r . Oswald , D ie dogmat i sche Leh r e von den h l . Sakr am en t en , V o l .

I I , 5th ed., p. 48, M n ster 1894.


32/275

a ) St . A u g u st i n e ( + 4 3 0 ) w ar n s t h e f ai t h f u l agai n st

h ere t ical teachers w ho lack the po w er o f th e k eys. Le tu s n ot l i sten to t ho se, he says, wh o deny t h at th eCh u rch has th e po w er to fo r g iv e a l l sin s. T h ese m iser -ab le wretches, re fus ing to acknowledge in Peter the rock ,and to bel ieve that the Church has received the keys ofthe k ingdom of heaven, have lost these same keys f rom

t h ei r o w n h an d s/ 2B u t how ar e w e t o accoun t f o r t h e f ac t t h at St . A u gu s-t ine , in o ther passages o f h is wr i t ings , seems to l im i tt h e p o w er o f f o r g i v i n g si n s t o Bap t i sm ? W h at d o eshe mean, fo r ins tance, when, speak ing o f Bapt ism, hesays in h i s t reat ise O n M ar r iage an d Con cup iscen ce: By i t s one on ly m in is t ra t ion i t comes to pass tha t pa r -

don i s secured to t he fa i t h fu l o f a l l t he i r s ins bo th be -fo r e an d a f t er t h ei r r egen erat ion ? 3 T h e an sw er is tobe f ound i n t he sen t ence im m ed ia t el y f o l l o w in g : Fo r o fwhat use would repentance, even before Bapt ism, bei f B ap t i sm d i d n o t f o l l o w ? o r a f t e r Bap t i sm , i f i t d i d n o tpr ecede ? 4 T h at A u gu st in e r egard ed Pen an ce as d is-

t i nc t f rom Bap t i sm is ev iden t f rom the fo l low ing passagein an o th er o f h i s t r eat i ses: I f [ h om icide] has beencom m i t ted by a catechum en, it i s w ash ed o f f i n Bap t i sm ;i f by a bapt ized person, i t i s hea led through Penance andr eco n ci l i at i o n / 5

2 D e A g o n . Ch r i s t ., c. 3: " N ec et i am postea quo ru m l ibe t pecca to r um

eos aud iam us , qu i negan t Ecclesiam ven i a Udel ibu s im pe t r et u r .

D e i om n ia pecca ta posse d im i t t ere . 4 L . c . : " Quid en i rn p rodesset I t a q u e m iser i , d u m in Pet ro p et r a m ve l an t e b ap t i sm u m p o en i t en t i a , n i si

non in t e l legun t et no l un t c reder e bap t i smu s sequer et u r , ve l post ea , n i si

da tas Ecc les iae c laves regn i cae lo - p ra e ced ere t ? "

r u m , i p si ea s d e ma n ib u s a m iseru n t . 5 D e A d u l t . C o n i u g . , I I , 16 : " Si

3D e N u p t . e t C o n cu p . , I , 33: [ h o m i c i d i u m ] a ca techumeno factum

Qu i a ipso [bap t i sm o l quod sem e l est , bapt i sm a te ab l u i t u r ; et s i a bap -

dotur, fit, u t non s o h t n antea, sed t i za to , poen i tud ine e t reconciliationesonatur



33/275


St . Jerom e ( + 42o) com pares Bapt ism and Penance to t w o d o o r s (duae portae) , th rough which peop le enterand leave the Church,6 and declares that both are equal lyeff icacious. Pen an ce, he says, im it at es t he gr ace o fBapt ism by the unspeakab le mercy o f the Sav iour . 7

St . A m br ose ( + 397 ) v i go r ousl y def end s t he pow er o fthe Church to b ind and loose against the at tacks of the

N ovat ian s.8 H e says th at th is po w er is reser ved to thepr iesthood,9 and that i ts exercise through ei ther Sacra-m ent is a m yst ery.10 T h e sacer do t al po w er to bind orloose, he declares in another place, comprises all sins andal l s inners wi thout except ion.11

St . Pac ian , B ish op o f Barcelon a ( + 39 0) , wh o refu t edthe Novat ions in three le t ters addressed to Sympronianus,devoted th e th i r d of these to Pen an ce. T h e N ovat i an sc laim , h e says, th at i t is not p erm i t ted to do penanceaf t er Bapt ism , th at the Ch urch cann ot fo rg iv e m or t al sins,n ay th at sh e h ersel f w oul d p er i sh w ere she to readm it sin

6 I n S o p h . , I , 10 . poss ib i le v ideba tu r pe r poen i ten t ia in 7 Adv . Pe lag . , I , 33 : Po e n i - p ecca t a d im i t t i : con cessi t h oc

t en t ia im i t a tu r bapt i sm i g ra t iam pe r Ch r is tu s Apo st o l i s su i s, quod ab

i ne f fabi l em c lem en t iam Sa lva t o r i s . Apos to l i s ad sacerdo t um of fi cia t r ans- 8 De Poen i t . , I , 2 , 6 : " Sed a iun t , m issum est . Factu m est ig i t u r pos

se Dom ino de fe r r e reveren t iam , cu t sib i l e, quod im possib i le v ideba t u r . s o l i r e m i t t e n d o r u m c r i m i n u m p o t - 10 D e Po e n i t . , I , 8 , 36: Cu r

st a t em re serve n t . I m o n u l l i m a io rem b ap t i sa t i s, s i p e r h o m in em d im i t t i i n i u r i a m f a c iu n t , q u a m q u i e i u s vo - non l i ce t? In bap t i smo u t ique re -

l un t m anda ta resc ind e re , com m issum m issio pecca to r um omn iu m est : qu id m unu s re fu nde r e . Nam quum ipse in t erest , u t ru m pe r poen i t en t iam an i n Evan ge l io suo d ixe r i t D om in us pe r lavacrum hoc iu s sib i da tum sa - I e su s : Acc ip i t e Sp i r i t u m sa n ct u m , cerd o t es v i n d i cen t ? U n u m in u t r o -

quor um rem iser i t is , e tc ., qu is est que m yst er iu m est . ergo , qu i m ag is hono ra t , u t rum qu i 11 D e Poen i t ., I , 3, 10 : " D e u s m andat i s obtempera t , an qu i r esis t i t ? d ist inc t i onem non fac i t , qu i m i ser i - Eccles ia in u t roqu e serva t obed ien- cord i am suam prom is i t omni bus et t i am, u t peccatu m et a l l ige t et re- re lax an d i l icen t iam sacerdot ibu s su i s la xe t ; haeresis in al t ero im m it is , sin e u l la except ion e concessi t .

in a l t ero in obediens. . . . D o m i n u s I b i d . , I , 1: D o m i nu s n ul lu m c n -

en im par iu s et so lven d i esse vo lu i t men exc ip i t , qu i peccata donavxt

et l i gand i . omn i a .

9 De Poenit., I I , 2, 12: l m -


34/275

n er s. 12 H e ask s: W h o t augh t t hem t h i s doct r i ne,

M oses, St . P au l , o r C h r i st ? and an sw er s: N o ; N o vat i an , a f t e r t he ru le o f D ec ius, t h at i s, a lm ost t h reehun d r ed yea r s a f t e r t he passion o f ou r Lo r d . W h atth en ? H as he the g i f t o f t o n gues? H as he p roph esied?Can he r a ise th e d ead ? Su r ely he ough t to h ave th eone o r t he o ther o f t hese g i f t s in o rder t o in t roduce the

gosp el o f a n ew law . 13 T h e ob ject io n t h at God alon ecan forg ive s ins is answered by S t . Pac ian as fo l lows: T h i s i s t r u e, bu t t h at w h i ch H e does t h r ough H isp r iest s, i s also [d on e by ] H is pow er . W h at i s i tt h at H e spoke to t he A p os t l es: W h at soever you sh al lb ind upon ear t h , et c .? W h y shou ld H e speak th us i f i tw as n ot p erm i t ted t o m en to b in d and loose ? 14 St .

Pac ian a lso d is t inc t ly dec lares that the power o f the keyscon f e r r ed upon t he C hu r ch by he r D i v ine Founde r com-pr ises a l l sin s w i t h ou t except ion . W h atsoever yousha l l loose, H e [ Ch r is t ] says, except in g abso lu te ly non e;w h atsoever , he says, w h et h er large or sm al l . 15

b ) C yr i l o f A l ex an d r i a ( + 4 4 7 ) say s: T h e m en

w ho h ave received t he b reath o f t he H o l y Ghost \i. e. t hepr ies t s ] f o rg ive s ins in a two fo ld manner : e i t he r by ad -m i t t i ng t he w o r t hy t o B ap t i sm , o r by f o r g i v i ng t he pen i -ten t ch i ld ren o f th e Ch u rch . 16

12 E p . a d S y m p r o n i a n . , 3, 1: 1^ Ep . a d Sym p r . , 1, 6: V er u m

. . . quo d post bapt ismu m poen i t e re est , sed et quod per sacerdo t es st i os

non l i cea t , quod m or t a le pecca tu m fac i t , i ps iu s po testas est . Nam

Ecclesia dona t e non possi t , im o quod qu i d est i l l u d , quod Apos t o l us d i c i t :

i psa perea t recip i endo peccan t es. Qu ae l i gaver i t i s in t er r i s, et c .T 13 L . c . : . . . p ost D e ci i p r i n - C u r h o c, s i l i g a re et so l ve re h o m in i -

c ipa tum , i . e. post t recen t os p rope bus non l i ceba t ? annos domin icae pass ion is . Qu id 15 E p . a d Sy m p r . , 3, 12 : Quae-

erg o t u n c t . . . L i n g u i s l o cu t u s e st t cu n q u e so l ver i t i s , i n q u i t , o mn t n o n i - P ro p h e t a v i t t Su sci t a re m o r t u o s p o - h i l excip i t . Q u a ecu n q u e, i n q u i t , ve l t u i t T H o r u m en im a l i q u id h a b ere m a gn a ve l m o d i ca .

d e b u e ra t , u t e va n g e l i u m n o v i i u r i s 10 I n l o a . , x, 12 (M ign e, P. G.,

induceret LX XI V\ 722).



35/275


T h e fo l low in g passage f rom St . Chr ysostom ( + 407)h as becom e a ver i t able c l assic: T h e di spensat ion o f thethings that are in heaven God hath not given to angels orto arch an gels; fo r not to th ese w as i t sa i d : W h atsoevery ou sh al l b i n d / et c. ( M at t h . X V I I I , 18 ) . T h ey t h at r u l eon earth have indeed also power to bind, but the bodieso n l y ; 17 w h ereas t h is bond reaches t o th e soul i t sel f , and

t ran scen d s th e h eavens.18 A n d w h at t he pr iest s do be-low, the same does God rat i fy above, and the Lord con-f i rm s th e sen tence o f H i s servan t s.19 W h at th en has H egiven th em but al l h eaven ly po w er? Fo r , H e sai th , W hose sins ye sha l l rem i t / etc. (Joh n X X , 23) . W hatpow er could be g r eat e r t han t h i s ? . . . I t w ou ld be m an i -fest fo l ly to contemn such a great power , w i thoutwhich we could obta in nei ther sa lvat ion nor the goodthings promised. . . . For not only when they regenerateus [ i n Bap t ism ] , but th ey [ t he pr iests ] h ave alsothe power to fo rg ive the s ins commi t ted a f te r regenera

The extent of th is power is descr ibed as fo l lows by

Timothy, the second successor of St . Athanasius in thesee o f A lexan d r i a ( + 384 ) 21: W h ich sins have no fo r -giv en ess? N o n e; ever yt h in g con fessed befo r e God 22 w i l lbe forg iven.

St . A t h anasiu s ( + 373) put s th e ef fects o f Pen an ce ona level w i t h t hose o f Bapt ism . A s one wh o is bap-t ized by a pr iest , he says, is i l luminated by the grace of

t h e H o ly Gh ost, so he w h o con fesses [ hi s sin s] in Pen

20 De Sacerdot . , I l l , 5 sq .

21 Resp. can., 36 , apud P i t r a ,

i s K a l w e p v p y f f u p r a i k A t u 22 I

G l U p d s , r a v r a 0 es v


36/275

ance, receives forgiveness through the pr iest because of

the grace of Chr is t . 23

2. T h e F a t h e r s o f t h e Se c o n d a n d T h i r d

C e n t u r i e s . Besi d es N o vat i an i sm , t h e Fat h er so f the second and th i rd cen tu r ies had to combatth e M on t an i st i c he resy , w h i ch aro se abou t t h e

year 150.St . Cypr i an ( + 258) , wh o steered a m idd le course be-

tween the lax doc t r ines o f Fe l ic iss imus and the r igor ismof Nova t ian , rev iew ing h is congrega t ion a f te r t he Dec ianpersecut ion, deplores the apostasy of so many,24 and ad-mon ishes them to make amends fo r t he i r c r ime by ex -

t rao rd inary works o f penance , in o rder t ha t t hey mayreceiv e recon ci l i at i on .25 H e exh or t s t h em t o con fesst h eir sin s 26 an d says t h at n o con t r i t e sin n er is d epr ivedof the benef its of Penance.27

H i s co n t em p o r ar y O r i g en ( + 2 5 4 ) , w h o i s o u r cl assi cw i tness for aur icu lar confess ion,28 a f ter enumerat ing the

d i f ferent w ays in w h ich sin s can be for g i ven ,29 ad d s: T h er e i s a seven t h [ w ay ] , t hough h ar d and l abo r i ous,in w h i ch pardo n can be obtain ed fo r sin s, n am ely , th rou ghPenance, i f the s inner washes his bed with tears, andbathes in tears day and night , i f he is not ashamed to con

23 F ra g m. C o n t ra N o va t . ( M i g n e, min e m p u t a mu s a f r u c t u sa t i s f a c -

P. G., X X V I , 1315) . t i on is e t spe pads a rcendum, quum

24De Laps is , c. 4-12. sc ia mu s i u x t a sc r i p t u ra ru m d i v i n a - 25 Reconci l ia t io , pax. r um Udern auctor e et hor t a to r e ipso

20 D e L a p s . , c. 29: ConHt ean tu r D eo et ad agendam poen i t en t iam

s ingu l i , quaeso vos f ra t res d i lec - pecca to res red ig i e t ven iam a tque t i ssim i , d el i c t u m su t im , d u m a d h u c i n d u lg en t i a m p o en i t en t i b u s n o n d e

qu i del iqu i t in saecu lo est , dum ad ' t iegar i . m i t t i con fess io e ius po tes t , dum sa t i s - 28 V . i n f r a , P a r t I I I , Ch . 2, p p.

fac t io e t remiss io fac ta per sacer - 212 sq.do tes apud Deum g ra ta es t . 29 B a p t i sm , m a r t y rd o m , p ra ye r ,

27 Ep . a d An t o n ia n . , 55: " N e- etc.



37/275


fess his s ins to the pr iest of the Lord, and to seek medi-cine, as he wh o spake (Ps. X X X I , 5 ) : I said I w i l l con -fess again st m ysel f m y in ju st ice to the Lo r d , an d th ou h astfo rg iven the w ickedn ess o f m y sin / t h ereby fu l f i l l i n g wha tth e A po st le says ( Jas. V , 14 ) : I s an y one sick am on gyou ? L et h i m b r i n g in the pr iest s/ etc . 30

On the th resho ld o f t he th i rd cen tu ry we meet Ter tu l

l ian (160240?) , who, when Pope Cal l is tus protestedagainst the r igor ism that had begun to invade the Church,w as am on g th e f i r st to raise th e st an d ard o f revolt . Bothas a Montanis t and as a Cathol ic th is t renchant wr i ter is avaluable witness to the teaching and pract ice of the ear lyChur ch. I n h is t r eat ise De Poenitentia, composed be-tween 200 and 206, when he was st i l l in the Church, Tertu l l i an says th ere is a tw ofo ld penance one in p rep ara-t ion fo r Bapt ism ,31 t he ot her, t he socal l ed cano n icalpen ance, un der t ak en in or der to obtain for g iven ess o f the three capi ta l cr imes, i. e. apostasy, murder , and forn i -cat io n .32 H e call s Bap t i sm an d Pen ance so to speakthe two l ighthouses of salvat ion, 33 but insists that God

offers second penance only once.34In h is t reat ise De Pudici t ia, which he wro te a f te r h is

secession (between 217 and 222) , Ter tu l l ian cont radic tsh is pr ev io u s teachin g. H e dr aw s a d i st in ct i on be-tween pardonable and unpardonable s ins35 and deniesthat the Church has power to fo rg ive adu l tery and forn i -cat ion. In h is con t ro versia l w r i t i n gs he descr ib es th eCath o l ic posi t ion as fo l l ow s: I f , th ey say , th ere is apenance wi thout forg iveness, you must not under take i t

30Horn , in Lev i t . , 2 , 4. 34 I b i d . , c. 7: secunda, in to t i l - 31D e Po e n i t . , c. 4-6. t ima s p e s I b i d . , c. 9: poeni- 32 I b i d . , c. 7-12. ten t ia secunda e t una.

33 I b i d . , c. 12: duas quasi 35 I b i d . , c. 2: " peccata remissUpharos sa lu t i s . b i l i a et i r rem issib i l i a . ,,


38/275


at al l , for n oth in g shou ld be done in vain . Bu t a penance

w i t h out f o r g iveness is vain . N ow , al l penance m ust bedone; therefore a l l penance obta ins pardon, otherwise i tw ou ld b e done in va in . 36 T h is ev id en t l y m eans th at ,according to Cathol ic teaching, penance presupposes abso-lu t ion and w ou ld be va in and un pro f i t ab le w i t h out i t .37

St . I renaeus o f L yo n s ( 130 20 2) 38 t el l s o f t he sedu ct iono f Chr ist ian wom en by an em issary o f th e Gnost i cs. Inou r ne ighborh ood, too , he says, in th e land o f theRhone, they have seduced many women, o f whom some,when they saw the i r gu i l t , d id penance [confessed?] pu l>l i c l y , wh i le o thers , whom shame wou ld no t a l low , weresecret ly dr iven to despa i r , an d ei t her fe l l aw ay f r om th efa i t h ent i r ely or r em ain ed in a state o f i n decision . 39

T h e Shepherd of Hermas, composed about the year150, when Montanism was in i ts beginnings, g ives us thef i rs t c lear exp lanat ion o f the mutua l re la t ionsh ip betweenth e peni t en t i al d isc ip l i n e an d absolut ion . Rep en tan ce an d h eal in g are separat ed b y a per iod o f aton em ent .Penance is per formed under the superv is ion o f the

Chur ch . Bard en h ew er sum m ar izes the teach in g o f theShepherd as f o l l o w s: T h e dogm at i c i n t er est o f t hework l ies ch ie f ly in i t s teach ing concern ing the poss ib i l i t yo f the forg iveness o f mor ta l s ins , notab ly adu l tery andap ostasy. I t is on ly d u r i n g th e per iod o f grace ann oun cedby h im t ha t t he Shepherd admits a forg iveness of s ins bypenance; this per iod having elapsed, he bel ieves there can

30 D e P u d i c i t . , c. 3: Si en i m , Ter t u l l ian s teach in g see G. Esser ,

i n q u iu n t , a l i q u a p o en i t en t i a care t D ie Bu ssch r i f t en T e r t u l l i a n s D e Po e- ven ia , i a m n e c i n t o t u m a gen d a t i b i n i t en t i a u n d D e Pu d i c i t i a , Bonne s t : n i h i l e n im a g e n d u m e s t f r u s t r a . 19 0 5 ; B . V . M i l l e r , T h e Pen i -Po r ro f r u s t r a a g i t u r p o e n i t e n t i a , s i t en t i a l T eac h i n g o f T e r t u l l i a n , i n

ca re t ven ia . Omn is au tem poem- t h e I r i sh Ecc le s . R e co rd , 1914, No.

tent ia agenda est ; ergo omn is ven iam 564, pp. 580-598. co n sequ et u r , n e f r u st r a a g a t u r 38 A d v . H a e r . , I , 13, 7.

37 For a deta i led exp lanat io n o f ' 39 f i r j r e f i -qr e Scru.


39/275


be no for g iven ess excep t in ( t h e grace o f ) Bapt ism . T h est i l l open way of penance is said to be long and di f f icul t .T h e Shepherd is the ear l iest witness to the *Stat ions ordegrees o f peni t en t ia l sat i sfact i on . 40

St . Po lycarp ( + abou t 155 ) , who was a persona l d is-c iple of St . John the Evangel ist , admonishes pr iests to bem erc i fu l to sin n ers. T h e p resbyt ers, he says, shou ld

be com passionate, m erc i fu l to al l , br i n g in g back th ose th athave gone as t ray , . . . re f ra in ing f rom un jus t judgment ,. . . kn ow in g th at w e al l ow e th e debt o f sin . I f th enwe pray the Lord to fo rg ive us , we a lso ought to fo rg ive ,fo r w e stand b efore the eyes o f the Lo r d and o f God, andwe must a l l appear before the judgment seat o f Chr is t ,and each must g ive an account of h imsel f . 41

A R T I C L E 3

T H E P E N I T E N T I A L D I SC I P L I N E O F T H E E A R L Y

C H U R C H

By pen i ten t ia l d i sc ip l ine we unders tand thesumtota l of those eccles iast ical precepts thatgover n the recon ci l i at i on o f sin n ers w i t h God andthe Church .

1. I n t e r n a l H i s t o r y o f t h e P e n i t e n t i a l

D i sc i p l i n e . T h e pen i t en t i al d i scip l in e o f t he

Church shows many var ia t ions , bu t a l l i t s d i f fe r -ent mani fes ta t ions are based on the conv ic t iontha t the Church has the power no t on ly to impose

40 Bardenhewer -Shahan , P a t r o l - I , 273) . One the who le sub j ect o f

gy, P- 39 Fr ei b u r g and St Lo u i s th is subdi vision see P. Schan z, D i e1908. Lehre von den h i . Sakramen ten de r

41Ep . a d Ph i l i p p . , 6 (ap u d Fu n k , ka t h . K i r ch e , 38, Fr ei b u r g 1893.


40/275


pena l t i es fo r t he v io la t i on o f he r l aws and the

repara t ion o f pub l i c scanda l , bu t a lso , and p r in -c ipa l l y , to fo rg ive the s ins o f those who a re con -t r i t e and ready to g i ve sa t i s fac t i on , and tha t he r

ju d i c i al d ec isi on i n each case i s r at i f i ed b y God .

For cen t u r i es t he t w o f o ra were in t imate ly connected

and ident ica l in operat ion, especia l ly as regards publ icpen an ce an d con fession . Bu t th e fo rum in ternum, t hecour t o f consc ience, a lways p layed the more impor tantpar t . T h is i s ev iden t f rom m an y u t te ran ces o f t he F a -thers , when they speak o f the power o f the keys , thefacu l t y to b in d an d loose, to f o r g i ve sin s, etc . Ecc lesiast i -ca l absolut ion was a lways regarded as a t rue forg iveness

of s ins on the par t o f God.1W e can d i st i n gu i sh a f o u r f o ld k i n d o f p en an ce: p r i vat e ,

canonical , publ ic, and solemn.( 1) P r i v at e Pen an ce (poenitent ia pr ivata) consists in

secret confess ion, absolut ion, and sat is fact ion, w i thoutrecour se to t h e ex te rn al cour t o f t he Chu rch . I t i s

the d iscip l in e w i th w h ich w e are fam i l ia r t o d ay . I nthe p r im i t i ve Church i t was app l ied espec ia l l y t osecret sin s. T h u s th e Cou n ci l o f N eocsesarea (abo ut314 ) exem pt s f r om pub l i c pen ance al l sins o f t h ou gh t ;St . Basi l ,2 the cr ime of secret adul tery on the par t o fw om en , St . Gr egor y o f N y ssa,3 c lan dest i n e t h ef ts. St .August ine says that s ins commi t ted pub l ic ly shou ld be

1 See A r t . 2, su p ra . C f r . St . quando p romis i t ipse , qu i legem de - C y p r i a n , Ep . , 57: N e e en i m f a s d i t , u t l i ga t a i n t er r i s et i a m i n ca cl i s

e r a t ...............Eccles iam pu lsant ibu s l iga ta essent , so l v i au t em possent

c laud i et do len t i bus ac dep recan t i - i l l i c [ i. e . in cad is ] , quae h ie p r ius bus spe i sa lu t a r i s subs id ium dene- in Ecc les ia so lver en t u r

gar i , u t de saecu lo recedentes [ i . e. 2 Ep . C an . a d Am p h i l ., 2, can.

m o r i b u n d i ] s ine commun ica t ione e t 34.p a c e a d D o m i n u m d i m i t t e r e n t u r , 3 Ep. ad Letox. , can. 4.


41/275

36 T H E PO W ER T O FO R GI V E SI N S

atoned for in publ ic, whereas sins commit ted secret ly may

be expiated in secret.4In the ear l iest days ( I renaeus, Ter tu l l ian) a l l mor ta l

s ins had to be atoned for publ ic ly .( 2) Can on ical Penance ( poenitentia canonica) was im -

posed for gr ievous cr imes, whether publ ic or pr ivate, inaccor dan ce w it h t h e exist i n g eccl esiast ical canon s. N ot

in f requent ly i t was assumed in secret and in that casepar took of the character of pr ivate penance.(3) Pub l ic Penance ( poenitentia publico) consisted of

pub l ic sel f accusat ion and o ther hu m i l iat ion s. I t w asperformed before the bishop, c lergy, and people, and, un-l ike Canonical Penance, could be assumed voluntar i ly .5

(4) Solemn Penance ( poenitentia solemnis) was ca-

nonical ly in f l ic ted only for the three socal led capi ta l s ins, ap ost asy , m u r der , an d fo r n icat i on , an d h ad to be per -fo rmed under s ta ted cond i t ions ( fas t ing in sackc lo th andashes, etc . ) . I t u su al ly ended wi th th e solem n recon -ci l i at ion o f t he pen i ten t on H o l y T h u rsday . So lem nPenance could be assumed but once ( poenitentia una,

f i e r av oLa i t a

).In the Or ient those engaged in the per formance ofSolemn Penance were div ided into four c lasses or sta-t ions, viz.:

( a ) T h e lu gent es o r Hentes (npoaKXaLovTe^), whostood in the vest ibule and tear fu l ly besought the in terces-sion of those who entered church.

( b ) T h e au dien t es (aKpoufievoi.), who took the i rplace behind the catechumens, and, l ike them, assistedonl y at th e M ass o f t he Presanct i f i ed.

( c ) T h e prost ern ent es or su bst r at i (i>7ro7rt7rrov

4 Sermon . , 82, c. 7: Erg o co r - corr tp ienda sunt secret ius, quae pec-

r i p ienda sunt coram omni bus, quae cant ur secre t i us . peccan tu r co ram omn ibus ; ipsa ve ro 6 Cf r . Vacand ard , " L e s M o i n e s


42/275


rc) , who, a f te r the depar ture o f the audient es, pros -

t rated themselves on the f loor and asked the b ishop to im-pose his hands on them.

( d ) T h e st ant es o r consist ent es (o^orvre),w ho t ook t he i r p l ace w i t h t he f a i t h f u l and r ema ined f o rthe whole serv ice , but were not a l lowed to par t ic ipa te inthe o f fe r tory or to rece ive the Euchar is t .6

Al though the f i rs t ecumenical counci l based i ts peni -tent ia l regulat ions on th is c lass i f icat ion, i t was not w idelyadopt ed in th e W est , w h ere the pub l ic pen i tent s w eret reated l ike catechumens and the name pocni t ent es was appl ied preminent ly to those undergoing SolemnPenance.7

2. E x t e r n a l H i s t o r y o f t h e P e n i t e n t i a lD i sc i p l i n e . T h e v er y ex i st en ce o f a p en i t en t iald isc ip l ine th roughou t a l l the cen tu r ies o f he r ex -is tence proves tha t the Church a lways c la imedand exer c ised th e po w er to fo r g i ve sin s.

a ) A s to th e pen i t en t ial d i scip l in e o f th e ea r l y

Ch u rch t h ere is con sid erab le d i f fe ren ce o f op in ionb et w een C h u rc h h i st o r i an s (M o r i n u s, Fech t r u p ,Funk, Rauschen, e tc . ) on the one s ide, and dog-m at i c t h eo l ogi an s ( H u r t er , P al m i er i , A t z b e r g er ,Stu f le r , e tc . ) on the o ther .

a ) The Church h is to r ians con tend tha t a t t he beg in -n ing o f the second century the Church acknowledged

Conf esseu r s en Or ien t du 4e au 13e 1 C f r . S t . A u g u s t i n e , Se rm . , 352, Sic le , i n t h e Revue du C le rg c. 3: Es t p o e n i t e n t i a g ra v io r

F ra n a i s , 1905, pp. 235 sqq. a tque luc tuos io r , in qua p rop r ie vo - 6 Cf r . G. Rausch en, Euchar is t and can t u r i n Ecc lesia poen i t en t es, re

Pena nce in t he F i r s t Si x Cen t u r ies m o t i et iam a sac ramen t is a l t a r i s par - o f t he Church , pp. 202 sq., St . Lo u i s t ic ipand is , ne acc ip iendo ind igne iu - 1913. d ic iu rn s ib i manducen t e t b iban t .


43/275

38 T H E PO W ER T O FO R G I V E SI N S

no Penance af ter Bapt ism, unt i l about the year 150Hermas, in h is famous Shepherd,8advocated a mi lderpr act i ce. H is t each in g (so f ar as i t can be m ade out , fo ri t is very obscure) is that af ter Bapt ism there is oneand only one opportuni ty to do penance, especial ly forthose gui l ty of apostasy, murder , or forn icat ion; a sec-ond wo ul d be useless. T h e le t t er of th e Rom an c lergy

to St . C y p r i an 9 on the t r eatm en t o f apostates sh owsthat a decided in f luence in favor of moderat ion f i rs tm ade i t se l f fe l t at Rom e.10 T h is m ovem ent m ade h ead -w ay gradu al ly . T h e f i rst concession w as in fav o r o f thosegu i l t y o f im pu r i t y . I t w as em bod ied in t he fam ous pe r -empto ry ed ic t o f Pope Ca l l i s tus (218222) , wh ich , ac -co rd in g to T er t u l l i an , read as fo l lo w s: I r em i t t he sinsof both adul tery and forn icat ion to such as have d is -charged [ t he requi rem en t s o f ] penance. 11 Soon ad u lt er -ers and forn icators were absolved throughout the Churchon cond i t i on o f com pl y in g w i t h th e im posed penance.12But as a general rule, apostates and murderers were notyet grant ed pardo n in th e W est ern Church. Pope Corn e-

l ius ( + 252) f i r st opened the door to the lapsi. H is ac t iongave r i se to th e schism o f N ovat i an . T h is h eret ic andant ipope claimed that apostasy was an unpardonablecr ime and that the lapsed must be permanent ly excommu-nicated.13

A t t he beg inn ing o f t he fou r th cen tu ry the Counc i lo f Ancyra decided to admit murderers to ecc les iast ica l

reconc i l iat ion on th ei r deathbed. St . Basi l ( + 379)8 M a n d a t . , I V , i . moechtae e t fo rn ica t ion is de l ic ta 9Epis t . , 8, c. 2. p o e n i t e n t i f u n c t i s d im i t t o . Cf r .

10 C f r . Fun k , Ki rchengesch ich t - H i p p o l y t u s , Phi losoph. , I X , 12.

l i e h e Ab h a n d lu n g e n u n d U n t e r su - 12 Cfr . Rauschen , Eu ch a r i s t a n d chungen, Vo l . I , p. 175, Pader bo r n Penance, pp. 165 sqq.1897. 13 Cfr. Rauschen, / . c.

11 D e P u d i c i t i a , c. 2: " E g o e t


44/275

V EST ED I N T H E CH U RCH

went s t i l l fa r ther and prescr ibed a penance o f twenty

yea r s f o r w i l f u l mu r de r and t en yea r s f o r hom ic ide .Far less considerat ion was shown to those who fe l l

back in t o th e th ree cap i t al sin s m ent ioned, a f t e r h av in gbeen adm it ted to penan ce an d recon ci led. T h ese u n fo r t u -nate s inners were r igorous ly debar red f rom fur ther pen-ance un t i l t he end o f t he fou r th cen tu ry , when Pope S i r i

ci us ( + 398) i n h i s dogm at i c ep i st l e t o H im er iu s o f T a r -ragona, permi t ted them to ass is t a t the whole d iv ine ser -v i ce w i th t he res t o f t he fa i t h fu l and to rece ive Com-m un ion at d eat h .14

Pope Innocen t I (402417) showed mercy a lso to those who, hav ing g iven themselves up a l l the t ime s incethe i r Bapt ism to incont inency and p leasure , seek a t the

end o f the i r l i ves both penance and reconc i l ia t ion . A sked by B i shop E xsupe r ius o f Tou louse how t o t r ea tsuch hardened of fenders, the Pope begins by d is t inguish-in g tw o courses, th e ear l ie r one m ore st r ic t , th e la term ore k in d and tem pered w i th m ercy. T h e uph o ldersof the ear l ie r course main ta ined that Penance shou ld be

given but Communion denied. . . . This more d i f f icu l tremiss ion of s ins was demanded by the c i rcumstances ofth e t i m e. Bu t as soon as th e L o r d gave peace to H i schurches, and fear of persecut ion had passed away, thosein au thor i t y de te rm ined , t h rough the mercy o f God , t og r an t C ommun ion t o t he dy ing as a k i nd o f v i a t i cum t ohelp them on thei r way, lest we [Cathol ics] should seem

to fo l low the r igo r and c rue l t y o f t he here t i c Nova t ian ,w ho r efu sed them pardo n. L et them , then, be gran tedpenance, and a last Communion as wel l , so that men ofth is descr ipt ion may, through the Saviour s mercy, even

14 Cf r . Rauschen , op. cit . , p. 207.


45/275

at the end of the i r days, be f reed f rom eternal damna-t io n . 15I t is thus many modern Church h is tor ians conceive

the developm ent o f th e ear l y peni tent i al d iscip l i n e. H o w -ever, they by no means agree among themselves, and sev-eral of them have changed their v iews repeatedly.

13) The theologians ins is t that the Church a lways had

the pow er to fo rg i ve sins, and w as in du ty bound to exer -c ise th at po w er fo r th e salvat io n o f souls. D ist i n gui sh -ing more sharply between the general pract ice of theChurch and local abuses, between the Church as such( the pope, ecumenical counci ls) and indiv idual b ishops,they main ta in tha t the Church never neg lec ted her duty

o f absolv i n g peni t en t sin n ers. St . Pau l gran t ed pardon toan i n cest uo us m an upon h is d oi n g penan ce,16 St . Jo h nreceived h is favor i te d isc ip le, who had become a mur -d erer an d an apostate, back in to t h e Ch u r ch ,17 etc. T h emerc i fu l len iency o f the Church is ev idenced for Romeb y Pope Clem ent I ,18 fo r A n t io ch b y St . I gn at i u s,19 fo rCor in t h by D ion ysiu s,20 fo r Car t h age by T er t u l l ian ,21 fo r

A lexan d r ia by O r i gen ,22 fo r Lyo n s by St . I r en u s.23 T h esever i ty of the ear ly Church consis ted most ly in a denia lof the Euchar is t , and the phrase negrtt io communi onis in anc ient documents is of ten synonymous wi th negat ioEucharist iae! Befo r e the t im e o f

dogmatic theology - x - the sacraments (03) - pohle - ocr

Documents